Every time there is a finding, or even an allegation, that a member of Parliament has failed to declare some or other asset or shareholding, there is a temptation to argue that MPs should be prohibited from having business interests. Though tempting, such a position would be a mistake.
Every South African has a right to engage in any lawful business activity they wish. They have a right to freely choose a profession, trade or occupation. Yet, given the history of this country, and given the legacy of apartheid, this is a right that many South Africans are not in a position to exercise fully. Whether by virtue of a lack of resources or a lack of access to education, millions of South Africans are not able to exercise their right to engage in a business or occupation of their choosing.
That is why one of the central challenges of our society today is to progressively expand the capacity of ever-greater numbers of South Africans to participate in a beneficial manner in the mainstream of the economy. It explains the need for improving access to education and skills training; improving access to finance and support; and deepening efforts towards achieving employment equity in the workplace.
Public representatives are no different. They too have a right to engage in any lawful business activity, to have investments and to hold assets. To deny them this right would be unconstitutional, and — given the transitory nature of public office — could be quite destructive.
Public office, by its nature and quite correctly, offers very limited job security. A public representative — whether an MP, member of a provincial legislature or local government councillor — can only ever expect to serve in that position for a five-year term of office. Whether they return to office for another term is contingent, among other things, upon a party selection process and a popular vote. Hardly the kind of situation that allows for long-term career planning. Nor should it.
It is, therefore, not surprising, nor should it even be discouraged, that MPs or members of provincial legislatures make provision for the end of their term of office. Some may find it easy to return to a profession they were engaged in before becoming a public representative. Others may need to ensure that they have sufficient funds invested to see them through the transition from Parliament to whatever occupation they then choose to embark on. There is nothing wrong with that.
However, there is always a danger that a conflict of interest may arise between MPs’ business interests and the proper execution of their responsibilities as public representatives. There is a danger, on the one hand, that an MP may use his or her position as a public official improperly to further his or her business interests, and on the other hand, a danger that these business interests may unduly influence their work as public representatives.
It was in recognition of this potential for conflict of interest that the African National Congress introduced into the parliamentary system a code of conduct for MPs, including a Register of Members’ Interests. MPs are required, in terms of this code, to declare any shares and financial interests they hold; directorships; financial sponsorships; gifts; or any other benefit of a material. This is not intended to discourage members from having external business interests, but to help prevent any conflicts of interest arising.
These mechanisms are intended to encourage clean and accountable governance while upholding the rights of individuals to personal material security. Where a breach is detected or suspected, it should be investigated in terms of parliamentary procedure and the appropriate sanction imposed.
The issue is not whether MPs should have business interests, but what needs to be done to ensure that these do not give rise to conflicts of interest and thereby undermine the work and reputation of Parliament.
Smuts Ngonyama is head of the Presidency and communications for the African National Congress