After almost four years the commission of inquiry into allegations of State Capture, corruption and fraud in the public sector including organs of state, concluded in 2022. Chaired by Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, it exposed damning allegations and evidence of corruption that heavily affected the economy and governance.

While commissions have been called “colonial chalices that do not deliver justice”, the commission did provide much insight into how private interests influence government decision-making.      

In a democracy, public interest should be centred on decision-making processes and not profits. Yet in South Africa, too often big businesses, industry bodies and their proxies regularly use their huge resources and a variety of strategies to influence bureaucrats and politicians to make decisions that put profit ahead of people. This practice of industry interference has been used to try to stop or delay taxes, better wages and cheaper medication.

And as South Africa has learnt, the consequences of industry interference in government decision-making can be deadly. In 2014, for instance, the National Regulator of Compulsory Standards tried to put regulations in place to standardise the processed meat industry. These were blocked by industry players who rejected the proposed levies, leaving processed meat unregulated.

Between January 2017 and July 2018 the country faced the “world’s largest listeriosis outbreak” on record, with 1,060 laboratory-confirmed cases and 216 deaths. This was caused by the processed meat that was unregulated because industry had got in the way of putting people first. 

Industry and others may say we cannot know for sure whether these deaths would have been stopped if the regulations had been in place. But the subsequent behaviour of the business to which the outbreak was linked exposed the limits of relying on self-regulation in the absence of an effective regulatory system.

Environmental health officials needed police assistance to access the manufacturing plant that had been identified as the source of the outbreak, after initially being refused access. Tiger Brands reportedly knew about the presence of listeria in its products on 14 February 2018, but instead of initiating a recall, they only did it 18 days later when forced into it by the government. This scenario occurred despite the requirement for product recalls in food safety systems.

Another example of industry interference can be seen in the implementation of Health Promotion Levy (the “sugary drinks tax”). Push-back by industry delayed the introduction of the levy by two years. A concerted effort was also made to delegitimise the levy by funding research meant to create uncertainty about the negative impact of sugary drinks on health and an analysis of “evidence” cited by industry players found that what they [industry] presented was “either not evidence at all, or had been twisted to suit the industry’s narrative”.

Read in Daily Maverick: “Here’s why you should care about the food industry lobbying the health department behind closed doors”

Over and above these tactics, member of Parliament Yunus Carrim disclosed that he had been called and threatened by individuals linked with the industry.

Commitment to protect

These are just two of the many examples highlighting the importance of addressing closed-door lobbying by industry, which is ongoing. Government decisions cannot be a compromise between private and public interests, given its responsibility to serve the public. This requires ensuring that big business does not profit at the expense of the people.

What is needed is a commitment to protect the decision-making process from big businesses and their associates. It should be a requirement that government officials disclose all meetings, events, correspondence, submissions and other engagements with big businesses and their associates. All documents and information must be made public and easily accessible.

Visit Daily Maverick’s home page for more news, analysis and investigations

Likewise, declarations of interests for all senior public servants must be made public to help monitor conflicts of interest. While transparency alone will not end industry interference, it can enable the ability to more effectively oppose this conduct so that it loses power.

While some will argue that the function of big business is profit-making, disclosure and transparency should not negatively affect that, and indeed, businesses can benefit, too. Conversely, they can face negative consequences if they are secretive.

For example, following meetings between senior Vodacom officials and then Free State premier Ace Magashule, the telecoms giant entered into partnership agreements with businesses run by people with links to the premier. This took place while the company was bidding for a tender to provide data and voice contracts to the provincial government, which was being concluded at the time and was subsequently secured.

While Vodacom “rejects this insinuation as false and baseless that it secured the award of any Provincial or National contract/s in an untoward manner, including as a result of our stakeholder engagement programme”, the truth is we do not know. Had Vodacom and the Office of the Premier not been having secret meetings, they would potentially not be faced with these allegations. 

Read in Daily Maverick: “How an obscure sugar lobbying group helped start a global health crisis”

So, we should reject the idea that such disclosure will harm business because, in fact, if there is nothing to hide, big business should not hesitate to be transparent about such engagements. 

Of course, ending closed-door meetings is only the start of a lot of work required to address industry interference, given the broad range of tactics used by big businesses and their associates. We also need to see industries stop using their enormous resources to delay, dilute and delegitimise decisions that are in the public interest. 

Democracy is too important to leave in the hands of those whose only interest is profit, no matter the cost. So, shutting the back-door channels big businesses and their associates use to influence government decision-making is crucial. DM