Latest news with #Ramaphosa
IOL News
7 hours ago
- Politics
- IOL News
What did the Trump-Ramaphosa meeting tell us about the image of SA and its leaders?
A video is played as US President Donald Trump meets with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington last Wednesday. The meeting was amid tensions over Washington's resettlement of white Afrikaners that the US president claims are the victims of "genocide." Trump criticised EFF leader Julius Malema and the "Kill the Boer" chant, citing it as evidence of targeted violence against white Afrikaner farmers. Image: Jim WATSON / AFP THE much-anticipated meeting between our President Cyril Ramaphosa and his counterpart in the United States, President Donald Trump, lived up to expectations, with the latter turning up the heat on his guests. By the admission of our delegation, South Africa is a very dangerous place because of rampant crime and lawlessness. While the jury is still out as to whether Ramaphosa succeeded in his attempts to reset the strained bilateral relations, what is clear is that the meeting gave the international community the impression that South African leaders are failing in their constitutional duty to protect citizens and govern the country. The result is that our pride as a beacon of hope in Africa is now hurt. The South African government came across as inept and lacking the political will to deal decisively with the scourge of violent crime, mass unemployment, and racial intolerance, to name a few crises. 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 We are not yet privy to what was discussed behind closed doors and the deals that were made. What will be remembered about the meeting is Trump's wild and unsubstantiated claims of genocide suffered by Afrikaners and his display of brute power over Ramaphosa in front of the cameras. One could easily tell that Ramaphosa, like Ukraine's Zelensky went to the White House with a begging bowl. Unlike Zelensky, though, Ramaphosa went out of his way to massage the errant Trump's ego and thus came across as submissive; suffice it to say that some people would argue that he was being diplomatic. However, the big takeaway and the elephant in the room has got to be the painful admission from the South African delegation of the government's helplessness in the fight against rampant crime. This helplessness was in full display in 2021 during the looting spree after former President Zuma was arrested. To date, not even a single mastermind behind the 2021 riots has been successfully prosecuted. Similarly, those fingered by the Zondo Commission of Inquiry have not been prosecuted, suggesting that there's no political will to deal decisively with corruption and wrongdoing. This raises the question: what does this tell us about the image of South Africa and its leaders? The image of South Africa that Trump portrayed and that the delegation conceded to was of a lawless country whose government cannot protect its citizens from violent crime. In recent years, more and more South Africans are living in fear of political assassinations, hijackings, extortionists, burglars, armed robbers, kidnappers, and taxi violence. What exacerbates South Africa's problems are its porous borders and corrupt officials managing the borders. Lawlessness and the lack of political will to combat crime in South Africa are attracting criminals across the continent and from abroad to come and operate in the country with impunity. Crime in South Africa permeates every aspect of life, and it undermines good governance, efficient economic management, public safety, social order, and compliance with the law. The result is that South Africa is increasingly becoming an unattractive destination for foreign direct investment and international tourists. No wonder our domestic economy is struggling to grow and create much-needed jobs. What this means is that the problems of high unemployment and poverty are not going away soon, and crime is likely to continue. While Trump might not have succeeded in proving the genocide case, he appeared to succeed in making the South African delegation concede that crime, across the board, is out of control and the government is failing in its constitutional duty to protect its citizens. South Africa's businessman, Johann Rupert, was at pains explaining to Trump that 'crime affects everyone' and that South Africa needs America's 'help to stop this awful killing….' Interestingly, Rupert made the point that South Africa needs to fix its wobbly economy to end what he labels the culture of 'dependency and lawlessness.' The portrayal of South Africa as a country that cannot fix its problems does not bode well for its aspirations as a regional leader in Africa. South Africa styles and markets itself as a 'bridge' and a getaway into the African continent. Its membership of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and the G20 makes South Africa see itself as a spokesperson for and leader of Africa. This begs the question: Is South Africa fit and fully equipped to be a regional leader if its government cannot provide domestic leadership? The idea that economic problems, such as high unemployment among the youth and poverty, are to blame for intolerable levels of crime is not convincing. There are many poorer countries in Africa without high levels of crime. The difference is that there are consequences for breaking the law in many African states. In countries such as Uganda, Tanzania, and Kenya, there is a political will to hold lawbreakers accountable. Ramaphosa's cute move to dispel the notion of genocide: In an attempt to debunk and send a message that there is no genocide of Afrikaners, Ramaphosa 's entourage comprised prominent Afrikaners such as golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen as well as businessman Johann Rupert and John Steenhuizen, a member of Ramaphosa's GNU Cabinet. Even the presence of prominent Afrikaners appeared not to be enough evidence to convince Trump that the South African government is not discriminating against whites, in general, and Afrikaners, in particular. It should be remembered that the GNU has passed three laws that white political parties vehemently opposed, that is, the BELA bill, the NHI bill, and the Expropriation bill. In this context, Trump came to the meeting wanting to put pressure on Ramaphosa to do more to accommodate the interests of the white population. This could explain why Trump saw the multi-racial composition of South Africa's delegation to the US as superficial and condescending. The Malema factor: In making his case of a genocide in South Africa, Trump played a video of the EFF's Julius Malema chanting 'Kill the Boer, Kill the farmer' and even former president Zuma singing about shooting Afrikaners. Trump then baselessly claimed that 'they take the land. They kill the farmer. And nothing happens to them.' There is no doubt that these slogans and songs about killing Afrikaners do constitute hate speech and incite violence, even though the courts have found otherwise. It was quite embarrassing to see our prominent leaders utter such venomous words at a time when South Africans should be forging racial tolerance and unity. Without realising it, Trump gave Malema the attention he craves and the status of a leader who stands up to the 'imperialist' West. Malema might have looked bad in the eyes of the Western audience for shouting hateful slogans, but among his sympathizers, he is now the real deal, who is feared by Western leaders. The slogan, 'Kill the Boer, Kill the farmer,' has a long history in South Africa, and it is associated with the ANC during the anti-apartheid struggle. How embarrassing it could have been for Ramaphosa had he been seen next to Zuma singing a song about shooting Afrikaners, since the video Trump played showed Zuma wearing an ANC golf shirt while still the president of the ANC. So what message does it send to the world when prominent leaders in South Africa, including its then state president Zuma, sing about shooting and killing members of a minority group? The governing ANC has never denounced this awful slogan. This is the same ANC government that accused Israel of genocide but tolerates leaders who advocate for the killing of a racial minority. I guess this is the hypocrisy Trump sought to expose. No wonder no meaningful racial reconciliation has happened in South Africa. Can one then blame those Afrikaners who recently emigrated to the US? Zakhele Collison Ndlovu Image: File Zakhele Collison Ndlovu is a political analyst at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media. THE POST
IOL News
9 hours ago
- Business
- IOL News
Collapsing buildings: lapses in safety and security in the construction sector
The Tongaat Mall Image: File ACCORDING to Jomo Sibiya, Deputy of Employment and Labour, the South African construction sector has one of the highest accident rates in the country, with 1.5 to two fatalities per week, and is classified as one of the top four high-risk industries in the country. Building collapses occur when a structure fails and partially or fully collapses, endangering human lives and health. This can result from various factors, including structural failures, poor construction practices, and external forces like fires or earthquakes. The effects of a building collapse can be devastating, leading to loss of life, injuries, property damage, and significant economic and social disruption. On May 6, 2024, the Neo Victoria project, a residential building under construction, collapsed in George, Western Cape, killing 34 workers and injuring 28. The George Building Collapse was a tragic disaster and one of the worse in the South African construction industry. President Ramaphosa extended his condolences: 'We know that many of you are in grief. There's no worse grief than people who have lost their loved ones… We are here to give comfort, and there will be a need for… psychosocial support. And when that is the case, we will have people who will give that support … There will be assistance for those who are in hospital to be well treated, there will be assistance for those who have to be buried. There will also be compensation that will have to go through the channels of our various institutions.' 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 Most of the deceased were foreign undocumented labourers from Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe. To date, there is no record of their names. After all, in South Africa, undocumented migrant labourers are expendable. The Minister of Human Settlements, Thembi Simelane presented a report by the National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC) to the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements on 4 April 2025: 'It's a report which indicates the failure of our systems at the NHBRC … There was a lapse of enrolment requirements which were overlooked by our internal staff at the council …There was a lapse …with regard to the structural engineering and drawings and the details which were not fully disclosed as they should have been… We also had missing detailed material information about the construction… The contractor cut corners. Our system enabled him to cut corners by not following our standard operating procedures and even approving without the fulfilment of all the necessary attachments that needed to be done.' There were also design flaws, poor quality concrete, and safety alerts were overlooked. Four construction workers lost their lives and one survived following the collapse of an embankment at a construction site in Zen Drive, Ballito, on 18 May 2024. On 29 March 2025, two workers employed by a construction firm were digging a trench on Canehaven Drive, Phoenix, when a retaining wall and sand and metal reinforcement fell on them. It was established that the deceased were Mozambican nationals. On November 19, 2013, a section of the second floor of the partly completed Tongaat Mall collapsed, killing two and injuring 29 construction workers. Construction of the Tongaat Mall had commenced without the building plans being approved. Gralio Precast, the company developing the mall, was a beneficiary of many tenders from the eThekwini Metro. A commission of inquiry was appointed by the Department of Labour and chaired by Inspector Phumudzo Maphaha to investigate this collapse. The investigation found that the collapse was due to substandard construction work and several contraventions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Construction Regulations which included the following: poor plan design; the contractor's failure to comply with regulations; contraventions of the Safety and Health regulation; missing steels and columns; lack of supervision on site; an important site diary was missing; lack of health and safety audits; and inappropriate building materials (cement imported from Pakistan did not meet South African Bureau of Standards requirements). These reasons can be attributed to a reckless, calculated strategy by the developer to save construction costs and compromise the safety of onsite workers. For example, a beam with insufficient steel bars may have led to the collapse. According to an engineer, the beam should have had 19 steel bars. Also, some of the concrete utilised was less than a third of the required strength. In May 2016, the then Minister of Labour Mildred Oliphant acknowledged that while there was clear evidence of impropriety, she was not in a position to give the names of people and companies implicated. Instead, she handed over the inquiry results to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) in KwaZulu-Natal for further investigation and action. However, as reported by News 24, eight years on in May 2024, Natasha Ramkissoon-Kara, spokesperson for the NPA, said that 'Investigations are ongoing, and we are therefore not in a position yet to make any decision in respect of the matter.' However, it is a common cause that the NPA has a poor history of initiating prosecutions and achieving convictions in high-profile cases involving malfeasance. This delay by the NPA in investigating and prosecuting those implicated in deliberately compromising safety in the construction sector has national implications. An analysis conducted for the South African Institute of Occupational Health (SAIOSH) in May 2024 by Professor of Construction Management at Nelson Mandela University, John Smallwood, emphasised the ongoing safety issues and the need for extensive measures to enhance the industry's health and safety practices. According to Professor of Smallwood: 'There is no such thing as an accident … noting that what are traditionally termed accidents are often the result of management failures …Workers exposed to hazards and risks are people with a body, mind, and soul, who invariably have a partner, a family, and are derived from a community.' He emphasised that unforeseen accidents are often 'planned by default' through actions or inactions, highlighting the necessity for a change in the industry's safety approach. Lennie Samuel, a senior inspector and forensic investigator at the Department of Labour, similarly contended that the absence of oversight and management failures is the main reason for collapsing buildings. The causes of most of the incidents examined could be traced to senior management, who only fix the immediate causes or symptoms rather than the underlying issues. Regrettably, the outcomes frequently result in injuries, disabilities, deaths and collapses. A comprehensive strategy is essential to decrease accidents in the South African construction sector, including training, recognising hazards, appropriate tools and processes, and implementing robust site management practices and a robust safety culture. This involves complying with applicable regulations, fostering effective communication, and promoting employee safety, health and welfare. Professor Brij Maharaj Image: File Professor Brij Maharaj is a geography professor at UKZN. He writes in his personal capacity. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media. THE POST
IOL News
11 hours ago
- Politics
- IOL News
10, 9, 8 . . . South Africa's slide into decline
THABO Mbeki endured eight days in September, a turbulent period in 2008 that led to his ousting as President of the Republic. With Jacob Zuma, it was the so-called nine wasted years, a presidency characterised by state capture and economic decline. For President Cyril Ramaphosa it was a case of ten minutes of shame, and it happened on the world stage. The meeting between Ramaphosa and US President Donald Trump started well. It should have been a sign. When it is too good to be true, it probably isn't. Ramaphosa must have been nervous but, for the first 20 minutes, he came across as relaxed, in control and, at times, even jovial. He had clearly learnt from the ill-fated encounter Volodymyr Zelenskyy had with Trump. In contrast to the Ukraine president, Ramaphosa, went out of his way to thank Trump and praise him. And then, about 20 minutes into the meeting, Trump asked for the lights to be dimmed. What followed was a video of Julius Malema addressing supporters. In a voice that is now familiar to most South Africans, he chanted 'Kill the Boer, kill the farmer' and spoke about expropriating land of white farmers without compensation. The mood in the room changed. The chant was now exposed to a global audience. There was no context and, as a result, it came across as crude. Inciteful. Shameful. Ramaphosa wiped his face. He was probably hot in his suit and tie. There were also bright camera lights, and the room was packed with people. But those who study body language claim it could also be a sign of anxiety – perhaps a desire to wipe away a problem or stress. But this problem was not going away. The chant was first uttered by Peter Mokaba, a former president of the ANC Youth League. He did so while addressing a rally following the murder of Chris Hani by right-wing whites. The chant has always been contentious. But the Equality Court found it did not constitute hate speech and should be protected as freedom of speech. Afrikaner lobby group AfriForum did approach the Constitutional Court to appeal the matter, but the court found the application had no reasonable prospect of success. As a result, Malema cannot be arrested for singing the song, as suggested by Trump. Ramaphosa did point out that official government policy was completely against what Malema said. But what Ramaphosa didn't say was that neither he nor others in the ANC have done enough to distance themselves from the chant. After the voice of Julius Malema, came another voice well known to most South Africans – Jacob Zuma. These days, he is the leader of the uMkhonto weSizwe Party. But not too long ago he was the leader of the ANC and President of the Republic. In the recordings played, he too had a go at white farmers. When the video ended, US Vice President JD Vance handed his president a thick stack of pages that reportedly depicted the brutality of the attacks on white farmers. The DA's John Steenhuisen, in his role as agriculture minister in Ramaphosa's executive, put up a spirited defence: 'They are both leaders of opposition minority parties,' he said. 'The reason my party, the DA, chose to join hands with Mr Ramaphosa's party was precisely to keep those people out of power. We cannot have these people sitting in the Union Buildings making decisions.' But by then the world had realised that not all was well in South Africa. At best we are a violent bunch. At worst we are a racist nation. In those ten minutes, South Africa had been exposed. In his own unique rhetoric, Trump summed it up: 'There are many bad things happening in many countries, but this is very bad – very, very bad!' It didn't matter whether Trump had the full facts or not. He had enough to paint a picture, and it wasn't a rosy one. Anyone wanting to visit the country or invest in it would have been forced to reconsider. Trump then invited three men he knew and clearly admired to say a few words. They were businessman Johann Rupert and golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen. It was ironic that it took an American president to invite the men to speak because it was a courtesy their own government had not offered them – certainly not in recent years and not in public. Yet these were no ordinary men. Rupert is a celebrated businessman who is one of the richest people in South Africa. Els and Goosen are both masters at the game of golf. The second irony was that while the voices of Malema and Zuma have become so well known, the voices of Rupert, Els and Goosen have rarely been heard in South Africa. Yet, they are the kind of people whose opinion should be sought and whose success we should emulate. It speaks to the society we have become. It is one where those who seek to antagonise and break apart become popular, while those who seek to build are ignored. It is a society that places credibility on those who shout the loudest and avoids those with integrity. In this society, mediocrity is celebrated and merit shunned. It is no wonder then that South Africa finds itself in an economic mess. The economy is barely growing and certainly not at levels that will create meaningful jobs. For more than a decade and half the country has been sliding into economic decline. The projections for the coming year are dismal. Economic growth is projected at 1.4% with slight increases in 2026 and 2027 but nowhere near enough to create meaningful jobs for a growing population. The solution to the problem emerged in the White House get together. 'We need more foreign investment in our country,' urged Cosatu president Zingiswa Losi. "If the South African economy does not grow, the culture of lawlessness and dependency will grow,' said Rupert, mirroring the sentiments of organised labour. It means that if our president wants to change the trajectory of economic growth, it cannot be more of the same. There are a few realities that must be acknowledged. No one will invest in a place where they must give away a chunk of a business they have nurtured. No one will invest in a country where they can't hire the best talent for the job. No one will put their money where the government can take away their land for nil compensation. And no one will invest in a place they don't feel safe in. If the South African government is to change the fortunes of this country, it needs to ditch broad based black economic empowerment. People need to be hired on the basis on merit and not skin colour. Land expropriation without compensation needs to be reconsidered. Above all, South Africa needs to make investors feel safe. But the clock is ticking. This Government of National Unity is at the end of their first year of a five-year term in office. As Steenhuisen warned: 'This government, working together, needs the support of our allies around the world, to grow our economy and shut the door forever on that rabble.' That 'rabble' is the EFF and MK. Combined they got one out of every four votes cast in the last general elections. If this government cannot improve the fortunes of ordinary South Africans, support for the so-called rabble will rise and Constitutional Democracy may be done for. Then, what Donald Trump thinks South Africa is, will become our reality.10, 9, 8, 7, 6 5, 4 …..
Daily Maverick
a day ago
- Business
- Daily Maverick
Fact-checking the inaccuracies, half-truths and duplicity in the latest presidential newsletter
President Cyril Ramaphosa's latest newsletter is probably too long for most fellow citizens to make time to read, but it contains so many inaccurate, misleading and downright false statements that unpacking some of them is a worthwhile exercise. In the newsletter, the President refers to a statement made by the US State Department last year, in the context of a climate summit, and quotes the glowing terms from it: 'Last year's country Investment Climate Summit published by the US State Department highlights South Africa being an attractive investment hub, citing key factors such as deep and well-regulated capital markets, strengths in manufacturing stable institutions, an independent judiciary and robust legal sector, respect for the rule of law, a mature financial and services sector, and experienced local partners.' The President does not mention that these words are the work of the Biden administration, since replaced, in January 2025, by the Trump administration. Worse still, he leaves out the following portion of the State Department report for obvious reasons not unrelated to its gloomy and critical content: 'However, South Africa continues to suffer the effects from a 'lost decade' in which economic growth stagnated, hovering at zero percent pre-Covid, largely due to corruption and economic mismanagement, and a slow economic rebound post-Covid amid endemic logistics and energy crises. One of the biggest challenges to investment is persistent 'load shedding', South Africa's term for nationwide scheduled rolling blackouts. 'Other challenges include policy uncertainty, lack of regulatory oversight and enforcement, state-owned enterprise (SOE) drain on the fiscus, corruption, violent crime, labor unrest, lack of basic infrastructure and government service delivery, and lack of skilled labor. 'Moody's, Fitch, and S&P have affirmed South Africa's credit rating as stable but rate South Africa's sovereign debt as sub-investment grade. In February 2023, the Financial Action Task Force listed South Africa as a jurisdiction under increased monitoring, known as the 'grey list', to address deficiencies in its regime to counter money laundering and terrorist financing (AML/CFT). South Africa will remain under increased monitoring until it completes its action plan to strengthen its AML/CFT regime.' SA remains on that grey list and will likely languish there until necessary reforms to the criminal justice administration, needed to capacitate it to counter money laundering and terrorist financing, are effected. The Ramaphosa administration shows no urgency in this regard, despite the fact that while SA is on the grey list, borrowing (currently at an all-time high) will remain prohibitively expensive. SA services its debt at present at a cost of R1.2-billion a week, an amount the taxpayers can ill afford. Rule of law Ramaphosa suggests that his government shows fealty to the rule of law. He does not mention the recent trenchant criticism by Bonang Mohale, chancellor of the University of the Free State: 'The great problem for South Africa is rampant greed. [It] is essentially a problem for the once glorious African National Congress that has morphed into an organised crime syndicate, primarily because for a solid 30 years of our democracy, they held the absolute majority power in everything that matters.' 'Organised crime syndicates' by definition show no discernible regard for the rule of law. Fealty to the rule of law implies respect for property rights; indeed, that respect is built into the definition of the rule of law favoured by the World Justice Project. At the most basic level, it entails that: ' The rule of law ensures property rights by providing a framework of laws, institutions, and community commitment that protects those rights. It guarantees that everyone has the right to own property, both individually and collectively, and that no one can be arbitrarily deprived of their property. This framework also ensures that if property is taken, it is done in accordance with the law and with just compensation.' The abomination that is the new Expropriation Act envisages expropriation with nil compensation. The Constitution envisages 'just and equitable compensation' upon expropriation in section 25 of the Bill of Rights. The nil compensation does not have to be just and equitable on any reasonable interpretation of the new law. This renders it unconstitutional. It also exposes the government's lack of appreciation of the meaning of the rule of law. The Constitution itself regards the rule of law as supreme. Any attempt to dilute the rule of law has to have a 75% majority vote in Parliament, not the simple majority that passed the Expropriation Act. Independent judiciary Ramaphosa claims that there is an independent judiciary in SA. Has he forgotten the evidence he gave before the Zondo Commission of Inquiry into State Capture? There he revealed that the Bench in SA is regarded by the ANC as a site of cadre deployment. There is no better way to capture a judiciary than to deploy loyal cadres to serve on it. That is the death knell of independence. This ambiguous passage appears in the newsletter: 'President Trump agreed that the US should continue playing a key role in the G20, including attending the G20 Leaders' Summit in Johannesburg later this year, where South Africa will hand over the presidency of the G20 to the US.' Does Ramaphosa mean that Donald Trump is coming to the wreckage of Johannesburg later this year, or merely that the US will continue playing its key role in the G20 by sending a representative to Johannesburg? The answer is anyone's guess. Time will tell. There is more Orwellian doublespeak in this presidential observation: 'We were able to update US officials on the ongoing structural reform process underway to improve the ease of doing business and facilitate a favourable investment climate.' Every cautious would-be investor is acutely aware of the high violent crime levels in SA and also regards the rampant corruption, about which Bonang Mohale waxes so eloquent, as reasons to avoid making new investments in SA. Crime and corruption remain at unacceptably high levels and not enough is being done to address these barriers to new investment from which new jobs will flow. As long ago as 2011 the Constitutional Court ordered that a single body outside of the control of the executive (which Ramaphosa now heads) should be established to deal with corruption. No such body has been set up 14 years later. The binding nature of the court findings and the legal need to implement the criteria it set are ignored by a government that is content to allow State Capture, tenderpreneurism and the cosy type of comprador-capitalism that BEE laws and regulations have created (this despite recent polling that indicates that more than four in five of the SA population favour merit appointments over race quotas.) There is simply no political will to implement the 2011 judgment properly. This attitude is not indicative of fealty to the rule of law, nor of any real desire to create an investor friendly climate in SA. A great deal of new investment is necessary to attain secure peace, sustainable development on the embattled economic front and shared prosperity in which those genuinely previously disadvantaged enjoy the fruits of their currently hollow liberation. Progress bedevilled Before the formation of the Government of National Unity (GNU), the ANC and its tripartite alliance partners, the SACP and Cosatu, ruled the roost and created the BEE architecture that has so bedevilled progress in SA. The laws and policies in place have been trenchantly criticised by Professor William Gumede, but they are persisted in by the ANC element of the GNU. By now it ought to be screamingly apparent to any sentient observer that the BEE system has not served the constitutional purpose for which it was intended. The provisions of section 9 of the Bill of Rights contemplate redress via legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons or categories of persons disadvantaged by unfair discrimination. All that BEE has in fact achieved is the enrichment of ANC cadres and their friends in business. Those genuinely disadvantaged continue to languish in poverty. This fact is illustrated by the increase in the Gini Index, which is now the highest in the world among the 130 countries that produce a Gini Index and considerably higher than it was in SA when democracy dawned. The BEE system does not properly serve the purpose for which it was created. It should be scrapped in favour of the economic empowerment for the disadvantaged — the EED system proposed by the SA Institute of Race Relations. Whether the GNU will be able to break the shackles on progress that is in place due to the ANC fealty to its National Democratic Revolution (NDR) remains to be seen. The NDR is deeply and darkly inconsistent with constitutional principles, but the abandonment of the NDR would not suit that 'organised crime syndicate' to which Mohale refers. The private member's Bills introduced by the co-chair of the Justice Portfolio Committee, Glynnis Breytenbach, envisaging a new Chapter Nine Anti-Corruption Commission that will be set up in a constitutionally compliant way to deal with corruption, are currently undergoing processing in the parliamentary back office. Before the GNU dawned, Breytenbach was the DA's shadow minister of justice. Before that, she was a senior prosecutor, and she knows the National Prosecuting Authority inside out. Her suggested reforms deserve accelerated parliamentary debate and consideration. The DA and AfriForum have separately challenged the constitutionality of the Expropriation Act in litigation currently pending. New BEE regulations are similarly being challenged for want of constitutionality, also by the DA. There is furthermore a plethora of constitutional litigation around the National Health Insurance legislation. If the government that Ramaphosa leads was true to the clear intentions of the Constitution and showed greater fealty to the rule of law, these litigious efforts would be unnecessary, the criticisms would be taken to heart, the State Department's reservations recorded above, but omitted from his latest newsletter, would be taken more seriously and would be acted upon rather than omitted from the newsletter. DM
Daily Maverick
a day ago
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
In the wake of Trump's assault on Ramaphosa, can SA and the US find a new equilibrium?
The South African delegation's decision to maintain calm, even in the face of provocation, appears to be a strategic tactic to de-escalate tensions and reset the relationship. President Cyril Ramaphosa's recent visit to Washington, DC, has offered a platform for resetting relations and exposed deep fissures in bilateral relations. The challenges of navigating a world increasingly shaped by ideological polarisation and performative politics were laid bare in the livestreamed meeting between Ramaphosa and his entourage and President Donald Trump and his staff. The meeting was anything but routine – while not descending to the level of chaos that characterised the Trump-Zelensky meeting, the American president did confront (read: ambush) Ramaphosa on claims of white genocide. A video featuring Julius Malema's trademark inflammatory rhetoric and a row of white crosses was presented as evidence of state-sanctioned violence against white farmers. Ramaphosa remained composed (looking bemused, even) and rebutted these claims, emphasising South Africa's commitment to multiparty democracy and clarifying that EFF and MK sentiment reflected a minority view and did not reflect government policy. While observers have offered a mixed interpretation, mine is that the meeting went as well as could be expected, given how acerbic American criticism of South Africa has been in the context of increasingly tense relations. The South African delegation's decision to maintain calm, even in the face of provocation, appears a strategic tactic to de-escalate tensions and reset the relationship on a firmer footing – leading with an honest assessment of the on-the-ground realities (albeit with unnecessarily graphic descriptions of crime from some in the delegation) and using a not-too-assertive approach. The logic, it seems, was to use the visit as a platform to correct misperceptions and begin a reset, without provoking further rupture. Beneath a difficult relationship While the meeting has been closely watched, the underlying deterioration in the relationship is far more complex. These are two actors with fundamentally divergent worldviews amid a failure to find common understanding at a time when a global realignment appears to be under way. On one side is a resurgent US under a Trump-led foreign policy that is transactional, nationalist and deeply sceptical of multilateralism. Trump's White House has embraced a worldview framed around selective alliances based on loyalty rather than shared values. In this context, South Africa's non-alignment – a cornerstone of its post-apartheid foreign policy – has been recast in Washington as defiance, or worse, outright hostility. Pretoria, for its part, sees itself as part of a multipolar future in which there is a more equitable seat at the table for those in the Global South. South Africa's BRICS membership, deepening ties with China and Russia, and outspoken criticism of Western dominance in global institutions are not anomalies, but features of a strategy that sees the Global South as no longer beholden to the geopolitical logic of the Cold War or unipolar American power. Ramaphosa's government has made clear that his administration's foreign policy is driven by constitutional principles, historic solidarity with anti-colonial struggles, and a desire for global equity. Washington, however, views these positions through a much narrower and increasingly ideological lens. Ramaphosa's visit was intended to highlight the country's diversity, being honest about its challenges, but reaffirming a commitment to inclusive governance, while perhaps also trying to re-explain South Africa's foreign policy outlook. He went there with a conciliatory tone, an appreciation of American contributions to the global order, and a desire to boost trade and investment, clothed as a request for help. Solid foundation for cooperation There is a solid foundation for continuing economic and political cooperation. The US is an important trading partner for South Africa, with 600 US companies active in the country, while several South African firms also invest heavily in the US. Indeed, South Africa offers a range of opportunities for US economic engagement across multiple sectors, including renewables, mineral resources, ICT, infrastructure development and agriculture. Furthermore, both nations share interests in regional stability. South Africa plays a crucial role in peacekeeping and conflict mediation efforts on the continent, particularly in southern Africa and the Great Lakes region. The US has faced a changing landscape of global influence in Africa, and partnering with Pretoria can offer it a different platform for engagement. But even shared interests have proven vulnerable to distortion in the current climate, risking being drowned out by mutual mistrust, symbolic politics and domestic pressures. While not a diplomatic breakthrough, the media spectacle of Ramaphosa's visit exposed how deeply domestic political imperatives now shape bilateral engagement. If it serves any form of substantive turning point, it is in making clear that a recalibration will require deeper diplomacy (including public diplomacy) as well as political will behind the scenes. For South Africa, the key question is whether it can pursue a principled foreign policy while maintaining strategic relationships with major powers. For the US, the challenge is to recognise that non-alignment is not hostility, and that partnership is most successful when built on mutual respect, not coercion. Essential steps Looking ahead, a few steps are essential if this relationship is to be salvaged. First, there needs to be a revival of diplomatic dialogue beyond theatrical moments. Both countries have long-standing mechanisms for bilateral engagement that should be reactivated at a senior level, with clear channels for addressing areas of tension. To this end, South Africa needs diplomatic representation that can cut past the rhetoric and get through to important figures in the Trump administration. Second, both sides must invest in the Track II relationships that have traditionally undergirded diplomacy – business partnerships, academic exchange and civil society dialogue. These are often more resilient than government-to-government relations and can provide ballast in turbulent times. Finally, there must be a recognition that the world is changing. South Africa is no longer simply a beneficiary of US aid or a passive participant in Western-led initiatives. It is a regional power with assertive diplomatic positioning and, despite having constrained and uneven power, an important voice on the international stage. That voice will not always echo Washington's, but if treated with respect, it can still be an ally. Indeed, diplomatic equilibrium does not necessarily require identical interpretations of the world, but it does require strategic maturity. Ramaphosa's visit did not mend fences, but it did force both sides to confront the new reality of their relationship. Whether this signals rupture or renewal remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the work of diplomacy must now begin in earnest, far from the cameras and the media, and rooted in the hard, often uncomfortable, business of listening. Ramaphosa's visit underscores the importance of sustained, high-level diplomatic engagement. It is a reminder that diplomacy, though often tested, remains essential in bridging divides and fostering understanding in an increasingly fragmented world. DM
