DURBAN - FINANCE Minister Malusi Gigaba sounded very much like Donald Trump this week in trying to extinguish the blaze set by his adviser, Professor Chris Malikane.
“I am my own man,” said the dapper new Treasury boss. “I take my own decisions.”
Speaking as he set off for Washington DC, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund spring meetings, and a crucial bid to prevent a third relegation by another investment rating agency, Gigaba must have ground his teeth at his pundit making a delicate mission a whole lot more difficult.
For he was heading to a capital that is still pondering the key figures in the three-month-old Trump administration. Analyses emerge almost daily on who is who in the White House, on which adviser is ascendant in influencing the unexpected president.
Washington DC is a capital where influence is constantly monitored, where advisers are very much part of the reading on those they advise.
Think daughter Ivanka Trump, the upset that caused, and other figures with regular access to the Oval Office.
Take Steven Bannon, the chief strategist at the White House, for instance, whose fortunes and every word and move have been watched since he assumed that powerful post.
His emergence caused chills in anti-Trump ranks, where he is viewed as a radioactive right-winger, and distinct misgivings even in Trump’s own party.
Bannon was seen as a strong factor in Trump’s astonishing, and highly successful, anti-establishment ticket to the presidency.
Two weeks ago, Trump was asked about Bannon’s influence, and told The New York Post: “I’m my own strategist.”
On Wednesday, Gigaba also set out similarly to play down Malikane’s influence, saying: “Advisers are advisers. They are not the minister.”
But today he finds himself in a very astute political city, a place of politicians, lawyers, public servants and journalists, where leaders are judged by those around them.
Courteous though Gigaba’s listeners will be, Washington DC is not a place where such disassociation is easily allowed.
No doubt, then, the nationalisation of banks, mines and insurers put forward by Malikane is very much in the air as Gigaba seeks to assure. The minister and the Treasury have tried to distance government policy from these views, to douse the content of the Malikane document, but his listeners in Washington DC will nonetheless be wondering how significant this kind of thinking is.
If the minister is receiving such advice, the speculation will go, how long before it does seep through into policy? South African government insistence that it was a private view will probably be ignored.
This is doubt that Gigaba can do without on a tough sell against junk status, and most particularly on his introduction to the world.
Some political analysts in South Africa have defended Malikane’s right to free speech, to express his views. The Treasury spoke of contributing ideas to the national discourse.
He has that right, everyone does – one we must always protect. Equally, South Africans and people in Washington DC have the right to free thought, to reach their own conclusions as they watch, read and listen.
Some of our government advisers and officials are fond of airing opinions, with the caveat at the tail: “He writes in his personal capacity.” The question, though, is: can they do so? Will readers, listeners or viewers buy that statement of distance?
Or will the association remain, in spite of the tailpiece? It would require great sophistication, and faith in the players involved, not to haul out the “smoke, fire” adage.
After all, why air the view if it is not meant to achieve traction?
It could be to impress the boss, persuade the audience, or both. Whatever the reason, it is about influence, and the audience is entitled to mull the future of those thoughts because of the special place that the author occupies.
There is also a natural suspicion of kite-flying in the world of politics, where ideas are put up by subordinates to test their popularity – leaving the principal free to deny them if they go sour.
Free expression is a precious constitutional right. With it, though, comes responsibility. The question is whether people in significant posts should not be highly sensitive to a need for restraint when publicly speaking their minds.
There is the constitutional right, and there is politics and perception, and sometimes they compete. “How will this be read?”, “What impact will it have?” should be abiding questions for policymakers before they go public.
From this fire-fighting before he set off for Washington DC this week, Gigaba clearly anticipated the damage Malikane’s views could do. Now he probably knows it, four days in into his meetings there.