Ido Lekota takes a deeper look at the calls for BEE to be scrapped following the release of survey results opposing its continued implementation
President Cyril Ramaphosa’s recent passionate delivery on the need for black economic empowerment (BEE) as a tool to address and redress the profound economic inequalities created by apartheid is an indication of how divided South Africa remains when it comes to building a non-racial and egalitarian society.
Ramaphosa’s rendition happens in a situation whereby B-BBEE has recently been receiving noticeable flak from various quarters, including internationally from the likes of US President Donald Trump and his political “dragon slayer” South African-born billionaire Elon Musk, as well as their Make America Great Again (Maga) footsoldiers. Locally, the framework has received virulent opposition from rightwing ethno-nationalist organisations such as AfriForum, rightwing and centre-right political parties such as FF+, Inkatha Freedom Party, African Christian Democratic Party, Democratic Alliance, and Action SA, including some research institutes and media houses.
The three main criticisms against BEE are “it is reverse racism; a flawed policy that enriches an elite minority; and it stifles broader economic progress, as well as perpetuates racial visions rather than fostering true empowerment through growth and equality of opportunity”.
So far, research has confirmed that South Africa is divided when it comes to the issue of BEE as a mechanism to redress past injustices, the impact of which remains born by the majority of South Africans—who are black. The unfortunate reality is that much of that research comes from the point of view of proving how inherently ineffective BEE is as a policy and then suggesting that it should be scrapped. There has not, for example, been much research based on the necessity of BEE as a policy and how it could be improved to achieve its historic mission of redress in a historically unequal society like South Africa.
For example, a recent Ipsos survey commissioned by Media24 revealed that more South Africans (44%) of the sampled population believed the government should keep BEE, while 36% wanted the policy to go and 20% were undecided. News24 had a headline when publicising the report: ‘SA speaks: It is time to end BEE’. The media company described this outcome as showing that less than 50% of South Africans want BEE to stay.
Unfortunately, the News24 report on the Ipsos survey confirms the concern about how the debate about BEE in South Africa is primarily driven by those opposed to BEE as a policy.
For example, their headline describing the report stating that “less than 50% of South Africans want BEE to stay, despite 44% supporting BEE remaining and 36% wanting it scrapped”, reflects a particular framing influenced by those who oppose BEE.
First, this framing arises because the 44% support for keeping BEE is less than a majority (50%), so the headline emphasises that BEE does not have majority backing, which can be used to question its legitimacy or popularity.
In essence, the above-mentioned framing reflects a viewpoint that seeks to question BEE’s continued relevance and to bolster the arguments for scrapping it by focusing on the absence of majority support rather than the plurality in favour. This selective framing aligns with the interests of those opposed to BEE policies.
The News24 reports on the IPSOS survey about BEE and other critical developmental issues facing South Africa bring up an important issue about the role of surveys such as the one commissioned by Media24.
For example, in the case of the BEE debate, the views of the South African populace are essential in helping the various stakeholders, including government, business, and civil society, regarding how the policy has been implemented, its shortcomings, etc. Through such surveys, the stakeholders can then decide what direction to take—in terms of improving the situation.
For example, through a survey, policymakers can decide what path to take in reviewing a policy for the public benefit.
What compounds the situation is the variant interests of the stakeholders with the power to determine what is for the benefit of the majority versus their self-interest. This is where the framing of the questions in the survey plays a vital role because it is, for example, through the questions that the interests of the stakeholders with the necessary sway in whatever matter would determine the outcome of the survey.
Surveys are designed to systematically collect data that reflects the views or characteristics of a population, helping stakeholders understand and respond to that group’s needs, opinions or behaviours effectively.
However, surveys can also be tendentious, biased or skewed due to various factors related to how they are designed, conducted, and interpreted. Such tendentiousness often leads to results that favour a particular viewpoint or outcome, intentionally or unintentionally.
Key ways a survey can be tendentious include leading or loaded questions that suggest a “correct” or desirable answer can nudge correspondents towards specific responses. For example, using emotionally charged or positive/negative terms influences answers, creating bias.
For example, the Ipsos Survey Report also showed that around 41% of South Africans agreed that BEE policies are outdated and divisive. This information raises the question of what question the respondents answered because, for example, asking the respondent, “Do you think BEE policies are divisive and outdated?” would be tendentious and undermine the survey’s objectivity.
A request was made to both Ipsos and Media24 to publish the questions so that such misgivings could be addressed, but to no avail.
President Ramaphosa’s impassioned rendition of BEE in Parliament and the persistent outcry from the various political and business quarters about the policy tell us there is a need to elevate the debate to another level. This level will develop a solution that will address the challenges that most South Africans continue to face due to some historical misdeeds on the part of those in power.
Such a solution means all stakeholders are ridding themselves of their self-driven motives that are inimical to South Africa, in which all its citizens will live the kind of quality life as promised by the letter and the spirit of a constitution based on human rights and dignity.
Such a step includes those calling for the scrapping of BEE doing some introspection, thereby ridding themselves of their self-serving and tendentious description of BEE as reverse racism and anti-economic growth.
The first step for them to take is to understand how misleading the “reverse-racism” label is—because racism involves systemic disadvantages and prejudice. Conversely, BEE targets structural inequalities rather than simply making decisions based on race alone. It seeks to eliminate race as a factor in opportunity disparities, not to impose unfair disadvantage on whites.
In the same breath, they need to understand that it is essential to have a policy that promotes economic inclusion by expanding entrepreneurship, skills development, and access to opportunities for the historically marginalised groups. A policy that builds a broader base of financial participation can support sustainable growth in the long run.
It is also essential for them to understand the folly of describing employment creation as reducing inequality and access to land as opposed to BEE—because an approach artificially pits interconnected social and economic goals against each other, ignoring how BEE is designed to contribute to all these objectives. In so doing, they will be in a better position to objectively identify BEE’s shortcomings and develop creative solutions to enhance its effectiveness.
Ido Lekota is a former Sowetan Editor and regular contributor to BBQ Magazine.
