Is the era of government transparency and co-operative governance dead? Consider two seemingly unrelated events that took place in the past few weeks.

One of SA's most influential and respected foreign businessmen, DaimlerChrysler SA chairman Christoph Köpke, said the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) was "dying a rapid death". Then the auditor-general and government refused to answer questions from the press about extensive differences between draft versions and the final copy of the arms-deal report revealed by this newspaper and the Mail & Guardian.

These events and many others like them stretching back over years reflect the waning influence of many of SA's Chapter Nine organisations and the related ethos of open government and negotiated solutions. Nedlac is not a Chapter Nine institution (a state institution aimed at supporting constitutional democracy).

Yet it was established according to the same philosophical outlook.

The negotiations era spawned a hopeful vision of what could be achieved through the process of intensive discussions, and the constitution's frequent references to the idea of transparency attest to this ideal. Yet it seems now that the drive to seek "solutions through discussion" is all but dead, broken under African National Congress dominance and a party leadership suspicious to the point of paranoia about all criticism, regardless of who makes it and its substance.

Compare the notion of a transparent government with what actually occurred in the arms deal . The decision to have the deal investigated was a courageous step firmly in line with government's policy of openness and the constitution's transparency injunctions. It was taken after reports from several organisations, including the auditor-general's office and the public protector, and serious allegations that corruption, possibly fraud, had taken place.

But sadly, it was all downhill from there. The Heath unit, the only organisation with the power to cancel the contracts, was excluded from the investigation. Then the investigation was hurried towards the end, and consequently crucial decisions were not taken.

It is now clear that the final versions of the report were subjected to a thorough going-over by no fewer than three cabinet ministers and the president before it was finally published. The drafts show the final report was a shadow of the original versions, excluding about half of the findings of the state's auditors, exonerating ministers from responsibility, diluting specific findings that tendering procedures were not adhered to, and ensuring the contracts were not legally challengeable.

In the face of these revelations, which would have resulted in resignations in most democracies, government spokesmen remained silent. A week after the initial stories were published in Business Day and the Mail & Guardian, head of government communications Joel Netshitenzhe wrote a column for The Star setting out government's position, namely that "in this instance, it is better to keep quiet and await the formal process in Parliament, it was so decided upon".

In other words, government was trying to make sure it did not fan the story, confident it could use its parliamentary majority (and the complicity of spineless MPs) to squash the issue if and when it finally reached Parliament.

And weirdly, The Star decided to publish Netshitenzhe's non-response without running the original allegations.

Inevitably, the state media, who are the sole suppliers of news to 80% of SA, did not touch the story, with the sole exception of one radio discussion.

Netshitenzhe's smug conclusion that "by midweek the story was a good as dead" would be accurate, except for one small problem. Ignoring something does not make it go away. The informal networks of influence notice that government is studiously not noticing anything. Worse, people who would like to corrupt politicians will notice that government is not noticing.

The ostrich may think it is invisible with its head stuck in the sand. But the rest of us can see its exposed behind all too clearly.

Cohen is editor at large.

With acknowledgements to Tim Cohen and the Business Day.