It’s a business card we really didn’t want to see: Defence Minister. Vintner. Fuel dealer. Inc. But that is, or was until Thursday, the calling card of Mosiuoa Terror Lekota who did not disclose his business interests both to Parliament and to Cabinet as he is compelled to do by law.
Lekota has acknowledged his failing and pledged that he was by Thursday morning typing his resignation from BZL Petroleum, the fuel wholesaler. This is honourable behaviour that one expects of all those who hold responsible positions in both the public and private sectors.
His other business interests are in wine where his companies were the providers of choice for various Free State government functions.
Lekota is by no means the only elected public official with potentially conflictual business interests and his outing should ring a national warning knell about the increasing blur between business and political interests in South Africa.
In the United States, the influence of business on politics has reached macabre proportions as the oil grabfest by American multinationals in the aftermath of the Iraq war is proving. This influence has led to what US journalist Elizabeth Drew has documented for 25 years as the “debasement of American politics … the decline of statesmanship and leadership, civility and quality …”
The failings of post-colonial Africa can also be blamed, in large measure, on the rapacious accumulation that beckoned starry-eyed leaders once they were in office. It’s a trend South Africa must avoid. Some means are in place to prevent it, but are they muscular enough? The Executive Members’ Ethics Act and the Executive Ethics Code state categorically that Cabinet members, deputy ministers and MECs are prohibited from undertaking any other paid work. Our elected officials are paid decently to fulfil their tasks.
The law is too broad and not comprehensive enough. Parliament’s register of private holdings and of gifts is a bit of a joke, given its gaps, and it needs strengthening.
In the debate around the conduct of elected officials, South Africa would do well to look closely at the British model. That country’s code of conduct for Cabinet ministers devotes eight pages to their private interests. It deals at length with public appointments, their association with non-public bodies, trade unions, partnerships, directorships and even with the fact that they cannot sponsor individual nominations for any awards.Â
The British code says that the intention of these procedures is “not to inhibit the holding of ministerial office by individuals with wide experience, whether of industry, a profession or some other walk of life, but to ensure that systemic steps are taken to avoid the danger of an actual or perceived conflict of interest”.
The instinct of business through the ages is to wield influence and outcome. It’s one that Lekota knows well. At the height of the arms deal brouhaha, he told the Mail & Guardian that perhaps “someone, somewhere at a wedding, a funeral or a party in the middle of the night”, had passed money to win influence. Now he knows that influence peddlers don’t only pass midnight backhanders — their
various guises need varied safeguards.
Testing US bona fides
The scale and sophistication of this week’s terror bombings in Saudi Arabia highlighted what sensible people have always known. The invasion of Iraq, a country enfeebled by years of sanctions and misrule, was utterly irrelevant to the war against international terrorism, and indeed has greatly heightened the risk of terror. The Riyadh outrage, the biggest since September 11 2001, was carefully coordinated and involved suicide bombers. Its unmistakable message is that the al-Qaeda network remains intact and that anti-Western passions in the Middle East burn as fiercely as ever.
The folly of the invasion cannot be undone, but political measures to limit its fallout are still possible. Whatever the cavemen of the American right may think, the “war against terrorism” cannot be won with tanks and missiles.
The US has set its foot on the right road by announcing that its bases in Saudi Arabia — a key grievance of Islamic militants — will go by year-end. It can further defuse tensions by exiting Iraq as soon as logistically feasible and removing its clammy paws from the country’s oil.
But its largest contribution would be to act as a broker in the Middle Eastern conflict rather than as Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s strength and shield. The recently unveiled “road map” to peace, envisaging an independent Palestinian state by 2005 and co-sponsored by the US, offers some hope.
The Israeli authorities clearly believe the US has no real intention of putting the squeeze on them — only last week Sharon defiantly rejected the idea that Israel’s West Bank settlements would be dismantled. They have tried by various means to stall the process, viewing 2004, a US election year, as a safe haven.
The Arab world will not accept American bona fides unless Israel is subjected to the same pressures as Iraq to comply with United Nations resolutions. Sharon’s visit to Washington next week will crucially test President George W Bush’s intentions.