The SA arms deal

by Editor · July 11, 2001

South Africa is facing a security crisis. Crime is threatening to take on anarchic proportions. Aids is decimating the population, with the spectre of Aids orphans making their way in life as the foot soldiers of crime cartels. Unemployment, poverty and economic disparities can, if unchecked, create conditions under which tyranny flourishes.

In that light it is absurd that the government should choose to prepare for a war with illusionary external enemies, as our feature article last week on the arms deal illustrated.

It is good governance to upgrade the military hardware of a state’s armed forces at regular intervals, and in proportion to the realistic possibility of having to engage in combat. The government has, by all appearances, diverged from such principles. Instead, those responsible for negotiating the arms deal have left an impression of their acting like raggamuffins let loose in a plush toyshop.

It is self-evident that R30 billion, the projected cost of the scheme, would go a long way to help fight crime, alleviate poverty, create jobs, tackle Aids and enhance education. It would be mildly reassuring to believe that such unwarranted expenditure was the result of over-enthusiasm on behalf of inexperienced politicians.

Alas, the whiff of corruption has created a strong perception that self-aggrandisement, not the good of the nation, was the motivating force in entering into this arms deal. In the public eye, the waBenzi stereotype has taken on new dimensions.

The government has not convincingly demonstrated its concern over allegations of corruption, such as those levelled in this case. Clearly, the government’s principles of accountability to the population are not yet fully developed. By their nature, politicians will act as answerable only as they are held to be. The absence of an opposition party that might pose an electoral threat to the African National Congress has not helped to encourage the ethic of accountability.

It is here is that civil society led by a strong, independent and competent media, the judiciary, non-governmental organisations and the churches must take the lead, to encourage government when it does well, and to hold it answerable when it does not.