Sello appointment highlights issues over SA’s priorities

Since 1990, when political parties were unshackled by the nationalist government, the concept of transformation became an easy term to use to advance narrow political goals. Transformation hoped for by millions of underprivileged citizens became a potent gavel to invite a select few to the spoils. The concept lost its character — empowerment.

A new concept — entitlement — filled the void. Of course, it would not have been easy, had there been no guardian angel — historical legitimacy. This guardianship has stood the test of time.

It’s 30 years into democracy and this guardianship unashamedly still rears its ugly face. Ask me today what transformation stands for, my answer would be as good as a revolving door — motion without arrival, repetition without renewal. What passes for transformation discourse today is not a project of renewal, it is a language of protection.

[paywall]

The debate does not clarify, it obscures. Case in point is the controversy over the inclusion of advocate Mahlape Sello in a government-appointed commission. This controversy exposes this reality with uncomfortable clarity.

The public is told that it is a legal question. It is not. It is a constitutional moment masquerading as a technical dispute.

Let us dispense with fiction early. Under SA law, there is generally no per prohibition on an advocate or attorney serving on a commission after having represented a political figure, provided conflicts are disclosed and managed. The constitution guarantees professional freedom and equality before law. The real issue is legitimacy, which is constitutional value distinct from legality.

[/paywall]