Political developments in South Africa continue to dish out lessons about the acquisition, use, abuse and limits of political power.
The state capture commission of inquiry is proving to be a fountain
of such lessons. Those interested in how crucial aspects our political
system work, how it can be compromised and how it can respond should
watch closely the proceedings of the inquiry. So, what are the lessons
thus far?
The first lesson is that political power is diffused. You don’t need
to be a politician to hold political power. You can influence political
developments by buying politicians or by using the law to resist corrupt
political influence.
The extent of Gupta influence in government and ANC actions indicate
clearly that the ballot box is not the only big terrain where power can
change hands.
Voters might innocently choose a party they love because it has
delivered for them in the past or they genuinely believe in the
manifesto it presented to them during an election campaign. But they’ll
never be certain that the party will carry their mandate with absolute
fidelity.
State capture has laid bare reasons why citizens must develop a
healthy but strong mistrust of politicians and their buddies. This
should apply to all governing party politicians and those who salivate
to replace them.
Who a politician hangs out with, what he discusses with those friends
and whether they buy him coffee or hot curry, might be a better measure
of the extent to which the politician is willing to serve voters or
not, than the political promises made during an election campaign.
“The Guptas are just friends. Like anyone has friends, what’s wrong
with that?” Jacob Zuma once said something to this effect with a
straight face in Parliament, the institution that represents the people
of South Africa.
Now we know he enjoyed insulting the people. His recent claims that
state capture didn’t exist was a clear act of rubbing pepper on the
gaping wounds he inflicted on South Africans during his ruinous
presidency.
Using his political power, he unleashed a political mob on the banks
whose decision to resist such pressure had political consequences.
To appreciate the legitimate political role the banks played, you
have to think about the possibility that had they agreed to bend over
backwards and opened Gupta accounts, citizens would in future have to
queue at Luthuli House to secure bank loans and open savings accounts.
Unless of course such private banking services at Luthuli House would be
reserved for those who could afford to pay transaction fees in Nkandla.
Luthuli House could also have become a banking ombudsman.
By resisting political pressure, the banks in a way helped to
preserve a reasonable level of sanity in our political system and kept
the relationship between petty politics and commercial transactions
separate.
The testimony of the bank was chilling. A group of governing party
officials and Cabinet ministers go all out to fight for the opening of
bank accounts of money laundering thieves! And we are supposed to
believe politicians when they stand on public platforms promising to
kill the beast of corruption. It’s like believing an undertaking that
they would commit suicide after the elections.
The second lesson is that politicians are capable of playing double
roles when faced with conflicting situations. Take Gwede Mantashe, for
example. He attended meetings where banks were pressurised to open Gupta
bank accounts. At the same time he approved Mcebisi Jonas’ plan to make
a statement exposing the Guptas’ corrupt relationship with Zuma and his
son Duduzane. At some point, Mantashe’s office in Luthuli House led an
ANC-initiated investigation into state capture. Predictably, it got
nowhere.
The third lesson is that all of us must make an effort to understand
how South Africa’s political system works. Many people don’t understand
it. Sadly, these include people who are supposed to be operating the
system at the top. Some were in struggle for years to produce the
constitutional democratic system.
The Guptas either did not understand South Africa’s political system
and the limits of politicians or they thought that South Africa was a
stereotypical African basket case where capturing the president
is the ultimate route to heaven. Whichever way, the political
leadership had a role to educate foreigners like the Guptas on how the
system works and the necessity to preserve it because it came at a cost
to many lives.
One cannot rule out the possibility that racist beliefs about
Africans being inherently corrupt were behind the daring heist on the
African-led democratic state. But they got it wrong. Hopefully, would-be
capturers have learned that it’s possible for a corrupt fellow like
Zuma and an upright man like Mcebisi Jonas to operate in the same
political system. And it’s possible for the latter to have massive
influence on the course of political events. South Africa’s system is
too complex.
Lastly, the extent to which huge multinational corporations have been
embarrassed, some even displaying corporate crocodile tears by offering
to pay back the loot, is a demonstration that being an international
player doesn’t absolve you from accountability. It should be a lesson
that dodgy dealings in South Africa can collapse companies.
Representatives from these companies are yet to testify at the
inquiry. When they eventually do, their peers all over the world must
sit up and listen. They will learn it’s better not to capture state
systems and get deals only to vomit your loot – and whatever is left of
your integrity – later.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Disclaimer: Comment expressed do not reflect the opinion of African Parliamentary News