Electing for Change: Corruption, polls and the need for greater accountability

South Africans are appalled by the corruption allegations emerging from the Zondo Commission of Inquiry into State Capture. Bosasa’s alleged systematic and widespread corrupt conduct only adds salt to our Gupta- and Nkandla-inflicted wounds, and the long-untreated wounds arising from the Shaik-related corruption charges against Jacob Zuma and the arms deal cover-up.

Our collective faith in our Constitution and its Bill of Rights and in our democratic system has been shaken, as has our fragile trust in our public representatives and public servants. This is giving space to mutual suspicion and extremists on all sides who exploit the racial and class divides that are compounded by corruption.

Taxpayers legitimately complain of the waste, misappropriation and blatant theft of their hard-earned contributions to what was supposed to be a national effort to lift our new nation out of the depths of inequality, poverty and unequal opportunity inherited from apartheid.

The voices of our fellow citizens who continue to live in poverty, languishing on the margins of society and of our limping economy should be heard even more clearly. Far too many have had their futures stolen from them.

The African National Congress has sought to distance itself from those of its members, deployees and representatives who are being named at the commission. The party’s spokespersons have said that, should they appear there to defend themselves against the allegations, they do so in their personal capacity, and that the inquiry and any legal proceedings including prosecutions should be allowed to run their course.

More recently, the party has appealed to potential candidates who have been placed under a cloud by corruption allegations to voluntarily withdraw their availability for the party’s election lists. This attempt to wash the party’s hands of responsibility is unacceptable and should be strongly resisted.

Available accountability mechanisms

The ruling party has led the way to put in place numerous other mechanisms and institutions to hold its members and representatives accountable for alleged unethical conduct. These mechanisms can be activated and used before any finding by a court of law of any breach of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act.

Activating the party’s own internal disciplinary mechanisms might well lift the lid on carefully managed internal factionalism and is likely to be avoided for fear of exacerbating divisions. However, its public representatives can be called to account through other mechanisms.

One example is through investigations by Parliament’s members’ ethics committee. The alleged non-disclosure by members of Parliament of “gifts” and any resulting conflicts of interest should be investigated as a matter of great urgency, using evidence made available through the inquiry and elsewhere.

This should be followed by an urgent review of the clear inadequacy of the existing parliamentary ethics framework that requires annual and transactional disclosure and active avoidance of conflicts of interest.

Evidently, disclosures need to be scrutinised for accuracy and completeness. We are reminded of one of Cyril Ramaphosa’s early promises upon becoming President in February 2018 — the introduction of a lifestyle audit framework applicable to all Cabinet members and senior public servants by October 2018.

Unfortunately, nothing further has been heard of this welcome new anti-corruption measure, not even in his latest State of the Nation Address in which the president dealt extensively with anti-corruption commitments and announced the election date of 8 May.

Similar considerations apply to members of Cabinet in terms of the Executive Members’ Ethics Act and Code of Conduct. In terms of its constitutional and legislative mandate, the Public Protector is empowered to undertake own-initiative investigations into Cabinet members and public servants on the basis of a mere suspicion of misconduct.

There are far stronger grounds for urgent investigations by the Public Protector in the evidence given under oath to the Zondo inquiry by Angelo Agrizzi and other Bosasa employees (past and present), and corroborated by a detailed forensic report by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU). The allegations of substantial unlawful and probably undeclared payments to various individuals may also be of interest to the South African Revenue Service (SARS).

Electoral implications

If these basic steps are not taken urgently, South African voters could be offered party electoral lists that include the names of individuals under a serious cloud of alleged ethics breaches or criminal conduct, but protected by the misleading façade of “innocent until proven guilty by a court of law”. Commendably, the ruling party’s criteria for inclusion in its electoral list of candidates include that they should have “no history of ill-discipline or corruption” and “must enhance the integrity of the ANC”.

Its 2019 general election manifesto promises to “safeguard… the integrity of the state and ethical leadership”. All public institutions — Parliament, Public Protector and SARS — should be called into action now to investigate and winnow out compromised potential candidates. Public trust in the integrity of our electoral options and our new national and provincial parliaments and cabinets is at stake.

The public’s appeal for change

From a public agenda perspective, now is certainly the time for such actions to be given serious attention. Based on trend data from the Human Sciences Research Council’s South African Social Attitudes Survey, it is evident that public concern with corruption in society has grown appreciably over the past 15 years.

In late 2003, only 9% of the adult population cited corruption as a pressing challenge facing the country. This figure rose to 18% in 2009, 24% in 2014 and stood at 30% by the end of 2017. This means that over the 2003-2017 period, corruption moved from being the eighth-ranked societal concern among South Africans to the third-highest-ranked concern (after unemployment, and crime and safety).

Corruption perceptions in comparative perspective

Transparency International recently published its 2018 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). South Africa ranked in position 73 (out of 180 countries surveyed) with a score of 43 out of 100. The country had the same score in 2017. Any score below 50 reflects a tendency towards the “highly corrupt” end of the scale.

In this context, South Africa’s current score of 43 indicates that we continue to be classified as a deeply flawed democracy rather than a country where there have been progressive gains in consolidating open democracy. Evidence before the Zondo commission has made it clear, if we needed reminding, that cleaning up public sector corruption requires that equivalent energy be devoted to pursuing private sector corruptors.

President Ramaphosa has said this should be the last time that South Africa ranks so low. During his recent official visit to India, he said that we are in the process of cleansing our country and our institutions.

During his State of the Nation Address, Ramaphosa took a strong anti-corruption stance, promising to establish a special unit within the NPA to deal with priority prosecutions arising from the Zondo commission and other commissions of inquiry. While these are welcome promises, prompt and meaningful action is necessary if voter concerns are to be respected in the upcoming general elections. DM

Gary Pienaar is an admitted advocate and research manager in the Human Sciences Research Council’s Democracy, Governance and Service Delivery research programme.

Dr Ben Roberts is a chief research specialist in the Human Sciences Research Council’s Democracy, Governance and Service Delivery research programme, and leads the HSRC’s South African Social Attitudes (SASAS) project.