Few things have the capacity to polarise society more than discussions about the politics of proximity and the perils of association. In February Business Unity SA (Busa) president Sipho Pityana accused Sandile Zungu, president of the Black Business Council (BBC), of aiding and abetting state capture through the organisation’s structures.
In Pityana’s assertion, as the political fortunes of former president Jacob Zuma soared so did the BBC’s complicity in enabling state capture through the elevation of “many incompetent and underqualified lackeys to boards and executive positions”. Pityana further alleges that the BBC became a “body for the condonation, defence and justification of corrupt and unethical practices”.
In simple terms, Pityana accuses Zungu and the BBC of the sins of commission.
While the BBC is indeed a lobby group, just like Busa, Pityana believes the proximity of its office-bearers to Zuma meant they were captured by association. Given the tenuous history between the two organisations, one has to be careful about assessing the utterances associated with the entire saga.
But crucially in a country where we are fast gravitating towards an accountability vacuum epitomised by prominent voices in society making allegations that are not supplemented by verifiable evidence, there is a need to ask Pityana to furnish the country at large with something a bit more substantial than just a letter. Simply expecting society to connect the dots and elevate the perils of association to crimes of complicity falls short of expectations.
Even today, with the benefit of hindsight and the cold reality of the perilous nature of the SOEs, it is clear that the Phiyega report identified the enduring flaws in the governance and management systems of SOEs and recommended corrective actions.
Pityana’s letter also refers to the committee that was appointed to advise Zuma on the restructuring of state-owned enterprises (SOEs). While Pityana states that Zungu formed part of this committee, he might be conflating it with the Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) Advisory Council, where Zungu played a prominent part. The SOE committee was chaired by Riah Phiyega and made no less than 30 recommendations on how the SOEs ought to be reformed. The proposals were easily the most progressive intervention in facilitating the creation of financially stable and developmentally-oriented enterprises.
Even today, with the benefit of hindsight and the cold reality of the perilous nature of the SOEs, it is clear that the Phiyega report identified enduring flaws in the governance and management systems of SOEs and recommended corrective actions that should have been implemented. Such reforms may have arrested the rise of the state capture crisis and positioned them as the primary instruments of facilitating large-scale economic reforms.
Bizarrely, the recommendations were ignored; political interference was elevated; incompetence was rewarded with tenure; competence and capability were relegated in the hierarchy of job requirements; and building in-house capacity was abandoned in favour of outsourced consultants who identified SOEs as a permanent source of lucrative fees.
Last week, at the BBC summit, Zungu referred to the state of SOEs and challenged public enterprises minister Pravin Gordhan to consider the establishment of a single entity to be responsible for the execution of large contracts with the state. While this is indeed an important alternative to the current dysfunctional model, it is also worth noting that it is similar to the Phiyega report recommendations. Consequently, the question to be asked is why such recommendations have never been implemented.
Our collective sin as a country is failing to come to terms with the fact that the state capture crisis was facilitated by sins of commission and omission. The sins of omission were committed by those who sat idly and watched from a distance as the country gravitated towards the abyss, when they had the power to speak out.
If the BBC and Busa are to accuse each other of anything in relation to the state capture crisis, sins of omission are equally important. While sins of commission can be punished by courts of law, sins of omission may be repeated if we all naively assume it will never happen again.
• Sithole (@coruscakhaya) is a chartered accountant, academic and activist.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.