Story audio is generated using AI
The political storm surrounding Tony Leon, Resolve Communications and allegations of lobbying on behalf of clients including Starlink has prompted an important national conversation. It should. But if South Africans believe this is the first time powerful private interests have sought to influence government policy, they have misunderstood both our political history and the nature of democratic politics.Lobbying is not new. It has existed in South Africa for decades, often operating quietly through business organisations, industry bodies, trade unions, civil society organisations and, most significantly, politically connected individuals. What is new is not the practice itself, but the level of public attention it has received.The distinction matters because lobbying, in itself, is not inherently improper. Every democracy allows individuals and organisations to advocate for their interests. Businesses lobby for favourable regulations.South Africa has numerous examples demonstrating that lobbying has long shaped public policy.The leaked Lonmin emails during the Marikana tragedy revealed that mining executives sought to influence senior ANC figures, including then-Lonmin director Cyril Ramaphosa, to secure a stronger state response to striking mineworkers. Whatever one’s interpretation of those events, they demonstrated the close interaction between corporate interests and political power.The agricultural sector has also attempted to influence regulation. Investigations into CropLife South Africa’s efforts to reshape pesticide oversight illustrated how industry groups sought greater control over the scientific regulatory process governing their own products.Political funding provides another example. Businesses have long donated millions of rand to political parties whose policies they support. That does not suggest that lobbying is synonymous with corruption. It is not. Corruption involves unlawful conduct. Lobbying, when conducted transparently, is a legitimate feature of democratic governance. The danger arises when lobbying occurs behind closed doors without disclosure, allowing money, access and personal relationships to shape public policy without public scrutiny.If South Africans need a warning about where that path can lead, they need only look to the US.After more than 250 years of democratic development, America continues to grapple with the outsized influence of money in politics. The 2010 Citizens United judgment dramatically expanded the ability of corporations and outside groups to spend money in elections, accelerating concerns about wealthy interests exercising disproportionate political influence.The US continues to debate how to limit the influence of money in politics because it waited too long to regulate it effectively. South Africa has the advantage of learning from that experience rather than repeating it. That opportunity is particularly important because South Africa still lacks a comprehensive legal framework governing lobbying. There is no national register requiring professional lobbyists to disclose their clients. Ministers are not required to publish comprehensive records of meetings with lobbyists. There is no central public database showing who sought to influence legislation, regulations or procurement decisions. Former politicians can often move directly into lobbying roles with few restrictions.That opportunity is particularly important because South Africa still lacks a comprehensive legal framework governing lobbying. This regulatory vacuum benefits no-one except those with privileged access.The answer is not to prohibit lobbying. That would be impossible and undesirable. Instead, South Africa should regulate it properly.Parliament should introduce new legislation that establishes a mandatory public register of lobbyists, requiring disclosure of clients, issues discussed and lobbying expenditure. Ministers, deputy ministers, directors-general and senior public officials should publish diaries of meetings with registered lobbyists. Former ministers and senior officials should be subject to cooling-off periods before lobbying government departments they previously oversaw. Strong penalties should apply for deliberate nondisclosure, while an independent oversight body should monitor compliance.Countries including Canada, Ireland and the UK have already implemented many of these measures. Their experience demonstrates that transparency strengthens democracy rather than weakening it.The Tony Leon controversy should therefore not become a debate about one individual or one communications company. It should become the catalyst for a much broader discussion about how influence is exercised in South Africa.Lobbying has always existed. It will continue to exist. The real question is whether it remains hidden in the shadows or is brought into the open where citizens can see who is trying to influence their government and why. South Africa does not need another 250 years to learn that democracy works best when influence is transparent.
