Damascus conversions leave the talking heads blinded
It is one thing to regard some men as heroes, but quite another to worship them as gods you must propitiate by seeing the world through their eyes. This thought crossed my mind as I watched the South African Revenue Service (SARS) media conference on the decision by KPMG to withdraw parts of the forensic report it had done for it.
This thought spent very little time in my brain. It was quickly replaced by another, something a friend had told me in a discussion about state capture and the battle between President Jacob Zuma and the Gupta family and former finance minister Pravin Gordhan and his sympathisers.
My friend expressed serious concerns about how partisan and selective journalists and political commentators had become in their perception of political reality and how this partial sightedness had rendered them uncritical, sometimes even servile, towards political actors who were created in their image of good and evil.
At the end of his exposition, he gave me very good advice. He said that as a political commentator, I should not look up to any political actor because, as we have seen with some sections of the media, it is difficult to think critically about political figures when our work and the outcomes they desire have become inseparable.
He is correct because this is as difficult as managing a subordinate who has seen you naked. If I may add, it is for this reason that too many media platforms have become part of a system of propaganda and those who work for them are nothing more than zombies who unthinkingly mumble the lies, half-truths and deception strategies of those politicians who have been canonised as saints. In this respect, there are two 24-hour news television stations that are two sides of the same Orwellian manipulation coin.
Until I am proved wrong, KPMG, in an attempt to conceal its sins, has either been bullied or has decided to volunteer its services to one side in the propaganda battle.
Maybe it is because I am dim-witted that it is not clear to me which “facts” in the report KPMG is now partially repudiating we must no longer believe. KPMG must tell us, and do so unambiguously, what is not factual about the parts it has withdrawn. Is it the findings, conclusions and recommendations or the “facts” that it based these findings, conclusions and recommendations on?
Also, is it its legal opinion that SARS is wrong when it says that the report is not KPMG’s to withdraw, partially or otherwise?
KPMG denies that the report was completely of no value to SARS. What about the report is of value to SARS?
More importantly, KPMG must tell us who it seeks to exonerate through this partial withdrawal.
Is it those who have already absolved themselves? And are they, in KPMG’s view, correct to do so?
Instead of returning the fee to SARS, the auditing and consulting firm must keep it and use it to shop for integrity.
Whatever happens, KPMG must not go to the same shopping mall where Bell Pottinger bought its ethics with money from state capture. The gangs that have been looting the state have relied on many a useful idiot who, because of the Achilles heel of hubris and vanity, has fallen into traps set by angels with God complexes.
There comes a time, of course, when political commentators and journalists start to think we are creators of political reality because those with a God complex tell us how great we are to be created in their image.