19 Nov 2007: ISS Today: The State of Democracy in South Africa

19 November 2007: The State of Democracy in South Africa

 

One wonders if the current interest in the debate around South African domestic politics will wane after the much-awaited Polokwane conference of 16 December.  Within and outside the African National Congress (ANC) there has been intense debate and some very serious issues have been raised. It seems that every day there is a new story which in some way is linked to the succession debacle, adding confusion to an already divided public. It seems that all is not well within the ruling regime.

 

Last week saw the launch in South Africa of former ANC MP Andrew Feinstein’s book, After the Party — A Personal and Political Journey inside the ANC. Feinstein describes corruption, partisanship, factionalism and a general deterioration of the institutions of democracy due to interference by the executive into the arms deal investigations. Another interesting story to grace the headlines last week related to allegations by Muziwendoda Kunene that he is being targeted for assassination by the ruling party, allegedly because of potentially damaging information that he uncovered during his time at the National Intelligence Agency (NIA). Kunene insists that he was removed from the NIA because he had explosive information regarding high-level bribery relating to the arms deal as well as corruption within the police service. According to 702 Eyewitness News on 14 November 2007, Kunene, (who allegedly created the fake e-mails that outlined a political conspiracy to oust Jacob Zuma) Kgalema Montlanthe and Billy Masetlha have been targeted for assassination by certain powerful elements within the ANC.

 

So where does this leave us? First there is an ex-ANC high-level insider who spills all regarding corruption and the arms deal, and details payments between suppliers and well-placed ANC comrades and alleges a cover-up by the executive. Then there is Kunene who says he knows potentially damaging information but will not reveal the details for fear of being killed. The ruling party has rejected both sources for various reasons and denies that there is any substance to either man’s claims.

 

The acclaimed sociologist Max Weber once noted that excessive secrecy undermines democracy. However, secrecy can never be entirely eliminated because every state has the responsibility to safeguard certain information. Nonetheless, if left unchecked secrecy can become an instrument of deception in the hands of crafty politicians, who will use it to play domestic political games with domestic adversaries. Besides the use of secrecy to wage battles for domestic political power, excessive secrecy is damaging to the vibrancy and very fabric of democracy. The greatest strength of democracy is its ability to subject political ideas and plans to the test of the marketplace of ideas where the weak will falter and fail and only the most able will succeed.

 

Should the same democratic principle not be applied to the range of scandals and allegation regarding corruption in the police services, amongst the ANC ranks, and in the arms deal? Should not all the information be laid out in the open, subject to public debate and held to account before the formal mechanisms of the democratic state? Or is it naïve to assume that a young democracy like South Africa can overcome such challenges, which have also haunted the halls of other mature democracies like the United Kingdom?

 

Regardless of the many inconsistencies in Kunene’s version of the attempted assassination in Pretoria, one should surely wonder as to the content of the information that he allegedly has and what will become of it. According to Kunene, he desires to be responsible and take the good of the country into consideration before revealing details of the information in his possession. He alleges that the information relates to bribery, corruption, the arms deal, state accounts and money being moved out of the country and used for personal gain.   If this information actually exists, surely it is for the good of the country that such information comes to light?

 

A further concern is that NIA is, according to the 1994 White Paper on Intelligence, charged with the duty to assist in securing good governance, through the provision of honest, critical intelligence that highlights the weaknesses and errors of government. If Kunene obtained information regarding misuse of state resources and the abuse of position and power while working at NIA, what has NIA done with that information?

 

It seems that there are more questions than answers in this whole debacle. Alarm bells ring when secrecy begins to dominate in areas that should be open to public debate and interrogation. The efficacy of the oversight mechanisms that are in place are dependent on reliable and accurate information and independence to function. Without these two very important elements, the democratic principles of accountability and transparency become empty values and the democratic order is reduced to merely paying lip service to democracy via the ballot box.

 

Lauren Hutton, Researcher: Defence Sector Programme, ISS Tshwane (Pretoria)