Unpalatable truth the hardest to swallow

The new mandate of the Reserve Bank … says very clearly that while its core is to attend to inflation, the way it goes about it must now take [into] account a whole range of factors that include employment, that include balanced and sustainable growth.

While you were sleeping … No, I am just pulling your leg. Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane did not change the mandate of the Reserve Bank while you were asleep.

These words were uttered by former finance minister Pravin Gordhan in 2010. While he argued in favour of retaining the 3% to 6% inflation target band, he was of the view that the Reserve Bank’s interpretation of its mandate was too narrow. And while he was not excoriated in as zealous a manner as the condemnation of the public protector, the court jesters of the markets mounted a strong defence of the independence of the Reserve Bank.

When are people going to learn that they endanger their credibility when they criticise institutions that are independent from the will of the people? Those among us who wish to become leading lights in the corruption, patronage and looting Hall of Fame must remember a very simple rule: looting is allowed as long as you leave the Treasury and the Reserve Bank alone.

These quasi-state institutions do not belong to the people. They are accountable more to dominant and powerful economic interests that go under the name “the markets”. Therefore, an argument, policy proposal or policy measure is good, or bad, depending on how the markets react.

If, for example, the currency strengthens, a falsehood is true; if it weakens, the truth is false. If you are one of those people who are still looking for the truth, objective or otherwise, the markets and our political discourse are places where it seldom seeks refuge.

That is why, with no sense of irony whatsoever, some among us accuse the Reserve Bank of being independent. I suppose it is not difficult to be independent these days. All you must do is to be as uncritical of the markets — the not white and not monopolistic white monopoly capital and ratings agencies — as the defenders of Saxonwold are of state capture. That said, I believe Mkhwebane is guilty of overreach.

The second thing that caught my eye last week was the Constitutional Court judgment on whether parliamentarians should hide their votes in the vote of no confidence against President Jacob Zuma. Before I proceed to say another thing that some among us do not want to hear, allow me to say this: the United Democratic Movement lost. It ran to the Constitutional Court in search of a secret ballot and did not find it.

I must say, though, that the judgment impressed me beyond measure because it rose like an eagle above the populisms and counter populisms of our political discourse.

In addition, the speaker was terribly exposed. She tried, as we say in isiZulu, ukucasha ngesithupha (to hide behind her thumb), and the good judges cut it off, exposing her discretion when it comes to whether she has the power to order a secret ballot in the vote of no confidence against the president.

One commentator, and he had to say this on what is the alter ego of eNCA, argued that the speaker had to decide whether she was going to betray her party, the ANC. In my estimation, her choice is much simpler: she must choose between yielding to pressure from the president, the ANC, opposition parties and populism, on the one hand, and the interests of the country on the other.

Before I get carried away by my own populism, I am of the view that neither a secret ballot nor an open ballot is inherently rational or irrational. And given the fact that opposing the motion of no confidence against the president is not an option for opposition parliamentarians and their consciences, both an open ballot and a secret ballot have the potential to expose all parliamentarians to intimidation by party bosses.

Therefore, an open ballot is the lesser of the two evils because it errs on the side of transparency. A secret ballot may serve the useful but patently dubious purpose of shielding parliamentarians who want to hide bribes in their secret ballots.

And then ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe regaled delegates at the party’s Gauteng general council, in its incarnation as a provincial policy conference, with an exposition of the nature and character of the ANC’s decline. He spoke about the emergence of family dynasties as an indicator of the decline of a revolutionary movement. Somehow, I do not think Mantashe was talking about the Ramaphosa dynasty. Maybe the Gauteng leadership thought differently. I suspect the leadership hates dynasties but loves Cyril Ramaphosa.

IF YOU ARE STILL LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH, THE MARKETS AND OUR POLITICAL DISCOURSE ARE PLACES WHERE IT SELDOM SEEKS REFUGE