South African banks’ “political stunt”: The take-down of the Guptas was a display of power

Ordinarily such brazen display of power by banking oligopolies especially, would be met by fierce resistance by democratic forces as it rightly should. But the Guptas are no ordinary mortals of course depending on your vantage point.

Let us ignore the identity of the actors in this macabre tragicomedy.

Four banks simultaneously each decide that a company shall not have a banking account in South Africa because it harms their reputation.

Leaving out the specific case it is obvious that reputation is a contextual and value-laden matter.

One may be so outraged by price fixing on brown bread, or collusion action by construction companies to corruptly benefit from government business so that they decide that any association with the perpetrators is unconscionable. In these real cases the same banks do not. You can go on about companies that pay slave wages and use labour brokers, while paying obscenely high remuneration to the executives.

The action of the banks has nothing to do with morality. But it is also more than a political stunt. It sends an unequivocal message about who is in power in SA today; who determines what the State may or may not do.

Let's talk about law-making. Think about: Mineral and Petroleum Resources Bill passed by the democratically elected Parliament; Private Security Bill; Promotion of State Information Bill. Think also about laws whose implementation is strongly resisted by none other than these banks and their most treasured clients.

Veto

We have also experienced the successful exercise of a veto on Cabinet appointments. Here it is apposite to recall similar attempts at veto when Trevor Manuel was appointed, and carelessly poured scorn on the "amorphous markets". That was before he saw the Light.

What is striking about what is "knowingly" called 9/12 is the report that R500 000 000 000 "left" SA within 72 hours.

The point is less about 9/12 as what it symbolises in terms of who is in charge of State power.

These brazen actions to undermine the ANC-led Government happen within a context.

Since 1994 the Old Establishment has chipped away the power of the ANC-led Government steadily and continuously. For reasons out of scope it is only in the last couple of years that they have begun to breach the armour around democratic forces through brazen lies and innuendo directed at the ANC and its leaders based on scraps of fact.

It is important to understand why over time they have been more successful.

Suffice to say that the suspension of radical transformation cut the black middle strata loose to begin to largely accommodate themselves in the embrace of the Old Establishment.

With all their ostentatious noise the Guptas are bit players even in the section of the new black bourgeoisie to benefit from the "democracy dividend". Indeed the Old Establishment has benefitted obscenely more.

In the last couple of years elements among the democratic forces began to speak with a forked tongue.

The fight against corruption in favour of good governance became a club against the first regime in history to systematically build institutions to promote good governance. Indeed it became necessary to drown this program in shouts about the corruption of and in the ANC government. Instances often first identified and prosecuted by government were used to discredit it.

Soros

COSATU even participated in the formation of an NGO called Corruption Watch which is funded by George Soros. Today its former General Secretary (since expelled) is leading a spirited and well-resourced campaign to overthrow the ANC government.

The action of the banks in fact follows a call by Zwelinzima Vavi for them to demonstrate their support by disassociating themselves from the Guptas.

Perhaps what gave the banks the greatest cover is the ANC incorporation of the anti-Gupta crusade as its own; correctly or not is not the issue. Similarly the SACP did the same, albeit more ambiguously.

A situation has arisen in which the ANC and the broader democratic movement have to demonstrate their commitment to that which they have and must fight against; the preservation of the status quo.

The tragedy is that the status quo is doomed however you look at it. It cannot be reformed, and definitely cannot be reformed.

The only question is whether the Old Establishment will willingly promote a radical socio-economic transformation programme or resist as they now do.

As they often do they can assert that they can always move their funds elsewhere just as they did on 9/12. The issue there is whether it makes any difference for the overwhelming majority of citizens whom, as Vavi will remind you live below the poverty datum line.

The idea that "democratic regime change" will save SA belongs to Sterkfontein (a mental institution).

What will save SA in the medium term requires the realisation that economic apartheid must end.

The mobilisation of social partners in response to the threat of a sovereign downgrade whose negative effect the Old Establishment will feel, could herald a future that the banks foreclose.

It is never too late for leaders of all sectors to address the real issues.

The Alliance most of all is called upon to realise its historic mission - or perish. It will not fail.

Mr Vuso Shabalala is Political Advisor to President Jacob Zuma.