Publication: The Natal Witness
Issued:
Date: 2006-01-14
Reporter: Editorial
Reporter:
| Publication |
The Natal Witness
|
| Date |
2006-01-14 |
|
Reporter
|
Editorial
|
|
Web Link
|
www.witness.co.za
|
The
travelling of highly-placed politicians and officials provides many
opportunities for manipulation . . .
The
deputy president’s family holiday in the United Arab Emirates has provided some
lessons and suggestions which the government would do well to heed.
People will accept that a deputy president requires more-than-ordinary
security, whether on duty or off, and that this may sometimes involve special
transport arrangements such as the use of official government aircraft rather
than commercial carriers. It is, however, impossible to justify a situation
where members of the family go along as freeloaders. Even if they travelled with
the deputy president in an official aeroplane that was making the flight anyway,
their holiday cannot be at the taxpayers’ expense.
The travelling of
highly-placed politicians and officials provides many opportunities for
manipulation. What exactly constitutes official business during a holiday trip?
Visits to a couple of crane-building businesses? Informal discussions with
people one happens to meet? The rules governing this seem to have loopholes, or
at least grey areas, and if this is so the state must remove any uncertainty,
not simply trust integrity and the auditor-general. This is the first lesson.
Then there is the matter of conflicting
accounts about the nature of the deputy president’s recent trip. The
presidency stated that she went on “a private visit” to the UAE from December 27
to 31. When the matter became a topic of public discussion, which included
protests from Cosatu, the deputy president herself said her visit included
official business. Which was it an official trip, a family holiday, or a bit
of both? And if both, how much of one and how much of the other?
The
later statements have all the signs of an attempt to cover up a questionable
arrangement as quickly as possible. All kinds of institutions from supermarket
chains to schools and governments have learnt the hard way that covering up
never works. An admission that something is or may not be right and will be
properly investigated is the best course, and usually reflects creditably on the
person or institution making it.
As the government
must know through the arms deal fiasco, sitting on something, refusing to
admit, being unwilling to open things up to proper scrutiny these simply lead
to a build-up of pressure, and, as we have seen in
the case of Schabir Shaik and Jacob Zuma, can later cause damaging eruptions in
unexpected places. This is the second lesson.
The government’s attempt at damage control in this matter
probably has the March local government elections in mind. How much better if,
in the interests of integrity and transparency, there had been a frank
acknowledgement of possible irregularity, whether intentional or not. It was a
good opportunity lost.
With acknowledgement to The Natal Witness.