Is the notion of state capture a distraction from a bigger problem?
by Sipho Masombuka,
2016-03-23 14:38:57.0
STATE capture has become a buzz phrase since the testimonies of senior ruling party members about their attempted co-option by the controversial Gupta family‚ acquainted with President Jacob Zuma.
To chew over what state capture means‚ the Tshwane University of Technology (TUT) on Wednesday brought politicians and analysts together.
What is state capture?
Associate professor in public management at TUT‚ Lucky Mathebula‚ said the business definition of state capture was "actions of individuals‚ groups or firms to influence laws‚ regulations and government policies to their own advantages a result of illicit and provision of private benefits to officials".
But he juxtaposed this definition with a concept of lobbying‚ which he said was the act of influencing public and government policy at all levels.
Is it a myth or reality?
The University of Johannesburg’s deputy vice-chancellor‚ executive management‚ Prof Tinyiko Maluleke‚ said he was not excited by the notion of state capture‚ but was concerned with corruption in the broader sense.
The narrative of state capture was a distraction, he said, likening it to chasing "a rabbit which might not exist"‚ since state capture did not occur formally.
"State capture is insidious‚ it happens informally. It may take a long time until we all share the same kind of understanding. The policeman does not need to say, ‘Give me some money.’ He just needs to say‚ ‘You know (what to do).’ So the idea that two or three people will come and capture the state one day is a useless one. I am more interested in the development of a culture into which we all buy."
He said this was the culture that disabled and immobilised the state.
Ronald Lamola‚ former African National Congress Youth League deputy president‚ said the South Africans electorate was not in the driver’s seat of national decisions and national discourse.
He said this role should not be left "to a few kleptocratic individuals"‚ a situation where unelected people influenced employment of ministers.
"A few elites can ... direct and control the state. It is a serious subversion of democracy. I think that is what we are dealing with as a country today‚ and that is not in the interest of the majority in this country who are continuously voting…. Why do we need elections if (it means) there will be a family that is deciding for us?"
Former Economic Freedom Fighters MP Andile Mngxitama‚ who now leads Black First Land First‚ said state capture in the Zuma administration did not begin with the Gupta family‚ adding that the furore directed at the Gupta family was driven by white monopoly capital that saw the family as a threat to their stranglehold on the South African economy.
"White capital is worried about the Guptas because they are moving into the mining sector in particular. They organise some rogue elements in the political system‚ make them chase the Gupta family (away) so that they are out of competition so that white capital maintains its capture of the economy and the state."
Mr Mngxitama said white monopoly capital was firing and hiring ministers‚ not the Guptas.
He said when Mr Zuma fired former finance minister Nhlanhla Nene and hired the little known Des van Rooyen in December‚ it was the Rupert family‚ as well as bankers‚ that ordered the ANC to replace Mr van Rooyen with Pravin Gordhan to recapture the economy.
"Yes there is state capture‚ but it is by white monopoly capital. Not the Guptas‚ the Guptas are contesting‚" he said.
The Times
From left: Ajay Gupta younger brother Atul Gupta and Oakbay MD Jagdish Parekh and Duduzane Zuma , who is a son of the president. Picture: MARTIN RHODES
STATE capture has become a buzz phrase since the testimonies of senior ruling party members about their attempted co-option by the controversial Gupta family‚ acquainted with President Jacob Zuma.
To chew over what state capture means‚ the Tshwane University of Technology (TUT) on Wednesday brought politicians and analysts together.
What is state capture?
Associate professor in public management at TUT‚ Lucky Mathebula‚ said the business definition of state capture was "actions of individuals‚ groups or firms to influence laws‚ regulations and government policies to their own advantages a result of illicit and provision of private benefits to officials".
But he juxtaposed this definition with a concept of lobbying‚ which he said was the act of influencing public and government policy at all levels.
Is it a myth or reality?
The University of Johannesburg’s deputy vice-chancellor‚ executive management‚ Prof Tinyiko Maluleke‚ said he was not excited by the notion of state capture‚ but was concerned with corruption in the broader sense.
The narrative of state capture was a distraction, he said, likening it to chasing "a rabbit which might not exist"‚ since state capture did not occur formally.
"State capture is insidious‚ it happens informally. It may take a long time until we all share the same kind of understanding. The policeman does not need to say, ‘Give me some money.’ He just needs to say‚ ‘You know (what to do).’ So the idea that two or three people will come and capture the state one day is a useless one. I am more interested in the development of a culture into which we all buy."
He said this was the culture that disabled and immobilised the state.
Ronald Lamola‚ former African National Congress Youth League deputy president‚ said the South Africans electorate was not in the driver’s seat of national decisions and national discourse.
He said this role should not be left "to a few kleptocratic individuals"‚ a situation where unelected people influenced employment of ministers.
"A few elites can ... direct and control the state. It is a serious subversion of democracy. I think that is what we are dealing with as a country today‚ and that is not in the interest of the majority in this country who are continuously voting…. Why do we need elections if (it means) there will be a family that is deciding for us?"
Former Economic Freedom Fighters MP Andile Mngxitama‚ who now leads Black First Land First‚ said state capture in the Zuma administration did not begin with the Gupta family‚ adding that the furore directed at the Gupta family was driven by white monopoly capital that saw the family as a threat to their stranglehold on the South African economy.
"White capital is worried about the Guptas because they are moving into the mining sector in particular. They organise some rogue elements in the political system‚ make them chase the Gupta family (away) so that they are out of competition so that white capital maintains its capture of the economy and the state."
Mr Mngxitama said white monopoly capital was firing and hiring ministers‚ not the Guptas.
He said when Mr Zuma fired former finance minister Nhlanhla Nene and hired the little known Des van Rooyen in December‚ it was the Rupert family‚ as well as bankers‚ that ordered the ANC to replace Mr van Rooyen with Pravin Gordhan to recapture the economy.
"Yes there is state capture‚ but it is by white monopoly capital. Not the Guptas‚ the Guptas are contesting‚" he said.
The Times
Change: -0.47%
Change: -0.57%
Change: -1.76%
Change: -0.34%
Change: 0.02%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: -1.49%
Change: 0.08%
Change: -0.47%
Change: 0.00%
Change: -0.04%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: -0.34%
Change: 0.03%
Change: -0.10%
Change: -0.22%
Change: -0.69%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: -0.28%
Change: -1.15%
Change: -0.07%
Change: -1.21%
Change: -0.22%
Data supplied by Profile Data