ANC FORUM: MOUNTAIN OR MOLEHILL

Well my take on this is quite simple - this is one of the ways that the ANC can see in terms of the "lie of the land". Armed with this information, they can bullshit their way, as they do so well, depending on which function they are at. It is certainly a case of "bending in the breeze" to give the audiance what they want to hear - isn't it time that they started meeting some of their campaign promises?

ANC forum: mountain or molehill?
Richard Calland:
COUNTERPOINT
25 February 2007 11:59

Is it arrogance, complacency, fecklessness, dishonesty, disingenuousness or self-delusion that leads the ANC to insult our intelligence with its defence of the Progressive Business Forum (PBF)? Or a dismal combination of all of the above, asks Richard Calland. Read Smuts Ngonyama's opinion on the matter. Is it arrogance, complacency, fecklessness, dishonesty, disingenuousness or self-delusion that leads the ANC to insult our intelligence with its defence of the Progressive Business Forum (PBF)? Or a dismal combination of all of the above? In a statement responding to media reports, the ANC asserted that “the information provided to PBF members is public information”.

This is Defence Number One: we are not trading influence, merely selling fresh air to gullible business people. So why on earth would anyone in their right mind pay several thousand rands to join?

Defence Number Two: it’s a good thing that business people get an opportunity to hear government leaders, to share ideas and to discover obstacles to welcome public policy objectives such as economic growth, and equally good that government gets a chance to listen. Yes, this represents a perfectly sound approach to governance, which is why it should be a government assignment and not an ANC one. Come to think of it, the government already does plenty of listening to business: one of the great strengths of the Thabo Mbeki presidency has been its determination to establish a wide range of structures and mechanisms for serious conversation with business. There is the big business council, the black business council, the small business council, and so on. If nothing else, this is a government that likes good process and recognises the need to establish channels of communication, even if they are not always perfect. Why then is the ANC providing this “government service?” The only credible answer: so it can make a quick and easy buck on the side.

Defence Number Three: they’re ANC leaders as well as government ministers -- we are entitled to make use of them for fund-raising. Given the absence of any guidelines, this is indeed a grey area. But let us be realistic: whatever affable and intelligent company Trevor Manuel and Mosiuoa Lekota may provide, the only reason why anyone would want to pay good money to spend “intimate” time with them -- the phrase is not from me, but from the ANC website -- is because they are the ministers of finance and defence, respectively. The chance to influence those in the higher reaches of government directly is worth paying for.

Defence Number Four: if all other arguments fail, we’re not doing anything illegal. True. But so what? This is the wrong test. The test is the corruption standard that has stood the test of time, namely, whether public office and/or a public good has been used for private gain. If the ANC is selling access to government decision- makers, does this scheme amount to anything less? If not, then publish the list of members; let us see if there is any connection between membership and tender awards. This is the crux of the matter. Towards the bottom of the ANC website’s marketing for the PBF is the rhetorical question: “Can you afford not to belong?” It’s a great line, because the implication is heavy: this is not just about your vanity or about being part of the elite, but also about the material benefits of being connected with us. What do you miss out on if you’re not a member? Can you afford not to belong? The limp logic of the ANC’s defence of this scheme suggests that it is fast losing sight of the distinction between state and party -- the cliché that liberal commentators have long propounded, but which some of us hoped and believed would be avoided. Given that the dead hand of the National Party is at work in this scheme, perhaps one should not be surprised. Incredibly, former Nat stalwart MP Renier Schoeman is now head of the ANC’s corporate fund-raising. The rancid standards of the old regime have infiltrated the new establishment. There must be some serious grave-spinning going on. But what is to be done? The ANC is a private club, says the law, above regulation. That is the debate we need now. The standards of public accountability need to extend to political parties because the ANC is not just the heartbeat of modern South Africa, but apparently also its central marketplace.

Richard Calland writes a fortnightly column for the Mail & Guardian