I am a health professional and healthcare is an issue very dear to my heart. But healthcare can so easily become the victim of issues beyond its control. The recent events surrounding the withdrawal of the funding of key health initiatives around the world by the United States is an example of this. I have recently written about the danger of dependency by a country on foreign aid, but the danger of what has transpired goes much further than that. America is a democracy and its president was elected by more than 50% of those who went to the polls in what most would accept was a fair democratic process . Nevertheless, the actions of those now in positions of power as a result gives cause for concern and leads one to even question the very democratic process that resulted in this. In this questioning I was reminded of events that occurred in America in the decade after my birth in 1948.
In the United States, in particular the activities of what is termed the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) lead by the billionaire Elon Musk have echoes of what happened in the early 1950’s in America during a period in which a “crusade” against communism was lead by an American Senator Joseph McCarthy. During this time the House of Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) chaired by Senator McCarthy, fuelled by fear that institutions in American society had been infiltrated by communists, investigated alleged disloyalty and subversive activities by private citizens, public servants and organizations suspected of fascist and communist ties. As a result many lost their employment and suffered humiliation on grounds that were later proven to be false.
McCarthyism has been defined as “tactics involving personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicised indiscriminate allegations especially based on unsubstantiated charges”.1 Although finally discredited and censured by the US Senate in 1954 the influence of Senator McCarthy and his supporters, largely from the then political right, had a profound impact on many innocent Americans. Latter historians have suggested that while the behaviour of Senator McCarthy lead to the term McCarthyism, much of what occurred also had its roots in the actions in the background of the then powerful head of what became the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), J Edgar Hoover.
What we have seen since the inauguration of the President Trump is the creation of a “temporary contracted government organisation” (officially U.S. DOGE Temporary Organisation) with Elon Musk as the temporary organisation executive. Supported by the Republicans, but opposed by the Democrats, the actions of DOGE have elicited praise from supporters but criticism and lawsuits from opponents as a result of what is regarded as unconstitutionally usurping the powers of the legislature. Claims have been made by Musk and the President that as a result of DOGE’s investigations within the space of a few weeks, billions of dollars of corrupt spending has been uncovered, however, evidence to back these claims has been lacking. Musk, as the owner of the social media platform X, has in various posts on his own platform called for actions against “activist judges” who have placed injunctions on either the implementation of the actions of those involved with DOGE or limited their access to federal government systems. This has been enthusiastically supported by his followers on X. Most recently some Republican politicians have indicated that they would seek to impeach “activist” judges. All of which begin in my view to create echoes of McCarthyism.
It is an interesting aside that the introduction of live television in America with live broadcasts of the proceedings on the House of Un-American Activities Committee and the bullying tactics of the chairman ultimately lead to Senator McCarthy’s downfall. In contrast the power and reach of social media (X formerly Twitter) has lead to the powerful position in which Elon Musk finds himself able to influence public opinion to the degree that he does. It is concerning that both in his posts on X, many of which are disturbingly superficial in nature, and the enthusiastic responses from his followers that there is not a grasp of the complexity of the systems and processes of government.
In South Africa, over that last decades there has been at times rampant fraud and corruption that has cost the country dearly. The magnitude of this during the Zuma years was exposed by the meticulous work of the Zondo Commission over years headed by a judge of the Constitutional Court. While it could be argued that criminal prosecutions following the release of the Zondo Commission report have been underwhelming, there were at least meticulous legal processes prior to action being taken. Following a number of unfavourable court judgements ex-President Zuma and his supporters have complained that the South African judiciary is biased and that rather than the elected government, the country is being ruled by “unelected” judges. This sentiment, which has been echoed by others in South Africa, has a similarity to the claim that “activist” judges are blocking Presidential Executive Orders and actions such those by Musk’s DOGE in the United States.
I am not a political scientist but I fear that in both there are the seeds of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is centralised control within a political system by autocratic leaders where people do not have the freedom to oppose them2. History shows that the slide toward totalitarianism can be subtle or brutal but the end result as history has demonstrated is not a happy one. Here in South Africa as in America, the courts are a legal barrier and safeguard against leaders who, once elected, wish to then act in such a manner. An attack on these institutions is a dangerous step toward the possibility of totalitarian rule as was experienced most starkly in Germany resulting in a World War and in thereafter in Russia resulting in the subjugation of Eastern Europe under Stalin.
South Africa was rescued from a dire situation by the brave actions of the Judges of the Constitutional Court and one hopes that if required activist judges and the Supreme Court Justices in the United States may do the same.
