We are here to honor the memory of Helen Suzman, whose life was the embodiment of integrity in all respects. Hers was atough time in the life of our nation. But she did not shy away from making those tough calls that leaders who leave a deep imprint on society are called to make.

For Nelson Mandela, her contemporary, it was a matter of commitment to ideals of freedom for which he was prepared to die. For a much younger man, Stephen Biko, it was a matter of honouring an idea worth dying for, rather than live for ideas that would die. Helen Suzman's ideals drove her from her comfort zone as an upper-middle-class, suburban, white South African to stand for a more just society.

All signs in our society point to the need for us to take stock and ask ourselves fundamental questions about how we have been able to discharge our responsibilities to honour the ideals we enshrined in our founding constitution.

We stand at a crossroads yet again as a society struggling to emerge from the growing pains of being a young democracy.

It is fair to say that much more is asked of us than we have given over the last decade and a half. We all grossly underestimated the task of transforming ourselves into a democratic society.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission process was a bridge that allowed us to cross over the turbulent waters of our past. But much more work remains to deal with the unfinished business of growing into the nation we dared to dream to become.

The issue we face now is how we rediscover the ideals for which so many have sacrificed their lives and devoted so much energy. How do we wrestle with the inherent tensions in choosing integrity in public life as individuals, public servants, business people and community activists? How do we follow Helen's example and stand out above the fray and pressures from peers to lead lives characterised by integrity?

Integrity is defined as that which is beyond reproach, fully honourable and trustworthy. But in public life such a definition is inadequate. The complex issues inherent in integrity are best dealt with by standing outside the obvious formulations. Helen Suzman's life stands as an example of one who wrestled with matters of ethics and morality in a complex political context. She was able to see the folly of what was regarded as "good morals for the survival of the group", to borrow (Theodore) Sturgeon's formulation.

South Africans tend to have short memories about recent social history. Remember the Immorality Act? There was an example of what was seen as "moral for the survival of the group", namely prohibition of intermarriage between white and black people in order to protect white supremacy. Only the most courageous were able to make the ethical choice of crossing the colour line to follow their hearts. For the majority of South Africans, private choice of partner was sacrificed on the altar of "moral expectations of the group".

But awful as the Immorality Act was, it was not the most damaging racist law.

The worst damage was wrought by the migrant labour system and its corollary, the Influx Control Act that systematically destroyed the foundations of indigenous African family life. Africans were reduced to units of labour as a "moral act for the survival of the group" that stood to benefit from their economic exploitation.

Helen Suzman's courage was most memorable in fighting a lone battle against this inequity. She was not intimidated as a lone voice: only woman, only opposition MP, only defender of human rights of those without a voice. Hers was an ethical stand in the face of overwhelming belief by white people that these were essential laws for their survival as a group in a country with a predominantly black population.

There was little reflection on the absurdity of the belief that "group survival" of a small white segment of the population on a continent where such attempts fail could be sustained by such "moral patterns of behaviour". Few white people questioned the survival value proposition that was the dominant paradigm of the time. Most were seduced by the "swart gevaar" rhetoric.

Of all the witty statements Helen Suzman made in Parliament, the one that is most apt for the subject of this memorial lecture is: "I have been sitting here and watching a shiver traversing the green benches in search of a spine to crawl up on." She was to have to watch for a long time indeed. Ethical behaviour was soundly trumped by the morality of "groupthink".

The question now is what frame of reference have we been, and are currently, using to make choices as citizens of this democracy. What paradigm underpins our conduct in public life? Is it group morality or is it ethics? How do we respond to pressure to sustain the patterns of acts driven by group morality?

How is this group moral pattern of acts in line with the values of our human rights constitution?

Our society is bleeding. The social pain endured by those who have remained marginal in our society has burst into greater and louder protests in our streets. Human beings are "hardwired to connect", which in our lexicon we have translated into ubuntu.

Growing research evidence points to the fact that people's need for connectedness is just as essential as air, food, and water. Exclusion from one's society thus has a devastating impact on one.

We have not focused enough on the costs of exclusion and marginalisation for those people still living in poverty and deprivation. In addition, what development efforts have been made have been driven by a paradigm that does not address the self-worth and self-respect side of social pain of living in an unequal society. RDP houses that are shoddily constructed by politically connected winners of tenders are an additional affront to what is left of their dignity. Disrespect by public officials and loss of life due to uncaring health professionals weigh heavily on those excluded from the fruits of freedom. It is accepted worldwide that too great a degree of inequality makes human community impossible. Our democracy is at risk from the level of inequality that is exacerbated by patterns of actions that are unethical.

The media is overflowing with reports of corruption, nepotism and looting of public resources. A culture of impunity has taken root due to the failure of those in authority to hold officials accountable.

The deployment policy of the ANC that has packed public services with incompetent politically connected people has undermined the institutional culture of our public service. The good officials are demoralised, and may have left or are leaving the service. Appointing and promoting people beyond their levels of competence not only breaks the law in terms of the Public Service Act, but fails the ethics test. The public good is undermined by imperatives of the "morality of the party and its survival".

The same "group morality" operates in the private sector. How else can one explain the participation of the private sector in corrupt and nepotistic deals? What of anti-competitive practices that artificially push up prices for basic foods and services that negatively affect poor people disproportionately?

What are we to tell our grandchildren and their children about the choices we have made over the last decade and a half of our democracy? Are we going to be able to look with confidence to handing over to the next generation a society we are proud of?

We are at a crossroads as a society. We need to make a second transition to strengthen the institutions of our democracy to enlarge the political space for more citizens to make ethical choices. We need to identify constraints that may limit this space. We should not shy away from what may look like holy cows, including our constitution.

The provision of our world-renowned national constitution for proportional representation without the counter-balancing constituency representation mechanism has the unintended consequence of weakening the voice of the voters.

The resulting strong role played by parties in allocating positions within Parliament and in the executive branch of government disempowers citizens. Our electoral and parliamentary systems unintentionally promote "group morality" by giving too much power to political parties, with a resultant weakening of incentives for ethical choices.

Citizens need to work with those in the ANC who are proposing reviving the report of the Van Zyl Slabbert Commission on Electoral Reform to get a constitutional amendment passed through Parliament before the next elections. Preserving and strengthening our democracy depends on it.

Ours is a great country but we owe it to the memory of Helen Suzman to create a vibrant polity driven not by groupthink, but by ethics.

The integrity that marked Helen Suzman's political career is in serious need of being revived and strengthened. That is the least she would expect of us.