I cannot recall a time when disputes in the alliance over policy and politics have generated as much heat as they have in the past few weeks. No doubt uncertainties about succession play a part, as well as anticipation of serious debate over economic policy at the national policy conference later this year, but there is more to it than that.
President Thabo Mbeki set the scene in his Mandela lecture when he called into question ethical issues facing the African National Congress and its government. There is now general acceptance that integrity in the public sphere is a crucial matter and the ANC’s long struggle history is not enough to guarantee its place in public life if its integrity is seen to be fading.
It is often forgotten that when it was unbanned in 1990 the ANC had no financial resources. So there was a period of a few years when the ANC turned to friendly governments for funding, and to those local business people who sent signals that they wanted to help.
The point is that an impecunious leadership was thrust into public life with no finances to support a daily existence or to build the necessary political organisation. Yet they had to contend with entrenched political forces with access to massive financial support from business. It was not a level playing field.
Indeed it has remained uneven in that the ANC is still seen, and proclaims itself, as a force of the left, and business funders are not going to support it with much enthusiasm.
Nor has business been enthusiastic about creating space for those ANC leaders who sought to enter the business world as individuals. It took quite a time for those individuals to access credit, to find a foothold in business, and get a bit of the action there. It may be that the pressure from government on the black economic empowerment (BEE) front has prised open that closed circle somewhat. But we are still informed that the number of black top earners and owners of wealth is less than 10% of the total.
Even this process has caused a great deal of strain in the alliance — for several reasons. First there is the danger of cronyism. If top leaders are directly involved in business deals the possibility of abuse is obvious. The principle espoused by the Auditor General clearly applies here: ”No one should use public office for personal gain.” This applies as much to a ruling political party as to the public service.
This principle would apply to leaders who cosy up to business tycoons such as Brett Kebble, who seemed to think that he could win friends and influence people through cash donations. The evidence has yet to be clearly proven, but there is enough smoke to make one uneasy. That moneyed individuals should seek to use their financial muscle to influence or ”capture” a movement with such a history is clearly unacceptable.
As for the public service, and state institutions such as parastatals, there is also room for concern there. There is no doubt that the laudable objective of the BEE provisions, which were meant to open previously closed spaces in the economy, also opened the door to cronyism. Tenders may be manipulated, partnerships arranged, and worse, directorships offered that inevitably lead to conflicts of interest. Whether public servants should be allowed such directorships is still subject to debate, but it is hard to see how conflicts of interest can be avoided, even if provision is made for recusals and such mechanisms.
I recall the experience in post-independence Kenya, when then president Jomo Kenyatta permitted senior civil servants to own farms and businesses on the grounds that colonialism had prevented the emergence of African business know-how. It was not long before the resources of the state were pillaged on a grand scale and transferred to these businesses, creating a base for corruption that persists.
The essence of Mbeki’s speech was the emphasis on conduct with integrity. He argued that capitalist values undermined ”the RDP of the soul”, and that personal enrichment was being accompanied by exhibitionism, which was abhorrent in a developing country with so much poverty.
All this is familiar ground for anyone with experience of the rest of Africa. When the colonial powers decided it was time to withdraw, they ensured that ”selected heirs” were put in place, in Ruth First’s memorable phrase. Where that was not possible, they created an environment where the state and business became interwoven, and neocolonialism emerged.
South Africa’s history is different, and until recently our historically advantaged captains of industry showed no sign that they would pursue such a course. But history brings the unexpected, and now there are emerging partnerships, reflected in golf-course activity, whereby an elite is encouraged, out of sync with the values of the ruling party.
That is the central point. The ANC continues to articulate a vision of a mass movement dedicated to a ”better life for all”. If public perception begins to question that, we shall see splits and stresses that will seriously undermine the whole project.
At the same time, the ANC is also committed to deracialising the economy. But how do you deracialise capitalism without creating black capitalists whose values are reinforced by the market (even allowing for individuals who do not conform to the stereotype)?
This dilemma has yet to be faced and no one has come up with a convincing answer.
ANC MP Ben Turok is editor of New Agenda