The US Ambassador is Right on South Africa

This week, newly appointed American Ambassador to South Africa, Leo Brent Bozell III, caused a diplomatic kerfuffle after a speech he delivered at a conference in the Western Cape. Ambassador Bozell’s grave sin was pointing out the truth about the situation in South Africa.

Cat amongst the pigeons

Ambassador Bozell arrived in South Africa last month and has already hit the ground running, meeting with business and civil society leaders from across the country. While I have yet to meet him, my contacts tell me the Ambassador is energetic and well-informed about the domestic context here.

Ambassador Bozell’s first public address was at this week’s BizNews Conference (BNC), an annual gathering of influential business and political leaders in Hermanus. As a past speaker myself, I can attest to the quality and professionalism of these events, expertly put together by Alec Hogg and the BizNews team.

Before his arrival, Bozell was portrayed in the mainstream South African media as a foaming-at-the-mouth right-winger who was set on bullying South Africa into submission.

This was clearly "misinformation", to use a well-worn contemporary phrase.

The man who spoke at the conference was frank, but certainly not hostile. In fact, his speech was almost reconciliatory. He acknowledged South Africa’s dark past and reflected on his recent visit to the Apartheid Museum, as well as his reading of Nelson Mandela’s memoirs.

Bozell was clear that he was appointed by President Donald Trump to advance U.S. interests in the region and that he would put “America First” in his new role. However, he was at pains to point out that the Americans sought healthier relations with South Africa and wished to build upon both countries’ shared economic and strategic interests.

These shared interests are best exemplified, he said, by the over five hundred American companies operating in South Africa, each with significant commercial operations, contributing positively to economic growth and job creation. Why not double this sizeable investment, he asked, noting that Americans love to think big and have a keen eye for opportunity.

But he also reminded the BNC delegates that the US has some preconditions for its continued relationship with South Africa, outlined almost a year ago by the Trump administration.

The request is simple: condemn the "Kill the Boer" chant, treat farm murders as a priority crime, exempt American firms from Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) ownership requirements, and adhere to the unquestioned international standard of always paying market-related compensation when private property is expropriated.

Tellingly, the White House’s conditions have yet to be met and have only been greeted with silence from Pretoria. The US, Bozell said, is treating this as a strong negative signal from the South African government and is “running out of patience.”

After his prepared speech, Bozell sat down for a Q&A with Alec Hogg, where he made some unscripted remarks.

His comments about the independence of the judiciary as well as South Africa’s so-called ‘empowerment’ legislation earned Bozell a "demarche" from the Department of International Relations and Co-operation (DIRCO), one of the strongest forms of diplomatic rebuke from a host government. Later, Bozell took to social media to retract his remarks about the judiciary.

While I may not be well-versed in the conventions of diplomatic decorum – which is probably why I am not a diplomat! – it is clear that his remarks were entirely justified.

Courting controversy

One of the holy cows of South African political discourse is that our courts are robust and entirely independent.

The truth is more complicated.

It is indeed the case that the South African state is formally divided between the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary, with distinct authority in each domain – the classic trias politica of representative government.

However, the judiciary is, ultimately, an organ of state power and behaves accordingly. There is a division of powers, but not necessarily a separation of powers.

As such, while South Africa’s courts might often rule against the government on administrative, technical, or corruption matters, judges tend to avoid going against the prevailing ideological doctrine of the African National Congress (ANC) which still dominates the executive and legislative branches.

Judicial independence is difficult to define, but to borrow a famous phrase from US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart when asked how he defines pornography: “I know it when I see it.”

You also know judicial independence when you don’t see it.

You need only tune in to a hearing of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) – which recommends which judges to appoint to the bench – to know how “independent” South Africa’s courts really are. Here you will see the humiliating ritual of learned jurists prostrating themselves before a bunch of party hacks, attempting (often in vain) to demonstrate their commitment to the cause of “transformation”.

When judges are quizzed on their struggle credentials and selected according to skin colour and ideological bent, it is quite appropriate to question the independence of the courts. A good jurist will answer that they are not committed to transformation, but to the rule of law. Such a commitment at the JSC guarantees non-appointment.

It is also reasonable to interrogate the decision of the Constitutional Court – meant to be the highest custodian of constitutional values in our society – which simply refused to hear the "Kill the Boer" matter.

It’s worth remembering that the request from the Americans is merely for the South African government to condemn the singing of "Kill the Boer". Not to ban it, restrict it, nor even to classify it as hate speech. This is a political act.

When sitting in the Oval Office last May, President Ramaphosa was quick to distance himself from the chant. This was the rallying cry of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), and not a formal government position, he explained to an incredulous Donald Trump.

But Ramaphosa failed to outright condemn the chant, and now presides over a DIRCO that openly defends it against Bozell’s well-founded criticism. Were Ramaphosa serious about the "U" in the GNU, he would have condemned the chant in the name of national unity.

Command and control

The South African President remains a passionate defender of the ANC’s official policy of cadre deployment, whereby the party deliberately seeks to occupy positions across all ‘levers of power’ not only in the government, but also in business and civil society.

In doing so, the ANC is executing the so-called National Democratic Revolution (NDR), a totalising socialist doctrine that seeks to centralise power within the hands of a vanguard elite beset on controlling all of society and bending it to its will.

The NDR is upstream from ANC policy positions, including cadre deployment and BEE.

That Pretoria acted with such venom towards the US Ambassador for raising perfectly valid questions about the conduct of our courts and the persistence of race-based laws indicates that the Ambassador might be onto something.

Ansara is CEO of the Free Market Foundation.