Tlakula needs to apply her wisdom to this moment of truth

MUCH dismay, disbelief and disappointment has been expressed this week about public protector Thuli Madonsela’s findings on Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) chair Pansy Tlakula.

There has also been a lot of discomfort over the public row that broke out between the two holders of these pivotal institutions after the release of the findings. It was an ugly two days as Tlakula first attacked Madonsela’s office for giving her the report only hours before it was made public, and then accusing the institution of unprofessional conduct and amateurism.

The disappointment and dismay was owing to the fact that Tlakula has always stood out as a virtuous individual, the kind of South African you would like all holders of public office to emulate. In the eyes of most people, she was integrity personified. As CEO of the IEC she had, together with former chair Brigalia Bam, run a model institution that could rival the world’s best electoral commissions. In many ways South Africa’s IEC actually outpaced its peers in the developed world, given that it had operated with great precision in areas where technology and infrastructure were very basic.

Under their leadership this institution built up great trust, to the extent that those who suspected deliberate foul play in the running of national and local polls were themselves suspected of having had generous doses of Swaziland’s leading agricultural product. And then this. For the record, Madonsela found Tlakula guilty of “improper conduct”, “maladministration” and conflict of interest relating to the procurement process she oversaw when the IEC moved to its new premises in Centurion, Pretoria.

Tlakula has, of course, denied any wrongdoing, citing ignorance and the fact that the final decision was not hers alone.

“No finding has been made that I made any personal gain, obtained any financial or other interest in the company. I could therefore not have breached the policy as it stands . . . I wish to emphasise that no public funds were misappropriated nor did I benefit in any manner from the procurement.”

Now, for most people the easiest thing to do would be to give Tlakula the benefit of the doubt. She is one of our angels and so surely, surely she could not have not have done bad things. The other reason we would want to absolve her of blame is that we are so desperate for goodness. In a society in which the Dina Pules, who cannot tell right from wrong, rise to high office, we want to hold on to the good around us. We want to protect the icons who can remind us that we are not all bad — that the Dina Pules are just a few bad apples in a country populated by good people.

So when a Tlakula shares the week’s headlines with scoundrels like the tax-dodging Dave King and the glutinous Gerald Majola, we see our world collapsing around us. It shatters our belief that we are intrinsically a good people who are let down by a few bad guys.

It does not help when the same Tlakula does not see the wrong in her own deeds and instead trains her guns on the institution that has ruled against her. By coming out guns blazing and attacking the public protector, Tlakula has done neither herself nor the country any good. She has simply lumped herself with the bad lot whose view of right and wrong is hazy at best.

Anybody who has read the public protector’s report into her conduct will have seen that it is not a hatchet job or a glory-seeking expedition. The facts, chronology and circumstances all speak for themselves. It would take a slavish Tlakula groupie not to see that she either erred in judgment or decided to ignore the inner voice urging her to do the right thing.

The question is whether we should condemn her to an exile outside of public service and thereby lose a good soldier of good causes. Again the temptation is to say: “But it is Pansy. Surely we can overlook her minor indiscretion.” We all so badly want to rehabilitate her, if that is the right word to use in this instance.

The problem with that double standards approach is that it will open the floodgates for all who sin to demand redemption on the record of their past goodness. Many will use their record in the liberation struggle and in communities to take short cuts.

The answer to the question of what should happen to Tlakuka lies in how she handles this matter now.

If she persists with her denialism, she will be the one damaging the good name that she says the public protector has harmed. It is better to own up to the wrongdoing and accept the punishment that comes along. South Africa is a forgiving society not prone to grudges. Just look at some of the individuals we have been prepared to give a second chance.

It would be a sad day if Tlakula’s stubbornness caused us to lose her formidable mind and service spirit. She needs to apply her wisdom to this case carefully and not simply rely on the advice of face-buying groupies and fee-collecting lawyers.