Big question: where did it go so wrong?
No one can deny the reality of state capture in SA today. But we need to discuss how to fix it. After the worst offenders go, what can ensure that the new crowd doesn’t take up where they left off?
It’s not enough to say we will pick really virtuous candidates in future. Many who are implicated in the current scandals made huge sacrifices for the country before 1994. They went to jail or exile to fight for liberation.
We need to ask what led SA down this path. We can start by identifying what worked and what didn’t work in stopping corruption in the past 20 years.
What worked: media investigations and their whistle-blowers; honest officials and politicians who blocked corrupt schemes; an outstanding public protector; NGOs and their lawyers; many business and union leaders; and the judiciary.
What mostly didn’t work: complex state audit processes; police investigative units; parliamentary oversight; and commissions of inquiry that seem to take years and end up with vague reports.
Sunlight and civil society combined with an independent judiciary have been critical. In contrast, institutions in the executive and legislature have been captured or disarmed, or they just weren’t designed to stop really big corruption.
The audit process is particularly disappointing. Ordinary public servants sweat blood over tenders and subsequent audits. Yet that has not stopped looting.
This outcome arises in large part from the tendency to inflict tight, bright-line rules on the public service, rather than targeting big-ticket projects and the associated positions. We need onerous lifestyle audits of leaders in big-spending departments and parastatals, rather than treating all tenders and officials alike. If whistleblowers got, say, 5% of the money they saved the state, more people would likely blow the cover on dirty deals.
Every anticorruption drive has called for singling out vulnerable posts and the largest transactions. But neither the auditor-general nor the rest of the state has managed to implement a strategic approach.
Even more important is to end the tradition of secrecy inherited from the previous regime. Before 1994, draconian secrecy laws fostered looting and state capture, as well as enabling murderous oppression. The democratic state said it would ensure accountability and prevent corruption by opening information flows to ordinary citizens and the media. That’s why the Constitution says “everyone has the right of access to any information held by the state” and adds that public administration must foster transparency “by providing the public with timely, accessible and accurate information”. The Freedom of Information Act, the Administrative Justice Act and the system of parliamentary questions all aim to ensure the state is accountable to the public.
But apartheid traditions of secrecy were never fully uprooted. In many departments, public servants are still expected to sign an oath never to reveal anything they learn in the course of their official duties. Read literally, they couldn’t tell new employees where the lifts are. Similarly, details of the pay and benefits going to ministers and senior officials are still hard to find.
In state-owned companies, the situation is worse. Last year, Eskom stopped publishing details on pay for board members and the CEO, something that private, listed companies often provide.
In these circumstances, leaks about leaders’ secret activities are often the only way citizens can find out what is going on in government. Some opponents claim that publishing politicians’ e-mails is the same as hacking private citizens. But public leaders need to accept public scrutiny.
In the event, e-mail leaks have disclosed misdoings that cost the public billions. In the case of Transnet’s locomotives alone, the bill came to R5bn. We should be calling for greater openness about state transactions, not going after whistle-blowers.
Ultimately, accountability cannot be maintained where there is a huge disparity between those with economic power and everyone else. The richest 10% of households control 95% of financial wealth and almost half of all incomes, making SA one of the most unequal countries in the world. Inevitably, some officials and political leaders are tempted to use state power to catch up with the already privileged.
State capture will remain a threat until the majority of South Africans feel they have a fair chance of succeeding without breaking the law. That requires that big business also becomes more open. It demands far more extensive and effective programmes to bring about a more open and equitable economy.
STATE CAPTURE WILL REMAIN A THREAT UNTIL THE MAJORITY HAVE A FAIR CHANCE OF SUCCEEDING WITHOUT BREAKING THE LAW