What happens when the social contract and laws cannot guarantee protection?
That
memorable aphorism: “Man is born
free, and everywhere he
is in chains”, penned by the 18th
century French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, relates to another creation of the Age of
Enlightenment – the Social Contract. That concept has survived centuries and
still remains the cornerstone of our understanding of the relationship between people
and power; between citizens and government, and between the populace and the
establishment.
At a practical
level the social contract is enforced through institutions, laws and
regulations, or, at a superordinate level, by a Constitution. Yet, there is a
far larger dimension that goes beyond a contract and without which the social
fabric would simply fall apart. It is that dimension which enables you to trust
a stranger in a mall and a handshake on an agreement. It’s a dimension only
marginally guaranteed in written law, and explains why even in a high crime country
like South Africa, where criminals have an 80% chance of getting away with a reported
crime, you have a much lower chance of being affected by a crime.
That dimension is
conscience. It may be reinforced through values, religion, and enlightenment,
but it is that intuitive, perhaps even instinctive thing that sparks an
automated action overriding first thoughts and even feelings. Even psychopaths
for the most part pay heed to it, albeit in a rehearsed way. As social beings,
by far the majority of people do not want to poop on their stoep. And the more
they do, the more laws, regulations and prescriptions pour out of parliament or
from the Governance office of Mervyn King. But never will they come near to replacing
the vital role of individual conscience, or self-accountability.
Even people
accountable only to themselves mostly have it. But you could argue that those
entrusted by others to have their interest at heart and to be the custodians of
their welfare, have to be subjected to a much higher order of accountability
than can be captured in a contract. They include business leaders who can no
longer behave as if they are accountable only to shareholders.
As Serge Belamant
of NET1 discovered when expressing a callous disregard for the problems of his biggest customer and
millions of grant recipients; arguably acting purely on conventional business
principles and shareholder interest. He not only unleashed a PR nightmare for
himself and the company, but invited the pique of one of his biggest shareholders. And now his departure pay-out raises the
critical question: can good governance be served when people are rewarded
handsomely for non-compliance? (See Moneyweb article here.)
That applies to
the unfortunate, much maligned figure of Brian Molefe, former retired/AWOL/fired
GCEO of Eskom. For a moment he seemed to have done the right thing back in
November of last year when he “stepped down in the interest of good
governance.” Until, of course, it became clear that conscience can be
considerably eased by a R30 million pay-out and then later that the stepping
down was none such. He could have reinforced his “good governance” act if he
refused the pay-out (or most of it) and any invitation to return, but now
scuttles any interpretation of noble intent by running to the labour court.
The overriding
role of conscience over contract was movingly championed by former Finance
Minister Pravin Gordhan, when he spoke at the parliamentary enquiry into Eskom
and accused some leaders of not only acting out of blatant self-gain, but
simply not caring whether they were seen to be doing so. Few could not have
been stirred by his appealing to their conscience, an appeal he has repeated since then.
There is a point
at which a position held and influence it has on others, have to stand far
above the incumbent’s interests or rights. So SOE minister Lynne Brown was at
best expedient by defending Molefe on the basis of “innocent until proven
guilty.” When a position itself is tarnished or brought into disrepute, then in
the interest not of the incumbent but of the position itself, it simply has to
be vacated by that incumbent. A subsequent enquiry can at best clear his or her
name, and even ensure some compensation, but a return to that position cannot
be automatic.
Such a protocol
will ensure a very high regard for positions of authority and a no-nonsense
approach to governance and accountability. We simply cannot deny that our
tolerance of political and business leadership misbehaviour is extraordinarily
high compared with many other countries. Without some form of uplifting the self-accountability
expectations from positions of authority, and some real pain in non-compliance,
the fight against corruption is going to be extremely difficult.
Zero tolerance and
an appeal to the higher order of conscience over contract have to apply
equally, if not more so to accusers, investigators and social prosecutors.
There is a blatant and astonishing level of hypocrisy and expediency in much of
what we are witnessing, including the inordinate, often one sided petty
political correctness in public discussion and social media. In the end, it
does little to create effective accountability and governance, and simply
creates opportunities for deflection by those scrutinised and scrutinising.
While we are
witnessing a sterling job by the 4-th estate in the Gupta e-mail revelations, the
information explosion and chaotic state of media has aggravated the problem. I
dealt with this in my recent Moneyweb article “Believe it or not” which need not be repeated, save to say
that it is a proverbial Wild West out there, proliferated with intoxicated,
trigger happy gunslingers; spreading more rumour and innuendo than fact.
All of this boils
down a key essence, the very glue that holds societies together, and without
which they descend into anarchy. That is trust – of outsiders in the country;
of people in power, and of individuals in each other.
As long as we
continue to trust our neighbours, there is still hope. We saw the power of that
manifest in mutual community support during the ravaging fires of the Southern
Cape.
