To BEE or Not to BEE? That is Becoming Steenhuisen’s Impossible Contradiction

In his recent response to the State of the Nation Address (SONA) last week, Minister of Agriculture and Democratic Alliance (DA) leader John Steenhuisen made this statement:

“Replace restrictive BEE policies with genuine broad-based empowerment that includes skills, ownership, and opportunity for all, not just the connected few. We must replace failing race-based empowerment frameworks with ones that tackle poverty. The DA’s Economic Inclusion for All Bill represents a significant step toward achieving a vision of genuine economic empowerment for all South Africans, and is the type of reform our country urgently needs.”

Yet, within his own ministry, business lobby group Sakeliga accuses Steenhuisen of doing the following:

“The Minister of Agriculture, John Steenhuisen, is expanding BEE in the agricultural sector. This is harmful and adds significant risk to South Africa’s already strained international trade relations. Minister Steenhuisen is expanding BEE [by] upholding AgriBEE and defending its implementation. AgriBEE is the department’s officially adopted policy to make BEE compulsory in agriculture.”

So which is it? Should the government work to replace “restrictive BEE policies” or should it be “expanding BEE”. You can give politicians some leeway to contradict themselves but to argue for replacement on the one hand while presiding over expansion on the other is a contradiction too far.

There is a case for BEE and a case against it – that is not the issue here. (The position of this newspaper is to reform BEE in as far as it taxes capital and to award BEE points to firms for job creation, fixed investment, tax payment, and contributions to exports).

The issue here is that Steenhuisen, and by short extension his party, are holding two diametrically opposing views at once on South Africa’s single most important policy. That points to confusion and incoherence at best and dishonesty and taking the public for idiots at worst.