I bumped into a well-known government official and former ANC exile recently. He said he liked my Sunday Times articles but, in light-hearted fashion, pleaded with me, as a former ANC activist: "Please, comrade, hold your criticism of government until after the 2004 elections."

Having worked in the government until recently, I appreciate the concern of officials who believe that, in general, the press does not show sufficient understanding of the complexities of government. While the media performs a vital function as a pillar of democracy, its coverage can be based on over-simplification or plain inaccuracies.

This contributes to the poverty of public discourse that continues to bedevil our society.

Given our history, it is easy to see this as part of a "conspiracy" against the ANC, or black people in government. This, however, misunderstands the nature of the media in our country.

A number of factors determine the quality of media coverage. These include commercial imperatives that impel the media towards sensationalism; poor or superficial training of journalists; and biases shaped by a range of life experiences.

Despite high levels of irritation, the government has never contemplated censorship. Instead, it has encouraged greater diversity across the media spectrum and promoted its relationship with the media.

This has not prevented the media from criticising the government or exposing corruption. And if the media gets it wrong, the government exercises its right of reply, or uses complaints mechanisms, and ultimately the courts, to seek redress. This is how it should be in a healthy democracy.

Nevertheless, irritation levels remain high. President Thabo Mbeki stunned many recently when he attributed the vilest of motives to critics of the arms deal, calling them "fishers of corrupt men" who believe that Africans are inherently "corrupt, given to telling lies, prone to theft and self-enrichment by immoral means; a people that is otherwise contemptible in the eyes of the 'civilised'".

Given our history of colonialism, there is no doubt that a vast number of people still hold such views. You can almost hear the contempt behind the voices of callers to radio talk shows. Black people feel it daily in their workplaces, while shopping or having a night out in predominantly white places of entertainment.

Racism is alive and well in South Africa. We need to confront it, and seek ways to eradicate it.

However, is Mbeki's the best way of doing it? Does ascribing vile racist motives to your critics, without identifying them or providing specific evidence, illuminate the problem? Or does it inflame emotions on all sides?

The President certainly has a point that much of the "arms scandal" reportage has been thin on substance. But are the journalists of the Sunday Times, Business Day and the Mail & Guardian, who regularly report on corruption, really the vile racists Mbeki makes them out to be?

A Scandinavian diplomat offered me a benevolent view recently. She said Mbeki's outburst was an indication of the deep hurt and anger he felt as a black person. White people, she said, needed to be more understanding.

Indeed, former President Nelson Mandela displayed similar emotions recently, when he accused US President George Bush of undermining the United Nations because its general-secretary is an African.

While one may grant our former President a bit of hyperbolic licence, can we be so generous towards the current incumbent ?

Is Mbeki, rather than feeling emotional, deliberately stirring emotions among his followers to detract from his government's failure to address the real issues; namely persistent poverty and growing social inequality?

A cynic could say, Mbeki shouts "racism" from one corner of his mouth, yet moves swiftly to kiss the global and local elite with the other - the very people who are making sure he does not radically alter the socioeconomic system that maintains their privileges, at the expense of the majority.

This is a classic language game played by postcolonial politicians.

Mbeki is feeding a dangerous tendency among followers who are happy to play the man and not the ball. It gives ammunition to those within the ANC who are eager to divert the movement away from its non-racially inclusive trajectory, based on social justice for all, and take it down the dangerous road of narrow nationalist exclusivity based on elite empowerment.

We see this in attacks on the Treatment Action Campaign for being "white-led", and on researchers who expose water cut-offs as being "white Americans". Where race does not work, as in the case of Cosatu, then labels such as "ultra-left" are used.

This only deepens the poverty of public discourse and inhibits our ability to collectively find creative solutions to the many challenges we face.

I would love to sing the praises of the movement I went to jail for, and the government I once served. But when it loses sight of the ball, it would be dishonest to remain silent.

Dr Pillay is a senior lecturer in sociology at Wits University

With acknowledgements to Devan Pillay and the Sunday Times.