At the mention of Reuel Khoza, South African readers will probably mutter “Not again!” But from international enquiries we have received, there is a lot of puzzlement as to what the significance of all this is.

Khoza is a corporate businessman of note, having serving on the boards of several major companies. In his capacity as non-executive chairman of Nedbank and his chairman’s annual address, he criticized the South African government in terms which, as quoted by the media, seemed almost inflammatory. In the circumscribing way that media have, he was widely reported as having said, to quote one newspaper: “South Africa’s strange breed of leaders is a threat to democracy.” In a fuller context, what he did say under the sub-heading “Upholding our constitution” was: “SA is widely recognised for its liberal and enlightened constitution, yet we observe the emergence of a strange breed of leaders who are determined to undermine the rule of law and override the constitution. Our political leadership’s moral quotient is degenerating and we are fast losing the checks and balances that are necessary to prevent a reoccurrence of the past. This is not the accountable democracy for which generations suffered and fought. The integrity, health, socio-economic soundness and prosperity of South Africa is the collective responsibility of all citizens, corporate or individual. We have a duty to build and develop the nation and to call to book the putative leaders who, due to sheer incapacity to deal with the complexity of 21st century governments and leadership, cannot lead.”

Successive Insights have expressed the widespread and well-articulated concern among thinking South Africans at the government’s public positions on the separation of powers, the role of the judiciary, and even the place of the constitution in our scheme of government – not to mention its determination to limit freedom of expression and freedom of information, something every editor in the country has opposed. This clearly affects every aspect of society – including business and we don’t doubt that Reuel Khoza’s opinions reflect the views of the great majority of businesspeople.

But much more important is that Reuel Khoza with this significant statement has turned business relationships with government – what was just grumbling before – into a real, open debate. And therein lies the importance of being Reuel Khoza: just a day after his presentation, Chris Griffith, non-executive chairman of FNB bank, said of government that there was too much talk and too little action – a statement which received modest coverage and was over in one day. The reason? It is a case of spotting the difference between the two. And that’s the reason for the caption of this insight.

Where do we go from here? Notwithstanding the frenzied attack on Khoza from government spokespersons and ANC/SACP apologists, he received surprising support from surprising quarters. One example. Mzukisi Qobo of the University of Pretoria and a member of the intellectually lively Midrand Group expressed a fairly general response in Business Day on the following lines “This gratuitous attack on a high-profile business leader sends an alarming message about South Africa’s commitment to a climate that encourages freedom of thought and expression. It also communicates a visceral hostility to big business.” He goes on to say that Khoza’s denunciation by a succession of senior government leaders is reminiscent of Stalinist Russia or Maoist China.

Clearly, Reuel Khoza’s intervention doesn’t end here – and indeed it didn’t. On Monday of this week, the CEO’s of South African banks met with the ANC’s transformation committee specifically to discuss at the insistence of the CEO’s, specific aspects of the ANC’s economic policy documentation. That’s a welcome start.