Mistrust and distortions are a threat to our economy and rule of law, write Dumisani Hlophe and Grathel Motau.
South Africa’s body politic needs statesmanship. This would be a collective of leaders, from across society, whose pronouncements on public discourse issues would highlight the rule of law, and the institutions that cement this democratic principle.
In the absence of collective statesmanship across political parties, the body politic is dominated by mistrust, suspicions, and tensions. These, at times, play themselves out publicly and constantly erode the virtues of democratic principles and institutions.
The latest instalment in this defacing of democratic virtues is the so-called “Sars Wars” personified by Tom Moyane for the SA Revenue Service and former Sars commissioner and now Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan.
Let us accept that the delivery of the Hawks’ questions to Gordhan during the Budget speech week was ill-timed. However, that does not mean that the Hawks, a legitimate police unit investigating high priority crimes, is suddenly bad.
Some of those in the unofficial Gordhan support group went even further, questioning the integrity of Hawks head Major-General Mthandazo Ntlemeza as being possibly unsuitable to question Gordhan. Gordhan himself, through his lawyer, seems to be questioning the Hawks’ authority.
Read: Will Gordhan push the red button?
Here is the context: in the quest to turn around the economy and avoid junk grading status by the rating agencies, Gordhan has emerged as a saviour.
He has emerged as the most powerful member of the cabinet, perhaps even more powerful than President Jacob Zuma. He is the hero who will deliver South Africa from the clutches of rating agencies.
Therefore, questioning Gordhan amounts to sabotaging the economy, as ANC’s Gwede Mantashe suggested while pledging the ANC’s support for Gordhan. He is untouchable.
Suddenly, the questions - limited to Gordhan’s tenure as Sars commissioner - are being deemed an “attack” on the “National Treasury”. Gordhan is reported to have said he will take legal action to defend himself and “the National Treasury”. He sees this inquiry as indicative that some people are not interested in seeing the economy stabilise and develop.
This has rallied the troops in defence of the “economy”. Even the SACP, striving for a socialist South Africa, came up in support of Gordhan, “in defence” of the capitalist economy.
The clergymen too, led by Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town Thabo Makgoba, have been reported as coming up in support of Gordhan, in “defence of the economy”.
The “hands off Gordhan/economy” pressure has been so intense that Zuma has had to “reassure” South Africans that Gordhan’s job is safe.
Then the Minister of Police, Nathi Nhleko, had to do another “firepool”, explaining that the questions send to Gordhan were not an investigation, but merely seeking clarity. Our reading of the questions is that they are investigative in nature and content.
Now, it is important for citizens to be concerned about political and legal developments that have a bearing on the state of the national economy. However, it is problematic when this degenerates into blind loyalty. Here are the dangerous implications of the above.
First, it suggests that when South Africans, mainly the middle class, are faced with drastic challenges, they are willing to disregard democratic principles, such as the rule of law.
Like the war on colonial and apartheid statutes, South Africans will deface democratic institutions, such as the Hawks, for expediency.
Second, it means the broader liberal agenda to shear critical post-colonial-apartheid institutions of direct control by the liberation government, is dominant.
These institutions include the National Treasury, the SA Reserve Bank, the media, and the Independent Electoral Commission.
These institutions are at the heart of capital control. Hence, many liberals emphasise that they of political control. Since the Sars issue became public, many have concluded the Hawks are under the “control” of President Zuma and therefore leading the charge to get rid of Gordhan.
Third, the unofficial pro-Gordhan supporters have created an impression that the sum total of our economic woes will be sorted by avoiding junk status.
That is, seek favour with rating agencies and the rest will follow. While rating agencies play a critical role in global capitalism, South Africa’s growth and development prospects largely depend on what the public and private sectors do domestically.
Fourth, the discourse around this Sars War has personalised economic stability and growth around one person - Gordhan. Despite his own attempt to refer to ministries and departments throughout his Budget speech, an economic cult personality has been created in the past seven days or so.
Unfortunately, Gordhan has also played a part in this.
Utterances that he will defend himself and the National Treasury create an impression that he sees the National Treasury as his fiefdom.
Anyone who pledges support to Gordhan on the basis of turning around and stabilising the national economy, is equally guilty of this economic individualisation and personality cult building.
The Sars Wars public discourse has exposed South Africans as challenged in statesmanship. Rather than giving greater leadership direction, many leaders simply took positions. Rather than dragging in the National Treasury and the national economy as part of his defence, Gordhan could simply have committed to answering the questions.
This would have set a more positive tone, instead of leading the discourse to become highly alarmist. Zuma could also have done more in his response.
First, after Gordhan had confirmed the tensions, he dismissed them as “rumours”.
The biggest reassurance Zuma could have given would have been on how prudently his government was managing the economy through policies and programmes.
Then he could have acknowledged Gordhan within the government collective.
In the interests of good governance, senior administrators should not be elevated to the position of political responsibility for their portfolio.
It is a recipe, as in this case, for personality clashes and organisational dysfunction.
Finally, we must worry when market forces and institutions so empower our leaders as to determine which national institutions of democracy they may choose to ignore. That’s the beginning of the end of the rule of law. It is a scary creeping in of the Big Man syndrome.
*Motau CA (SA) is development economist at Mmoni Advisory Services (Pty) Ltd, in Joburg. Twitter @GrathelMotau
**Hlophe is Faculty Associate: The Albert Luthuli Centre for Responsible Leadership Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences. University of Pretoria. Twitter: @KunjaloD
*** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media
Sunday Independent