
Elon Musk and the irony of calling black economic empowerment racist
Elon Musk, the world's wealthiest African-born man and, arguably, its most confident beneficiary of generational advantage, recently called South Africa's broad-based black economic empowerment (broad-based BEE) policy 'racist' — a sentiment increasingly echoed by some local South Africans who view redress through the distorted lens of personal grievance rather than historical responsibility.
It's a statement so steeped in irony that even the ghosts of apartheid must be laughing — if not weeping. That is, the architects of apartheid — men like Hendrik Verwoerd, BJ Vorster and PW Botha who designed a nation around racial exclusion, the systems they built that still shape land ownership, education and capital, and the moral stain they left on South Africa's collective conscience, might themselves find it darkly amusing that a billionaire born into their system now claims to be a victim of the modest policies intended to redress their legacy.
For context, broad-based BEE is a constitutional corrective measure aimed at broadening economic participation in a country where, until 1994, economic exclusion was state policy, not an unfortunate oversight. In contrast, apartheid's architecture was unapologetically and systematically racist: the Population Registration Act, Group Areas Act, Bantu Education Act and job reservation laws didn't merely discriminate; they surgically engineered white economic dominance. That dominance is precisely what broad-based BEE seeks to rebalance.
Musk's claim is not only historically tone deaf, it is philosophically disingenuous. To cry 'racism' in response to redress is to mistake rebalancing for reversal. And it reveals a more unsettling truth — when you've been standing on a platform your whole life, equality can feel like a step down.
One wonders whether Musk, who is never short on opinions or ambition, has ever considered the ancient logic of Aristotle or, more pointedly, whether he and others are inclined to understand it. Writing in
Nicomachean Ethics
, Aristotle argued that 'equals should be treated equally, and unequals unequally in proportion to their inequality'. In South Africa, we are not grappling with parity, but with the structural residue of engineered inequality. Redress, then, is not discrimination, it is moral logic.
Put simply, treating equals equally means giving everyone the same treatment when they are in the same position. But when people have been treated unequally for generations, justice requires a different approach — one that corrects the imbalance. That's why fairness doesn't always mean treating everyone the same, it means helping those who've been disadvantaged to reach the same starting line.
And what of those South Africans comfortably situated, well-educated and often beneficiaries of generational advantage who argue that 'it wasn't our generation' who created apartheid, so why should 'they' be burdened with its legacy? To them, the question must be returned — if you did not build the house, but you live in it, benefit from it and defend it against renovation, are you not still responsible for its condition?
Historical accountability is not about guilt, it is about participation in repair. Justice is not a backward-looking punishment, it is a forward-looking commitment to shared dignity — our collective dignity.
To be clear, the failure of broad-based BEE to deliver broad-based empowerment lies not in its intention, but in its execution. The ANC-led government bears responsibility for allowing elite capture, fronting and narrow enrichment to undermine what was meant to be a structural rebalancing. Instead of building inclusive economic capacity, it too often reinforced patronage networks.
But if the ANC eroded trust through dysfunction, the Democratic Alliance is deepening public suspicion by challenging the constitutionality of the broad-based BEE Act in court. Rather than proposing viable alternatives for redress, the party's actions risk signalling that any attempt to correct historical injustice is, by default, unjust to those who benefited from it.
Yet, in typical Musk fashion, his intervention in South African discourse lacks nuance and arrives via tweet. One moment, he decries broad-based BEE, the next, he tweets an old video of Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema, as if to say: '
S
ee? This is the real threat.' It's a lazy pivot, to be honest. Shifting the conversation from the facts of structural injustice to the spectacle of populist provocation.
Malema's often incendiary 'kill the boer' rhetoric is indeed unhelpful, especially in a country still healing from generational trauma. It risks reinforcing fear and feeding narratives that sidestep the real work of transformation. But, to conflate Malema's performance politics with the foundational purpose of broad-based BEE is to mistake smoke for fire. It's not justice Musk is afraid of, it's the rebalancing of power.
And all of this plays out while Starlink, Musk's satellite internet venture, is reportedly making renewed efforts to gain access to the South African market. But, instead of partnering with black-owned enterprises, as required under broad-based BEE regulations, the strategy seems to favour proxy arrangements and regulatory pressure.
It's the familiar formula — enter the economy, but avoid transformation. Musk's approach to broad-based BEE appears to mirror his business logic — reach the underserved, but on his terms, not the country's. The irony is staggering — decrying exclusion while resisting the very instruments designed to ensure inclusive access.
broad-based BEE does not criminalise whiteness. It does not confiscate. It does not exclude based on race, it includes based on disadvantage. It offers no favours, only a fairer footing in a race some were never allowed to enter.
To call that 'racist' is to eat at the table apartheid set for you and complain when someone else is finally offered a chair.
Yes, broad-based BEE is imperfect. Its implementation has suffered under the weight of bureaucracy, political opportunism and elite capture. But, its necessity remains unquestionable unless, of course, one believes that justice should come without cost or inconvenience to those who benefited from injustice.
Ultimately, this moment calls for a different kind of leadership; one that is not afraid of complexity, discomfort or delayed gratification. South Africa does not need leaders who weaponise redress for political capital, nor those who reduce structural injustice to soundbites.
We need leaders who are historically literate, morally grounded and publicly accountable. We need leaders who understand that economic transformation is not a populist slogan nor a corporate box-tick, but a long-term act of national repair. In the face of inherited inequality, true leadership demands not defensiveness but responsibility.
Elon Musk's wealth may well fund the future. But his view on broad-based BEE reminds us that history has a peculiar way of repeating itself, especially when the powerful feel discomforted by equality.
Justice in South Africa was never going to be comfortable. But if the price of transformation is that a few billionaires feel momentarily uneasy, it is a price well worth paying.
Dr Armand Bam is head of social impact at Stellenbosch Business School.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
Musk's SpaceX seeks exception to South Africa's black ownership rules
Elon Musk's SpaceX urged South Africa to consider an alternative to Black ownership rules for telecom companies that want to operate in Africa's largest economy. Image: File Elon Musk's SpaceX urged South Africa to consider an alternative to Black ownership rules for telecom companies that want to operate in Africa's largest economy. SpaceX asked the authorities to allow it to operate using an equity-equivalent program as an alternative to the existing requirement that Black people have 30% ownership of businesses operating in the ICT sector, the company said in a letter to the government seen by Bloomberg. It wants such programs to be a standard for the industry, according to the submission. 'Equity equivalent investment programs will provide much-needed regulatory certainty and foster investment in infrastructure,' SpaceX said. 'Uniform empowerment regulation will motivate both current and prospective operators to expand their business activities and network reach.' South Africa's Department of Communications and Digital Technologies has asked the industry regulator to provide an alternative that would allow telecom companies to invest in projects such as infrastructure, local businesses, digital inclusion initiatives or research. This type of exemption is already standard for a number of industries. The proposal is similar to a deal offered to carmakers in 2019. Car manufacturers - including BMW AG, Ford Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Corp. - established a fund that would bring disenfranchised groups into the sector. Starlink has pledged to give 5 000 rural schools free service and provide 2.4 million students high-speed Internet at no cost as an alternative to Black ownership. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading 'Starlink is not seeking any type of special treatment, as these changes would apply to all current and future potential operators,' it said on the Starlink South Africa website. The Department of Communications and Digital Technologies and SpaceX didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. News24, a Cape Town-based news website, reported on the letter earlier. South Africa introduced Black economic empowerment rules after the end of apartheid, an era in which Black people were subjugated and excluded from the formal economy by the ruling White minority. Musk - who was born in Pretoria, South Africa's capital - has persistently criticized the laws, calling them 'openly racist.' Starlink's technology, which relies on a constellation of low-Earth orbit satellites, would be a potential game-changer for South African users who've historically faced expensive or unreliable Internet options. Only 1.7% of rural households have access to the Internet, according to a 2023 survey compiled by the nation's statistics agency. South Africa's National Development Plan is targeting easy access to affordable broadband for 100% of the population by 2030. BLOOMBERG

The Herald
4 hours ago
- The Herald
Municipal elections in 2026 won't change status quo
After the pageantry of the 2026 elections, the winning parties will again promise to hit the ground running. Promises will be made of repairing roads, electrifying the townships, regular water and sanitation provision, housing closer to places of work, attention to the refuse-stricken dormitory townships of the poor and eliminating the endemic corruption that characterises most if not all municipalities in our cities, towns and villages around the country. Writing in April 1994, Phyllis Ntantala-Jordan, mother of Pallo Jordan asked: 'Did the ANC betray SA?' Her answer was an unequivocal 'No'. However, she explained: there is a revolutionary dictum that states: 'No class ever betrays its own interests. What we have is a classical deal: the Afrikaner bourgeoisie ditching the white working class, and the ANC dropping all pretence of ever having represented the black working class and peasantry.' The abolition of racial discrimination in our legislation after 1994 did little or nothing to change the material conditions of the working poor of this country. This should not be surprising, given that race and capitalism have always gone hand-in-glove, and that the 1994 settlement was all about securing the future of capitalism, not about eliminating poverty, not about the jobless situation in our country, and certainly not about equality and justice for all. SA's seventh local council elections are set to take place in 2026. Several paradoxes present themselves. Principal among these are; democracy, as it is known, has failed the working class masses. Finances, rather than the will of the people, control the balance of power. (He who pays the piper calls the tune). The trade union movement largely allied to the ruling party share the ideals and objectives of the party. Many reasons have been advanced for the working class seemingly legitimising elections from 1994 onwards. These include the mass of the people treasuring the 'franchise' as a hard-won right in the victory over apartheid. However, what we have in SA is a qualified franchise. The demand by the libratory organisations was for the full franchise — this encompasses the right to vote, that there be a resolution of the national question, that discrimination and inequality in all respects be eradicated, that there be a resolution of the land question, among all other rights. However, it appears that many of the workers are now realising that their dreams of Uhuru are not being met, and less of the working masses are participating in the elections. In fact, the government of national unity (GNU) is a product of the lack of interest in the electoral process; 27.8 million citizens of a possible 42 million registered for the 2024 elections. Of that total, only 16.3 million voted. This constitutes about 38.8% of the population. A huge 26 million citizens did not participate in the elections. The parties comprising the GNU will be pulling out all stops to get voters, and especially the youth, to the polls in the 2026 local elections. Voters will be inveigled to give the ANC one last chance to give effect to their slogan of 'a better life for all' and then declare to the voting public that only the ANC is capable of running the country. The DA will be on their hoary tale of 'rescuing' SA. The smaller parties, mostly nationalist and tribalists (not that the ANC and DA are not), are merely appendages giving credence to the lie that we are living in a democracy. Further to this, the tribalists are retreating into the unreservedly racist parties where they are cowering in their funk holes, where they feel comfortable. The 'new' SA still has vestiges of the colonial days of divide and rule. There has been a vigorous and sustained revival of the outdated system of tribalism and chieftainship — this is encapsulated in the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act that legalises tribalism as part of the of the country's constitutional democracy. With youth unemployment reaching unprecedented heights, violence towards women and children reaching epidemic proportions, allegations of corruption in the judiciary, service delivery at an all-time low, ill-equipped municipal and national governance, there's every likelihood it will be no different to the 2016 and 2021 municipal elections. Spatial apartheid has not been touched. Cities and towns including the dorpies of the Karoo remain largely segregated, with whites, staying closer to the CBD and places of work, while the oppressed still live in the tin towns scattered around the country in townships far from places of work, educational and health facilities. Taxis from KwaNobuhle to the CBD in Kariega cost between R15 and R25, and from Rosedale to the CBD could cost about R47, one way. From New Brighton to the CBD in Gqeberha costs anything between R95 and R118. From some of the areas in these townships two or more taxis have to be taken to get to the required destination. All this is a legacy of the apartheid policy of the Group Areas Act — euphemistically now called zonal planning. Getting to places of work, there and back, can cost as much as two hours or more per day. With a minimum wage of R28.79 per hour, a huge chunk of wages goes on transport. This leaves the poor just where they were before being 'liberated'. The total liberation of the oppressed was never on the cards at Codesa, not in parliament, not in the economy and not even in the much-vaunted SA constitution. The flag changed but the land, the banks and vaults remained in the same hands. There was a carefully stage-managed handover of the reins of political power but all systems remained in place. All those that participated in the talks at Codesa are guilty of conspiring to deceive the masses into believing that by merely giving them the vote, they would be free. The problem with SA is that its democracy promotes passivity among the electorate. It is specifically so designed. It is an indirect form of government, in terms of which the masses are not required to engage in self-government, but in a representative form of government. Voters have to choose any one of the 70 (according to the 2024 provincial and national elections) registered political parties and the parties choose the candidates who will represent 'us', the people. (However, individual citizens may also stand as candidates in the elections as councillors.) The elected candidates in well-paid, comfortable jobs are then accountable to the parties (actually their employers) and not to the people of the country. How can this be the will of the people or more bluntly, how can this be democratic? At present, the representatives pay lip service to carry out the mandates of their constituencies and just act in the best interest of their parties, even if they purport to consult their constituencies. Recent elections (well-meaning though some of the candidates may be) show that parties are littered with candidates that are there just for the money. As the political pantomime will display after the announcement of the elections, those elected board the train of deception with the destination of renewal and a 'better life for all' or rescuing SA, and the masses will only then realise the unfulfilled promises of those in power. In Gqeberha, potholes are being filled with blobs of tar as a show of doing something as part of service delivery in preparation for the upcoming elections. Potholes will temporarily disappear only to become gaping holes after the first rains. It has become dangerous to drive at night, what with potholes, tar peeling from the roads and dark (unlit) streets (apparently, no replacement bulbs are available). Attempts at the provision of water to every household will be made but real change will elude the poor and vulnerable. In Nelson Mandela Bay municipality, estimates suggest that between 42% and 48% of the city's potable water is lost due to leaks and ageing infrastructure. Constant fires, sweltering heat in the tin towns dotted around the country and regular floods will always be the bane of the poor. No proper and planned housing will be provided, the shantytowns, the degradation of township life, gangsterism and drug-induced psychosis in our communities will continue to be the order of the day. In the meantime, councillors (the politicians) will be creaming off millions in salaries and benefits, including travel allowances, pension contributions, and even housing and vehicle allowances. For the oppressed people, participation in these elections will amount to a great leap backward, as did the 1994 national elections. It is the system of capitalism-imperialism that is the root cause of all our ills. In conclusion, Ntantala-Jordan had this to say: 'The agreement cobbled by the SA regime and the ANC at Kempton Park is one of the biggest frauds that was ever sold to a people. 'It was agreed to give the reins of power to the ANC on condition that ... the economic structure was left intact. 'This meant that besides the conglomerates that own the wealth of SA, the 11% of South Africans would still control 80% of the economy.' What the marginalised need is a mass-organised and independent grassroots movement that challenges the status quo, and initiates a shift towards genuine peoples' power. The municipal elections in 2026 will not bring about such transformation. Hammy Peterson is a former school principal and avid The Herald reader and letter writer The Herald


Mail & Guardian
5 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Just whose dialogue is it? South Africa's ‘citizen-led' convention fails its own test
Graphic: John McCann/M&G President Cyril Ramaphosa opened the National Dialogue at Unisa this past weekend with the promise that it belongs to 'all South Africans', asserting that 'no voice is too small and no perspective too inconvenient to be heard'. The convention, held under the banner ' Uniting Voices, Shaping the Nation ,' brought together more than 1000 delegates from about 200 organisations. But beneath this image of inclusivity lies a difficult truth: this process is not citizen-led in practice, and its planning, structure and execution reflect a top-down, state-managed initiative that is more performative than participatory. While the idea of a nationwide dialogue is commendable — especially given the deep crises South Africa faces — the launch at Unisa revealed a disconnect between the democratic ideals being invoked and the opaque mechanisms underpinning the process. The From the onset, the process has been coordinated by an inter-ministerial committee and an eminent persons group, none of whom were publicly nominated or confirmed through open civil processes. Even the composition of the steering committee, a supposedly 'broad-based' body mandated to guide the next phases of the dialogue, was not informed by transparent consultations. Instead, it was deliberated during invitation-only sectoral sessions at the end of the first convention. If this was a citizen-led process, what participatory frameworks were employed? What tools were used to ensure representation of South Africa's demographic and geographic diversity? Where are the independent observers or facilitators to verify this dialogue's legitimacy? One cannot call a process people-centred while bypassing the people in its design. Much of the framing mimics the rhetoric of grassroots mobilisation, with the dialogue promising thousands of ward-level conversations and submissions through a Despite a price tag of The dialogue takes place in a fractured political moment. The What many participants and observers have noted — both in If this is truly a moment for a national reset, then the dialogue must demonstrate it is capable of redistributing power, not only opinion. That means embracing independent community facilitation, co-creating metrics for inclusion, publishing detailed minutes of all sessions and allowing citizens — not technocrats — to define what matters. The old frameworks of centralised planning, symbolic inclusion and post-hoc validation cannot fix a democracy that is haemorrhaging trust. This convention should have begun with a presentation on the methodology used to select voices in the room, the feedback loops planned for tracking citizen input and the criteria for inclusion at every level of the process. Instead, we got speeches about shared futures from the same actors who dominated the past. Even the public-facing narrative implies the dialogue will culminate in another 'people's compact', but there is little detail on how it will be validated by the people themselves. If speech without substance is just noise, then consultation without transparency is political theatre. South Africa deserves better. The dialogue can still live up to its potential — but only if it turns away from state-orchestrated mobilisation and toward genuine democratic renewal. Otherwise, the phrase 'citizen-led' becomes just another slogan. And we've heard enough of those. To avoid this, the next phase must reframe how legitimacy is built — from process to participation. Rather than defending the structures already put in place, the government must now invite an independent, community-led audit of the convention's first phase. Facilitators for future sessions should be chosen from grassroots civic organisations with no ties to the state. Each provincial leg of the dialogue must publish weekly updates on whose voices are being included, how inputs are being tracked and what's being left behind. This is the only way to demonstrate that this is not another elite negotiation exercise in disguise, but a sincere attempt to devolve democratic power to the very citizens whose future is at stake. Anything less, and we will have squandered an opportunity under the banner of progress. Dr Lesedi Senamele Matlala is a governance scholar and lecturer at the School of Public Management Governance and Public Policy, University of Johannesburg, focusing on public policy, citizen engagement and evaluation.