Can the DA win black support with its policy mix?

Question: What makes blue see so much red about black? By this I mean why is the idea of black empowerment such anathema to the DA? Apartheid and colonialism are close in our rear-view mirror – there is no way that just 30 years after the end of apartheid, we are anywhere close to dealing with the economic legacies of a system that was designed to strip people of land, wealth and opportunity. 

Answer: The DA is a strong advocate of empowerment to redress our country’s historical injustices. However, we argue that the foundation of the country’s BEE [Black Economic Employment] laws was explicitly designed by big business to retain the existing economic structure and curry favour with the emerging political elite within the ANC. This led to an exclusionary system which favoured the politically connected at the expense of the poor. This is not true black empowerment, except perhaps for a few. If we want genuine empowerment, we actually need to break down the barriers of race-based patronage and instead open opportunities for all disadvantaged South Africans, regardless of colour, to participate meaningfully in the economy.

I don’t want to go on about it, but isn’t the party position and this position paper flirting with apartheid denialism. First, it hardly mentions the word or its intergenerational impacts. An example, the paper says “[…] the majority of South Africans were prevented from accumulating intergenerational wealth”. My immediate question was “what prevented us from doing so – a natural disaster?’ Or the apartheid Leviathan which was, after all, a system of laws designed to keep black people poor, landless and in service to the white minority? This is simply infuriating, Mat, and surprising, because I expected deeper thinking from you.

A: I do not think that any sane person can deny the brutal legacy of apartheid. The DA certainly does not at all. Apartheid was a deliberate system of oppression designed to strip black, coloured and Indian South Africans of land, dignity and opportunity, and its economic consequences are still deeply felt today. The DA fully recognises that these structural injustices continue to shape inequality in every generation. As a party, we are firmly committed to the principle of redress. However, we argue that decades of race-based policy since the ANC came to power have not been effective in addressing the root causes of inequality of opportunity, and this is best demonstrated by the fact that 37% of black South Africans are trapped in unemployment, and 30 million languish in desperate poverty.

The policy paper starts: “If we wish to create an economically inclusive and non-racial South Africa, we must address inequalities of opportunity and hard-won political freedoms.” Nobody can quibble with that, but what I do want to ask is how you define “non-racial”? You have read the seminal texts which never define “non-racialism” as being race-blind but which do understand redistribution and diversity (of perspective, teams, leadership, wealth, organisations in the public and private spheres) as fundamental to the philosophy.

A: The DA defines non-racialism as the rejection of race to categorise and treat people, particularly in public policy and legislation. The view that one’s race represents how someone thinks, feels or experiences shared events, based on their physical appearance, is untrue. While there is scientific consensus that “race” itself does not exist, racialism and racism do exist, and both have had a significantly damaging impact on both individuals’ lives and society. These abhorrent practices continue to cause great harm based on the false belief in racial differences. 

Non-racialism is a commitment to rejecting racialism and racism and building towards a non-racial future. We do not deny that racism and racialised inequality have profoundly shaped South Africa. We recognise this history and seek to overcome it. We are intent on developing a society where opportunity, capability and character, not colour, determine success. That means tackling the root causes of exclusion (poverty, poor education, and lack of access to assets) so that diversity and inclusion arise naturally from equal opportunity, not from racial quotas. Non-racialism, therefore, is not a denial of history; it’s a commitment to ending the power of race to determine anyone’s destiny.

I enjoyed the paper’s positioning of the UN Sustainable Development Goals as central to policy. There are 17 of them, so which do you see as most important to reach a position of general wellbeing?

A: In the context of South Africa’s high levels of unemployment, poverty, and inequality. I would argue that the three most important SDGs are Decent Work and Economic Growth, No Poverty, and Zero Hunger.

The policy paper is social democratic and progressive: it supports a universal healthcare subsidy, a food grant, an end to spatial apartheid, employee share-ownership. Love it. Tell us more?

A: Our policy paper is liberal in nature. However, labels are secondary in importance; it’s about what the policy aims to achieve. I specifically want to focus on employee-share ownership as I think it is a credible alternative to the nominal transfers of equity and management control of domestic and foreign-owned firms. This mechanism empowers workers to have an active stake in the business they are employed by, incentivises performance and holds much greater potential to create value for both businesses and workers.

I’ve had debates with DA leaders like Helen Zille about the following. Is it fair to so neatly equate black economic empowerment with cadre deployment and State Capture? The Commission of Inquiry into State Capture, for example, makes it perfectly clear that cadre deployment, for example, is very different to employment equity. I would argue that BEE is not at all a twin of cadre deployment or of capture, although the policy may have been misused to achieve those two malignant processes. I could tell you hundreds if not thousands of successful BEE stories, but let me start with one: me. If I hadn’t benefited from employment equity, I might still be stuck in the clothing factories that apartheid’s masters decided was right for coloured women. Power doesn’t disrupt itself and economic power certainly does not. There are millions of us who have benefited from BEE, not just a small elite.

A: First, the ANC’s BEE and cadre deployment policies are inextricably linked with one another. 

One needs to only look at how Transnet unlawfully inflated the price of a 2014 contract to procure 1,064 locomotives from R39-billion to R540billion to favour Chinese suppliers and channelled over R6 billion in kickbacks to Gupta-linked companies under the pretence of transformation policy. The Guptas and their associates got access to this contract based on their race and political connections, and the cadre-deployed civil servants helped them facilitate this. 

Secondly, while you claim many individuals have benefited from BEE, the system as a whole has not delivered meaningful opportunities for the majority. Black unemployment sits at 35.8%, up 8.6 points over the past decade, and nearly 30 million black South Africans (out of a total black population of 51.5 million) live below the upper poverty line, showing that BEE has largely failed to reach those who need it most. 

Finally, you have reached your professional position through your talents, hard work  and making the most of the opportunities given to you. While you are entitled to your view based on your own lived experience, I believe that claim diminishes your personal agency.

For the DA to grow, it needs black support. Don’t you think billboards like this send a message about what it means to be blue and that might mean no longer being black or supporting the empowerment of black people. Isn’t that short-sighted?

A: Not at all. As a party of government aiming to become the senior partner in the 2029 national elections; we recognise that our greatest opportunity for growth lies among black South Africans. 

Furthermore, the DA remains the most diverse political party in South Africa, with public representatives drawn from a wide range of backgrounds. This is mirrored by our electoral support as we are the only party that has the ability to win votes across all racial groups in a meaningful way. 

Lastly, I think that many commentators and journalists are misreading the national mood regarding voters’ attitudes towards BEE. Publicly available polling demonstrates that South Africans are tired of politically connected cadres looting the state, failing to deliver services, and locking others out of opportunity. 

Let’s move onto the private members Preferential Procurement Bill. What does the DA propose in it? Why?

A: Our Economic Inclusion for All Bill will amend the Public Procurement Amendment Act of 2024, to repeal all race-based preferential procurement provisions and replace them with a real empowerment system that targets poverty as the proxy for disadvantage instead of race. 

This Bill will create a public procurement system that encourages genuine economic empowerment by offering incentives to companies that do business with the state for contributing to tangible developmental outcomes such as job creation, poverty reduction, skills enhancement, and environmentally sustainable practices.

The DA’s Bill will ensure that public money is spent wisely and that every procurement delivers real value for taxpayers.

Does it replace preference with price? I mean the policy is a pox on our country, so this would be a good thing.

A: Price and value for money are the primary considerations, while also recognising and rewarding companies that deliver real social impact. The Bill and its accompanying scorecard will reform South Africa’s public procurement framework by aligning it with section 217 of the Constitution, which governs public procurement, requiring that all state organs must contract for goods and services in a system that is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective. 

Additionally, we seek to incentivise companies that contribute towards economic inclusion with preferential points during the bidding process. The DA’s alternative scorecard comprises three components. Firstly, Value for Money, secondly, Economic Inclusion, and thirdly, Disqualification Criteria. 

The Value for Money component assesses the cost-effectiveness, technical capacity, and reliability of bidders, which accounts for 80%. The Economic Inclusion component assesses bidders’ demonstrable contributions to the SDGs across five different categories, such as Human Development, Economic Empowerment, Environmental Sustainability, Inclusive Communities and Governance, and a Mixed Impact Option, which accounts for 20%. The Disqualification criteria exclude bidders if there is a proven record of fraud, corruption, or misrepresentation.

The private members bill also seeks to remove the threat to national security as a factor in procurement. I didn’t even know we had these clauses. Please explain the rationale.

A: By citing national security as a reason in public procurement, states can bypass established procedures, reduce transparency, grant excessive powers to the executive, and compromise cost-efficiency. For instance, the state might argue that we should not procure a good or service from X company based in Y country on national security grounds, even if the supplier offers the most cost-effective price and quality available on the market. DM