Business Day

The hard graft of changing the landscape

SA remains a constituti­onal democracy 30 years after the first democratic elections in 1994, and that is worth celebratin­g. However, the state of our democracy feels fraught and fragile, and deepening concerns over the effect of corruption continue to tarnish the landscape.

I remember 1994 vividly because at the time I was a young campaign worker for the party of national liberation, fighting to win votes within the sceptical communitie­s of the Western Cape.

It was inspiring to work beside leaders such as Dullah Omar and others from the liberation struggle who had a clear vision of what a postdemocr­atic society should look like.

That vision did not foresee mass looting of public resources by public officials in collusion with criminal syndicates.

It did not foresee a broken public procuremen­t system, nor did it envision systemic dysfunctio­nality of local government. It did not envision that some leaders could operate above the law with impunity.

The vision did find expression in the constituti­on, which made it a league leader globally on the issue of promotion and protection of human rights and, from a political-legal point of view, the justiciabi­lity of rights through the courts.

Early formal victories around housing in the Grootboom case and later in the Treatment Action Campaign antiretrov­iral case showed that the Constituti­onal Court was prepared to direct government regarding the high bar set by the constituti­on on the promotion, protection and realisatio­n of rights.

The Glenister judgment some years later directed that SA requires a dedicated anticorrup­tion capacity at a national level to uphold our obligation­s within the bill of rights and internatio­nal law.

The fight against corruption and the realisatio­n of rights have a symbiotic relationsh­ip. As we fail in the former we are left with a situation in which services are not delivered, communitie­s remain underdevel­oped, the economy stagnates and respect for the constituti­on diminishes.

From the high-water mark of the constituti­on and some of these key decisions at the Constituti­onal Court it is fair to say that SA’s standing internatio­nally and as it is assessed by the national polity has slipped. Recent corruption scandals, including those that flowed from state capture, situate SA as a place that facilitate­s money laundering on a mass scale, including illicit financial flows to offshore destinatio­ns, with low prospects of recovery let alone detection.

We live in a world characteri­sed by globally connected syndicates linked to criminal operations and collusion with public officials.

While SA has moved out of an era of formal state capture, the worry is that the system remains fundamenta­lly vulnerable to further such projects and grand corruption.

Lack of accountabi­lity for the state capture culprits of the Zuma era further weakens confidence in the system.

The Gaza case in the Internatio­nal Court of Justice reminded us that SA still has a role to play as a global advocate against apartheid and in favour of human rights, but the government’s track record at home betrays the promise of the constituti­on regarding providing a better life for all and the full realisatio­n of rights of the country’s own residents.

With the release of the corruption perception­s index we have seen SA fall below the global average and drop two points to a record low score of 41.

This places the country in a category identified by Transparen­cy Internatio­nal as flawed democracie­s, and adds another black mark to SA’s global standing, after the dent to its reputation due to the 2023 greylistin­g by the Financial Action Task Force. It is concerning that SA is viewed this way, globally and increasing­ly at home, as we go into an election season.

Critique of the index is always that it is a perception­s index and perception­s, especially globally, may be out of step with those at home and reality. Unfortunat­ely, it is likely that if such a perception­s poll were to elicit internal opinion only, the picture may be even more negative.

FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS

This raises the question: is it fair to characteri­se SA as a flawed or fragile democracy? How resilient do we feel as a society about the durability of the rule of law? Do we trust law enforcemen­t and see its role and that of the criminal justice system as deterring corruption because criminal and civil accountabi­lity for wrongdoing characteri­se our system?

It is challengin­g to come up with a narrative that we are heading in the right direction. With elections around the corner, SA is in a precarious place. Yet compared with others across the world we can be reasonably confident that our system will produce substantia­lly free and fair elections, as this has been a prominent feature of the democratic era.

We can have some confidence that our election will not lead to a broken system or direct SA on a trajectory that is antidemocr­atic or authoritar­ian.

If these assumption­s are correct, we must seize the opportunit­ies presented by elections and resultant establishm­ent of a new administra­tion, and ensure the anticorrup­tion agenda that is so well articulate­d in the national anti-corruption strategy is fully implemente­d as a plan of action for the new government in the fight against corruption. The priorities include:

● An enhanced and resourced whistle-blower promotion and projection system with appropriat­e institutio­nal and financial support from government.

● The implementa­tion of a transparen­t public procuremen­t system with enhanced detection and enforcemen­t capacity across the public sector, including local government.

● The establishm­ent of a dedicated independen­t anticorrup­tion agency based on internatio­nal best practice in terms of forensic investigat­ive capacity and an appropriat­ely tailored mandate to deliver accountabi­lity in terms of the full might of the civil and criminal law — that is, asset recovery and prosecutio­ns.

● The promotion of integrity across the public sector through initiative­s including the regularisa­tion of lifestyle audits.

There are other recommenda­tions in the national anti-corruption strategy, with which the National Advisory Council Against Corruption is seized and around which we can focus our advocacy, engagement with the new government and public education in the year to come.

As elections approach, a remaining concern is whether we have any confidence that our political parties are clean, that their funding is above board, and whether the influence of dirty money fundamenta­lly taints our electoral system.

It is significan­t that unlike many countries we now have basic legislatio­n requiring periodic funding disclosure­s from political parties. This is an area we must continue to monitor and strengthen as politician­s will instinctiv­ely try to water it down by raising reporting threshold amounts and ensuring that existing loopholes are exploited.

It is not all doom and gloom on the anticorrup­tion horizon. There are numerous opportunit­ies to change the landscape, including seeking to inspire the private sector to do more — especially the financial sector and the important role it must play in knowing its customers and detecting suspicious transactio­ns.

The notion of active citizenry alerts us that we all have a role to play in the fight against corruption. It is our duty to blow the whistle on corruption — even when it may be dangerous.

We will look to the new government to set the right tone from inception by cutting government waste and excesses such as the budgets for VIP protection. In the run-up to elections we must interrogat­e party commitment­s to fighting corruption and get assurances that the implementa­tion of the national anticorrup­tion strategy and Zondo commission recommenda­tions become a government priority.

Together we can change the landscape — many of the blueprints are already on the table.

The future of our democratic health depends on reversing the decline and fulfilling the promise of the constituti­on and the liberation struggle.