Guptas expose a weak state

Lieutenants of the Gupta family are known to defend themselves vociferously against any wrongdoing, insisting that leaked emails have failed to show them doing anything particularly illegal in their deals with Eskom, for example. They do admit, however, that they may have used their influence with certain key individuals in certain strategic positions to ease their paths into lucrative government business. They argue that it’s just the way government works. And if they must be found guilty of wrongdoing, then so too must many, many others.

That argument is revealing, first, for an understanding of what exactly is wrong with state capture. It’s not that every trifling detail of the astounding reach of state capture is prosecutable in a court of law, but rather that one family was able to use its vast network of influence among members of the government to further its business interests. After all, undue influence is exactly what’s wrong with state capture.

The inability to accept this as blatantly wrong is revealing of the poor standard of ethics that appears to characterise some dealings with the government. But it is also revealing of the weaknesses of the state itself.

We had a unique opportunity to build a state that serves all the people. Instead, we have one that is feeble and thus vulnerable to manipulation. The state that has emerged is one in which a certain set of individuals and corporations have purchased access to the levers of power for their own enrichment.

This week, Home Affairs Minister Hlengiwe Mkhize, as well her predecessor, current Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba, skipped a parliamentary committee in which they were to explain how Gupta family members became naturalised South African citizens super-quickly. In their stead, home affairs director general Mkuseli Apleni had to persuade Parliament that due process was indeed followed, and that all the king’s horses and all the king’s men will put Humpty Dumpty together again.

Briefing MPs, Apleni said the department’s officials had considered the Gupta family’s business interests and investments in South Africa when deciding there were exceptional circumstances for early naturalisation. The Mail & Guardian believes Gigaba himself had granted this to others based on their South African investments and their alleged job-creating prowess.

It’s not just the Guptas. And Black First Land First can sit down, because it’s also not just the Ruperts or the Oppenheimers either. It’s all of them, plus representatives of multinationals employing thousands of South Africans.

The problem is not that the law allows the minister to grant citizenship to permanent residents at his or her discretion. The problem lies in the fact that the government admits that wealthy people will be considered above all others in processing applications for naturalisation.

There may be other exceptional circumstances that influence such decisions. But how can we be sure, when the department also admits it has been remiss in its reporting to Parliament?

The Lindela Repatriation Centre is filled with people who no doubt would love the ear of senior home affairs officials to plead their case to stay here. Yet some will shrug and say that’s just the way it is; South Africa is not unique in its vulnerability to big money. In fashioning a new state after apartheid, surely we ought to have done better. Ahmed Timol did not die for this.