When it became obvious that the African National Congress (ANC) would lose power, and that support for President Cyril Ramphosa would fade, people of foresight understood the danger that the private support that had gone into his campaign to become ANC leader and president of South Africa, support that arose from the South African business community and wealthy individuals, would naturally fall in behind the Democratic Alliance (DA) – and possibly also a reformist alternative to, or facsimile of, the ANC. Vast financial resources might be committed to both the DA and the ANC alternative, as well as expert advice, and this might be sufficient to see the DA or new ANC win the 2029 or 2034 national elections.

To head that off, South Africa’s party funding laws were inspired, and drafted, and adopted, which have had the effect of throttling private funding to reformist opposition parties – even as illicit funding continues to flow to their adversaries. All manner of justifications were concocted in the media and by non-profit organisations for this – the central line of which was that by cutting off private funds, democracy would be protected!

After the DA joined the government, a new danger arose – that those same private actors, unable to fund the partly directly, would instead align their resources behind trying to help the DA govern effectively. The DA would also likely be open to private expertise and advice – and like all political parties does not have the in-house skills or insight to run a modern industrial economy. By stigmatising the idea of private actors offering advice to senior government officials, South Africa’s reform prospects could be further stalled.

It follows that the idea is now being manufactured in the media and by non-profits and social media commentators that it is improper for private actors to influence the decision of government officials. It also follows from there that new laws will be proposed to curb such efforts.

This has nothing to do with Tony Leon and his firm. He is simply the proxy. Already business lobby groups Business Unity South Africa and Business Leadership South Africa have been mentioned as targets of the legislation.

A young journalist recently asked where the line between proper and improper behaviour should be drawn when it comes to attempting to influence the decision of a minister? The answer, this person was told, is when a crime had been committed, such as asking for a bribe in exchange for a particular decision being taken. It is extraordinary that in a free society, one has to point out that things that are not illegal are legal. Prosecuting bribery is easily covered under existing criminal statutes. Such bribery happens all the time although it seldom meets with prosecution. That is the problem South Africa needs to fix – the bribing of government official by criminals. That is what state capture was.

The advice offered by the business community and investors to officials and ministers about how to shape policies that will allow the economy to expand is completely legitimate and regulating such advice, in order to curb it, will be to further retard the prospects of turning the economy around and thereby saving South Africa’s democracy.