State capture and local government
THERE has been great public interest in the phenomenon dubbed “state capture” since the revelation of the Gupta influence on ministerial and other senior institutional leadership appointments.
Rightly so, because the collusion of business and public representatives in ways that advance their personal and business interests over public good cripples the state from effectively delivering on its transformative socio-economic mandate.
However, the spotlight shone on the negative impact of the GuptaZuma relationship took attention away from the capture of institutions in the other spheres of government.
While we know that state capture, as we define it here, is not new to South Africa, and while it is commendable that we have the commission of inquiry that is probing the “who” and the “how” of it, we are still not asking ourselves why it happened. The narrative that continues to associate state capture with former president Jacob Zuma is a lazy one.
For example, dumping all blame on Zuma absolves the Cabinet and Parliament of the critical active role they played in supporting state capture.
The evidence given by many at the Zondo Commission of Inquiry points to a shocking complicity by both of these, and to their support for some of the most absurd decisions that were geared towards sinking our economy.
Did we really need nuclear enrichment if indications were that it would collapse the economy? Why didn’t any Cabinet minister resign in protest if their voice of reason within the Cabinet was being drowned out by the Zuma loyalists?
Why didn’t Parliament listen to the public outcry against some of the decisions and plans that the Cabinet was driving towards that were not in the interest of the public? Why was Parliament unable to hold the executive to account?
Are there meaningful ways in which we can hold business to account and to demand that money derived within our borders be invested back in ways that strengthen our domestic economy? These questions linger as we fail to have a meaningful public conversation around state capture.
The greatest negative impact of state capture is felt by local communities. Treasury figures show that the greatest looting of state resources lies in the irregular and improper use of state resources by local municipalities.
The audit outcomes in the past financial year paint a bleak picture of performance of municipalities across the country.
The Attorney-General’s report claims that this regression in audit outcomes can be attributed to a lack of consequences and disregard for the rule of law, poor capacity, poor leadership and lack of effective oversight and accountability mechanisms.
There are countless examples where money flows from a municipality through a consultancy agreement and finds its way into the bank accounts of the political party. This is what state capture is about. It is the collusion of business and politicians to loot from the state, thereby diverting resources from public good towards political and personal gain.