DURBAN: Bosses at British public relations company Bell Pottinger knew exactly what their people were up to in South Africa - “wilful blindness is no defence in a court of law”, billionaire and former Bell Pottinger client Johann Rupert said this week.
“Their fingerprints are all over it,” he said in a telephone interview.
The public relations company issued an apology to South Africa on Friday, saying it was unaware its staff were sowing racial discord in their effort to promote their clients, the Guptas.
According to Guptaleaks emails, Bell Pottinger brought the phrase “white monopoly capital” into public discourse.
Rupert heads the luxury brands business Richemont. He said his company contracted Bell Pottinger to look after its corporate image for almost 19 years.
He was introduced to the company’s founder, Lord Timothy Bell, by former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher.
Bell had been Thatcher’s communications adviser.
Without disclosing why he fired the agency in August, Rupert hinted he felt uneasy about its dealings with the Guptas.
Last year Rupert claimed that the spin doctors were behind a campaign to link him to “state capture” and a narrative was being constructed by some to suggest the multibillion-rand investment group Remgro, controlled by the Rupert family, controlled key segments of the media.
He said the Gupta emails confirmed this fake narrative.
“It has now become obvious through their links with individuals and organisations such as Black First Land First that their fingerprints are all over,” Rupert said.
ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe condemned Bell Pottinger’s actions but said it was premature to comment because an investigation was ongoing.
“We can only comment on the real outcome because this happened within a broad context of interference in our government.
“It would be premature to say whether we accept the apology. We will comment when the investigation is completed.”
Mantashe said the country could not afford to suffer setbacks in its progress in dealing with race.
Gwen Ngwenya of the Institute of Race Relations said Bell Pottinger created a campaign for its audience in which the conditions were ripe for such a narrative.
“This audience must do a great deal of introspection. Bell Pottinger did not create the fire; they just gave it what it needed to burn more brightly.
“If white monopoly capital captures the imagination, it is because the term says crisply what many have been thinking. Whether it is true or not is another matter.”
Ngwenya said if the allegation that Bell Pottinger created fake social media accounts to push an agenda was true, this was “deeply unethical behaviour” but every South African had to take responsibility for what they believed.
“Whose responsibility is it to ensure you do not believe everything that you read? Who is responsible for what you think? Who is responsible for treating Twitter as a representation of society?” Ngwenya said.
She said any reputable analysis of South African society could not be based on social media sentiment.
“That’s where reason and considered engagement go to die.”
Ngwenya said surveys revealed most South Africans felt race relations had improved since 1994 but “we’re fast undoing that”.
“There is a rising and dangerous racial consensus in South African politics where there is no longer a pretence but an explicit aim to satisfy racial interests. There is an ANC interested in sowing racial divisions to divert from policy failure in the economy. And the DA has made it paramount to win over the ‘black vote’.
“Whichever way you slice it, we’ve sunk deeper into a racial malaise. We are not a society working towards dispelling harmful racial notions in any meaningful way. If anything, each event is an opportunity to reinforce racial myths,” Ngwenya said.
Dr Anusha Sewchurran, University of KwaZulu-Natal professor in media and cultural studies, said Bell Pottinger’s apology was a response to “an inconvenient civil society”.
“But to imagine Bell Pottinger will change its lucrative business and suddenly develop ethics by giving South Africans full disclosure or monetary compensation with their apology is naive,” said Sewchurran.