Why have we allowed, or perhaps taught, the media to believe that we are willing consumers of obscurity transformed into notoriety?
Serge Cabonge. Picture: Gallo Images/Oupa Bopape
Serge Cabonge’s name emerging in the case involving former Lieutenant-General Shadrack Sibiya is another indication of how South Africa allows almost anyone to become relevant, even when that relevance may be entirely unnecessary.
We know little about some of these individuals, have questions about their activities and yet the moment their names are mentioned in serious proceedings, we remember them.
Suddenly, they occupy our conversations, dominate headlines and become familiar figures in our national discourse.
But why? Why have we allowed, or perhaps taught, the media to believe that we are willing consumers of obscurity transformed into notoriety?
At what point did public interest become an excuse to elevate every questionable character into a household name?
Honestly, who are the likes of Cabonge, Bishop Maumela and even Stuart James Scharnick, and why are they so desperate to be seen and heard?
We have heard the names of influencers and socialites dragged into allegations of corruption, murder and the infiltration of our security cluster.
The very institutions entrusted with protecting us have become a playground for the who’s who, where proximity to power appears to offer relevance, influence and, in some cases, protection.
Those who should be under scrutiny are instead afforded the luxury of public fascination, their names circulating long before the full extent of their alleged involvement is established.
We have become so accustomed to the spectacle that we rarely pause to consider what this normalisation means for our democracy.
When the people entrusted with our safety are surrounded by questionable characters, the threat extends beyond individual reputations, it reaches the integrity of the institutions themselves.
Our first line of defence cannot become a social club for the connected and influential.
At what cost do we continue to confuse notoriety with importance and access with legitimacy?
What is the fascination with being seen in the company of those who are cool?
Why have professionals, whose alleged illegalities may have remained hidden for years, become so comfortable associating with characters who appear desperate to occupy centre stage?
The media must remember that visibility breeds acceptance. Instead of normalising questionable conduct, help us preserve the sanity, values and moral fabric of our society.
