The pursuit of non racialism is one of the foundational ideals of post-apartheid SA. It may be apt to revisit this emotive notion in the week when former president Nelson Mandela, an icon closely associated with non racialism, celebrated his 94th birthday.

Non racialism derived much of its meaning from the anti-apartheid struggle and was later synonymous with the spirit of reconciliation and forgiveness that was Mandela’s mantra upon his release from prison. The power of the concept rests more on emotion than on substantive understanding of the human and the reality of what is possible.

Because of its emotiveness and the harrowing past, it is difficult to argue against non racialism without being branded a racist. It also one of those rare causes that mark a meeting point between African nationalists and post-apartheid liberalism — a convergence made possible by the ambiguity of non racialism and its promise of nothingness.

The ruling elites love it because it can keep everyone buried in the cloud of a grand project and away from noticing or questioning the loosening nuts and bolts of governance. They can also invoke the grand project of non racialism as a justification for suppressing dissent and freedom of expression.

For liberals, non racialism offers a convenient veil to cover the embarrassing and persisting inequalities that retain a strong racial dimension. Accordingly, the more we believe we are headed to a post racial order, the better for our consciences. It spawns hollow notions, such as the equal opportunity society, which is less interested in tackling the deeper roots of what gave rise to unequal opportunity in the first place.

Non racialism is based on a fundamentally flawed assumption that we can somehow reach a state of being in which race has completely disappeared. It is a concept devoid of deeper meaning since the very essence of its definition is the negation of the past.

Non racial pursuit is at worst backward-looking, and at best indifferent. Its broad appeal lies in the fact that it is framed in a universalist language that de-emphasises difference and worships an illusion of uniformity as unity. One of the dangers in framing a vision of the future by making it as neutral as possible is that this can foreclose the space for diversity and critical thinking in society.

It can also make it harder for individuals who come from diverse walks of life to connect with each other based on both the universal fact of sharing much in common as human beings, including fears and hopes, as well as in particularistic terms as individuals who make choices to define themselves in diverse identity categories.

As such, the notion of non racialism is a poor handmaiden for building a new society that is based genuinely on fostering human understanding and exploring an alternative vision of what the future should look like. In any case, the prevailing reality the world over is that often individuals make important social choices based on their conception of who they are in terms of kinship lineages, ethnic affiliation, and racial identities.

It is not possible in a pluralistic and open society for any government to define in precise terms a framework for mediating social relations without violating the choice of individuals. It is also not a desirable objective as individuals not only value their freedom but want to be able to fully express themselves as in their chosen ways.

This does not suggest that freedom and its expression are inherently antithetical to any idea of social cohesion. It is simply that the powerful agency for driving change at the level of consciousness is the individual. It is also here that the journey to build bridges of understanding across race or ethnicity should begin earnestly.

Any attempt to negate this will not only fail, but also perpetuate the illusion that our differences are necessarily bad. As Jonathan Sacks reminds us in his work The Dignity of Difference, "each landscape, language, culture, community is unique". In a sense, difference is a part of humanity. To negate it is to run away from humanity.

Does that mean the state has no relevance in fostering healthy race relations in society? There are various ways that are less prescriptive in which those with political power can make a positive contribution, such as conducting themselves in ways that promote greater understanding, using a language that is inclusive, and inspiring dialogue aimed at solidifying bridges of understanding.

Beyond encouraging healthy social relations, we should explore meaningful values that encourage us to reach for greatness. The starting point is to promote human dignity, tolerance and respect. We also need to have a conversation about qualities that makes us uniquely exceptional and refined human beings as South Africans; as well as to esteem the other as we honour their difference. Obsession with non racialism can lead only to a blind alley. 

This article appeared in Business Day of 20 July 2012