I concur with Peter Bruce’s recent column, “DA’s Fig Leaf” (Sunday Times, Oct 26), that the DA’s proposed Economic Inclusion for All Bill (intended to replace BEE) is more political theatre than a substantive strategy for transformation.
Bruce rightly observes that since BEE’s introduction in 2003, key macro indicators — unemployment, inequality, investment — have shown limited improvement, suggesting that BEE has failed to deliver the structural change it promised.
He further contends that the DA’s shift away from race-based criteria toward a needs-or poverty-based framework is politically unrealistic in a country where racialised exclusion remains deeply entrenched.
Crucially he reminds us that genuine economic growth, and by extension meaningful transformation, depends on investment in infrastructure, industry and human capital, rather than scorecards or procurement set-asides.
Bruce’s critique correctly identifies the failings of BEE implementation. Decades of B-BBEE policies have largely benefited a narrow elite rather than a broad base.
As he notes, referencing William Gumede, these policies have channelled over R1-trillion into elite hands.
His insistence that transformation must be anchored in growth, investment and capacity-building is sound because redistribution without a healthy economy is inherently constrained.
I also appreciate his recognition of our political realities — no transformation agenda can ignore the racial and historical context of South Africa. His point that the DA’s proposal may fail to win over enough black South African voters is a necessary political caution.
Yet Bruce’s argument occasionally drifts toward “abolish BEE entirely”, despite acknowledging its necessity.
A more pragmatic stance would advocate reform rather than wholesale abandonment.
Moreover, his critique of the DA as offering “nothing new” stops short of engaging with the substance of the bill and does not offer a detailed alternative vision.
Attributing current low investment and high unemployment primarily to BEE overlooks deeper structural causes.
During the Thabo Mbeki era, the economy was on a positive trajectory, impeded largely by insufficient investment.
As Mbeki has lamented, the failure of predominantly white capital to invest (despite ANC adherence to neoliberal policy commitments) was a deliberate, subversive act that also undermined South Africa’s economic potential.
Structural constraints, like power outages, education system weaknesses, regulatory burdens and corruption, also heavily impede growth.
Bruce’s critique, while correct in highlighting the importance of growth, gives insufficient attention to how redistribution frameworks (social transfers, public employment, rural development) can work in tandem with growth.
Effective transformation is not just about ownership or procurement; it is about reshaping the economy’s underlying structures (monopolies, value chains, skills bottlenecks) and ensuring inclusive participation.
The DA’s bill proposes to:
- Repeal race-based procurement set-asides, quotas, and local content designations;
- Replace them with developmental outcome criteria —job creation, poverty reduction, skills enhancement, and environmental sustainability;
- Allow ministerial design of a simplified preference points system;
- Wind down the B-BBEE Commission within 12 months and remove legislative references to BEE.
On paper, the bill’s emphasis on outcomes, simplification, and multidimensional proxies of disadvantage is welcome. BEE’s complexity, fronting risks and compliance burdens have long been obstacles to meaningful empowerment.
A framework that rewards demonstrable outcomes rather than mere box-ticking is desirable.
However, the DA appears to underestimate the centrality of race in South Africa’s economy. Historical dispossession, apartheid-era exclusion and cumulative structural disadvantage mean that policies ignoring race risk addressing symptoms rather than causes.
A poverty-based proxy alone may simply substitute one elite group for another or allow capture to persist, leaving the majority without meaningful redress.
The bill is also vague on critical points — mechanisms, targets, monitoring, verification and accountability.
Without these, the risk of hollow outcomes, akin to the pitfalls of past negotiation processes, is high.
Political feasibility is another concern. The ANC remains committed to BEE and public appetite for scrapping race-based measures is limited, especially among black people, even though they are aware of the BEE shortcomings.
This is because BEE is not only about redistribution but economic redress also for those who have been dispossessed by historical events of colonial apartheid.
South Africa’s path to meaningful transformation must integrate growth, investment and redistribution.
Lessons from countries such as Japan (who also suffered long periods of stagnant economic growth) suggest a multi-pronged approach:
- Prioritise transport, energy (especially renewables), digital infrastructure, industrial parks and logistics hubs, particularly in historically marginalised areas;
- Support sectors with high labour absorption potential (agro-processing, green economy, manufacturing), encourage localisation and export promotion, and create pathways for historically excluded firms;
- Simplify red tape, improve the investment climate, enforce contracts and address corruption and institutional weaknesses;
- Expand early childhood and basic education, vocational training and public employment programmes targeted at disadvantaged youth;
- Link access to assets, opportunities and decision-making through mechanisms such as employee ownership plans, community trusts, inclusive land reform and targeted procurement that rewards job creation, skills development and regional upliftment.
Crucially, transformation frameworks should adopt a hybrid criterion where race remains an essential indicator of structural disadvantage, but poverty, gender, youth, disability and regional exclusion must also be explicit.
Policies must be accompanied by independent monitoring, clear metrics and sanctions against capture or fronting.
Financial inclusion, productive land reform and public-private partnerships must be carefully structured to ensure broad-based empowerment.
In summary, Peter Bruce is right to highlight BEE’s implementation failures and the centrality of investment, growth and infrastructure to transformation.
Yet his dismissal of race-based remedies risks underestimating structural realities.
The DA’s proposed bill has sensible features (outcome orientation, simplification, attention to multidimensional disadvantage) but its neglect of race, lack of detail and political infeasibility make it a risky proposition.
A robust policy path requires growth and redistribution in tandem, accountable institutions, hybrid criteria for empowerment, focus on both assets and opportunities, and a durable consensus for inclusive transformation.
Only then can South Africa move beyond symbolic gestures toward meaningful economic justice.
Mphuthumi Ntabeni is a writer born in Komani.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.