Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
The opening lines of William Butler Yeats’s “The Second Coming” hark back to 1919, just after the end of the First World War. With many having been displaced, plunged into economic ruin or bereft of their loved ones, it was a confusing time to be alive and no one quite seemed to know what would come next.
Yeats condemned the times in which he lived, seeming to think that a cavernous vortex had opened, the result of which would be a new world order – far removed from the constructs of democracy and science, and far more oriented towards primitive means of governance.
In times like ours, many may wonder if Yeats’s dystopia is becoming reality, in the bubbling unease and burgeoning civil disobedience that has come in the wake of our hard-won rights and liberties being replaced with a slew of restrictions.
We have to ask ourselves if ordinary people’s growing desperation, coupled with the authorities’ heavy-handed methods of enforcing the new regimen, heralds a descent into anarchy, or if generally law-abiding citizens’ acts of dissent stemming from necessity or frustration are calling into doubt their status as upstanding members of society.
Many will be wondering whether those who have the means to save our flailing economy are really taking up the cudgels to protect us, or whether their decisions are a product of petty tyranny intended to refashion South Africa as a less democratic state. Or is it heresy to think such thoughts at a time like this about measures that amount to a justifiable limitation designed to protect us?
The lockdown has already plunged many into economic ruin. Businesses have been forced to close, people have lost their jobs. Government relief efforts have proved inaccessible to many and insufficient to others. Woe betide those who work for themselves or those who are job-seekers. Throngs of people wait for food parcels, pressed up against each other with scant regard for social distancing.
We are a desperate nation, fast being pushed to our knees. Poverty traps abound, and even those who were relatively comfortably-off have begun to have to make compromises and concessions their lives have never demanded before.
The common citizen has been transformed into an illicit bootlegger and the average joe with a surfboard has morphed into a wanted criminal. A man’s car is firebombed – allegedly because he was feeding the homeless – and a breastfeeding mother is taken into police custody with her errant toddler. Ordinary folk one day, the scourge of the nation the next. “Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold.”
While the lockdown was largely supported at first, it is becoming increasingly difficult to see just how many of the remaining limitations serve to protect us. Of course it is possible to limit rights, such as the right to freedom of movement, through the law of general application, as per section 36 of the Constitution. But this is only true if the limitation is justifiable. This section provides the measure against which to determine whether or not a limitation is justifiable.
Among other requirements, the tests require one to examine: (a) the nature of the right; (b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation; (c) the nature and extent of the limitation; (d) the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and (e) less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.
Against this measure, some of the limitations imposed by the Level 4 Regulations under the Disaster Management Act simply do not pass muster. If the purpose of the limitation is to flatten the curve, it is difficult to see a clear relation to this objective in imposing a curfew or preventing many sectors from returning to work, or banning the sale of cigarettes. It is plain to see how the curve could be flattened by imposing limited restrictions while allowing comparative freedom.
One has to question the apparent absence of rational thought in the application of stricter regulations, and wonder about the real motivation behind the bid to control the South African population.
One must also question the means by which restrictions are being enforced. It has been reported that five people have been killed by the military and police for contravening the lockdown. More people have been arrested for contravening the lockdown than for corruption in government. What does this say about the rules and how they are being enforced? Where are the thinkers in our government who could have prevented this? “The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity.”
Perhaps the most uncomfortable thing of all is that many people find themselves thrust into a climate of fear. Whether this is the fault of the government or simply a consequence of circumstance, it is a difficult situation to be in.
Indeed, a global pandemic is something to take seriously. Social distancing is important. That there be some measure of protection is important. But this doesn’t mean we should not challenge the status quo. It is heartening that various parties are challenging the regulations and decision-making processes in court, and one can only hope that it will be constitutional fervour and not feverish politicking that is the order of the day when they do.
But what if they don’t, and what if we don’t recover from the damage that the virus continues to inflict? How long will we have to wait before things go back to normal? Is it heresy to question the possibility of a new world order? Maybe, maybe not.
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR
If you like what you have just read, subscribe to the Daily Friend