Professor Adam Habib’s endorsement of Helen Zille as Johannesburg’s next mayor has triggered a fierce intellectual showdown, with legal scholar Professor Ziyad Motala accusing the former Wits University vice-chancellor of political hypocrisy, selective historical reasoning and double standards over racism, Palestine and political accountability.
What began as a controversial endorsement of the Democratic Alliance (DA) politician has escalated into a wider confrontation over political pragmatism, racial justice and the limits of acceptable compromise in post-apartheid South Africa.
This week, Habib sparked a fresh debate while defending his initial position, prompting a scathing rebuttal from Motala.
In a thread on X on 28 October, Habib did three things at once. He began by calling for respectful debate, saying the death threats and racist abuse he had received after backing Zille were unacceptable.
He then dismissed critics questioning his support as “middle-class intellectuals, some from Durban”, introducing their class and geographical origins into a political argument.
And while lecturing others on etiquette, he twice used the word “cancer” to describe political culture and concluded with a reference to “the Stalinists among us”.
As Motala notes in his response: “Quite a performance for a man giving lessons in manners. Apparently, the lecturer is exempt from the rules.”
The threats Habib reported receiving are, Motala says, indefensible.
“But they do not answer the arguments of people who have neither threatened nor racially abused him. Condemning intimidation does not settle the debate about Zille.”
Habib’s original endorsement was unequivocal. After driving through Johannesburg and encountering power outages and deteriorating roads, he contrasted the city with Cape Town, arguing that Zille was the only politician capable of rescuing it.
As reported by TimesLIVE, Habib declared: “If she does not get an overall majority, the city and South Africa are doomed.”
He added: “I am proud of an electorate that chooses an elderly white gogo if she is competent.”
Motala challenges Habib’s position on several substantive grounds, questioning both the reasoning behind his endorsement and his dismissal of those who disagree.
“You were quite happy to dismiss critics as middle-class intellectuals, some from Durban. What exactly was their address supposed to establish?” Motala asks.
“You introduced their class and geographical origins into a political argument. Now, we are being examined on our etiquette. Disagreement is not insubordination, however long you have spent in management. Your record at Wits and SOAS shows you do not understand the difference.”
Motala also argues that the legacy of Nelson Mandela cannot be invoked selectively to justify political compromise.
Habib contends that sanctions and boycotts helped publicise the anti-apartheid struggle “but not beyond”, before invoking Mandela’s strategic wisdom to defend the necessity of compromise.
Motala responds by citing Mandela himself, who warned on the day of his release from prison: “To lift sanctions now would be to run the risk of aborting the process towards the complete eradication of apartheid.”
That does not establish that sanctions alone brought apartheid to an end, Motala acknowledges, but it challenges Habib’s dismissal of their contribution.
“But it does make your dismissal of their contribution as mere publicity difficult to reconcile with the judgement of the man you have recruited as your authority. If you are going to invoke Mandela, at least let him finish speaking.”
Crucially, Motala argues that Mandela’s willingness to negotiate and compromise does not automatically legitimise Habib’s endorsement of Zille.
“Of course, negotiation mattered. But the fact that Mandela made compromises does not establish that your particular compromise of propping up racists is sensible. You still have to explain what is being conceded, what will be gained and who will bear the cost. Mandela’s achievement cannot serve as a reference letter for every racist politician you happen to endorse.”
Habib’s argument for Zille also rests heavily on Cape Town’s reputation as a comparatively well-run city and what he regards as the DA’s superior record of governance.
Motala challenges this assessment by pointing to the Constitutional Court’s landmark Tafelberg judgment, which found that the DA-led Western Cape government and the City of Cape Town had failed to fulfil constitutional obligations relating to access to well-located affordable housing and efforts to redress apartheid-era spatial inequality.
The court’s ruling highlighted failures to address spatial injustice in central Cape Town, undermining what Motala regards as Habib’s overly favourable portrayal of DA governance.
“A family spending hours and a substantial part of its income getting to work has a practical objection to exclusion,” Motala writes.
“Its members need not pass your test of political sophistication before their experience counts. You can explain why you believe Zille offers Johannesburg the best prospect without pretending that everyone who questions your assessment has failed to understand the poor.”
Habib further warns that abusive activism risks intimidating people into withdrawing from public debate.
Motala, however, turns the scrutiny towards Habib’s own record as a university leader, particularly his handling of pro-Palestine student activism at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London.
“At SOAS, you berated Palestine activists and defended disciplinary sanctions against students involved in Palestine solidarity activism. You maintain that these concerned misconduct rather than political views. Yet the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies challenged Haya Adam’s expulsion as disproportionate and warned of its chilling effect on student expression. Your account, at best remains contested!”
Motala also challenges what he sees as an inconsistency in Habib’s understanding of political pragmatism, particularly his willingness to accommodate controversial political positions while subjecting critics to intense scrutiny over their language and conduct.
“You warn that abusive activism strengthens the far right. Then apply some scrutiny to what political accommodation normalises. Why should Zille’s and the DA’s record receive such generous allowances while the language of her critics receives this elaborate moral prosecution? You seem to find racism easier to accommodate than the indignity of being contradicted.”
Motala concludes by returning to Habib’s own argument that individuals should ultimately be judged by their actions rather than their rhetoric or historical reputations.
“You end by saying we are defined by our actions. Agreed. Your action is to campaign for Zille. You are entitled to excuse Zille’s racism and lack of moral backbone. The rest of us are entitled to judge what that says about you. Your activist past gives you a history, not immunity.”
He finishes with a pointed challenge to Habib’s apparent belief that political experience and pragmatism lend greater credibility to his endorsement than to the objections of his critics.
“Support Zille if you wish, Adam. But spare us the assumption that your compromises demonstrate wisdom while our objections require remedial education.”
