[ad_1]
If the people who work for the government tell us that our safety depends on not knowing what they are doing, we might suspect that they wanted to cover up wrongdoing. Unless, it seems, they’re working for state security agencies.
The South African media are shocked by the “bombshell” revelations on the country’s security services during the hearings of a commission of inquiry into the “state capture”. Testimonies show that the State Security Agency, which is supposed to provide the government with intelligence on domestic and foreign threats, has been used to wage factional battles in the ruling African National Congress (ANC) and engage corrupt activities. The agency, the evidence shows, served former President Jacob Zuma and his allies, not the country.
The revelations are much less interesting than the reaction of the media and the national debate towards them. It is not because the case against the security services is trivial. It is anything but: it shows that they have done little to safeguard the country and much to protect a political faction and to channel public money to private ends.
But these allegations are not new. The fact that they are being treated like lightning bolts shows how unprepared South African politicians, media and citizens’ organizations shaping the national debate must face the threats posed by its security establishment.
Spies behave badly
The core of the evidence was the testimony of Sydney Mufamadi, an academic and former cabinet minister. It was overwhelming but it shouldn’t have surprised anyone. It was given because he chaired a panel that investigated security agencies at the behest of President Cyril Ramaphosa.
Mufamadi’s panel reported in December 2018 and its report was published by Ramaphosa in March 2019. This is a public document, available on the Internet. There were a few media reports about its content when it was released, but it didn’t make much noise.
Mufamadi’s testimony was supplemented by that of the Acting Director General of the State Security Agency, Loyiso Jafta, and by a witness who conducted an internal investigation into the misconduct at the agency and who, in accordance with to the penchant of the security services for secrecy, is identified as “Miss K”. Although the two added details to Mufamadi’s account, everything they said reinforced his panel’s conclusions.
The factionalism of the security services has been evident for at least a decade. During the struggle against apartheid, Zuma led the ANC Intelligence. Thus, he was able to secure the loyalty of former underground ANC security agents who joined the government after 1994, many of whom continued to put his interests first. Years ago, a colleague valued for his understanding of the workings of the ruling party who joined me in a radio roundtable explained how the security agencies would interpret what we said and convey their point of view to the faction whose they served interest.
So why did the media treat the contents of a two-year-old report that confirmed older suspicions as a “bomb”? One reason may be that most of the country’s journalists read nothing more than a press release, which ensures that government reports are ignored unless their content is revealed at a press conference. Another is that the media – and the citizens’ organizations that participate in the national debate – do not see the security services as a threat to democracy.
This is illustrated by the controversy over the State Information Protection Bill. It was passed by parliament in 2013 but is still not law – Ramaphosa sent it back to parliament last year because he believes parts are unconstitutional.
The bill, which would give officials the power to classify documents to keep them out of public view, sparked a campaign from media and citizen groups claiming it was aimed at preventing reporting on Corruption. They insisted that there was no problem with the “legitimate” secrecy that protected national security.
Hold spies accountable
It did not understand why the bill was introduced and what it was supposed to do. Ironically, it started out as an attempt to get apartheid-era laws changed to bring them into line with the values of the democratic constitution.
When the bills proposed to end most government secrets, security officials, as securocrats are wont to do, painted grim images of the horrors that would ensue if citizens knew what they were doing. were doing.
They demanded strong provisions to keep information classified. To underscore the true purpose of the bill, an entire chapter was included which made it clear that it could not be used to prevent exposure of government corruption – its sole role was to protect “real” state secrets. .
Evidence from the “bomb” shows what the security agencies wanted to be protected from: information about how they were abusing their power. Had the bill been worded the way activists wanted, the secrets of the security establishment would have been classified, hiding their partisanship and misdeeds from public view, while the media and citizens’ organizations claimed responsibility. victory.
The fact that the Mufamadi report was largely ignored when it was released suggests that the debate lacks much enthusiasm for holding spies to account as he remains convinced that they must hide what they are doing to protect the population. .
Even now, it is a theme in some of the “revelations” reports. Spies are providing reporters with darker details of how the evidence provided to the commission threatens the safety of citizens. Agents who now fear for their safety when their identity is revealed will now, the country says, sell their services to other employers who will protect them better.
None of this is backed up by any evidence – security agencies are exaggerating both the threats to the country and their importance in thwarting them. But, since the default position of many journalists and activists is to believe spies, loud voices will again insist that they be allowed to keep their secrets.
The health of a democracy depends in part on ignoring these voices.
Save democracy
One wonders how much the country needs security agencies. Crime intelligence is essential but the country is not threatened by any other enemy state (except those invented by security agents) and internal security threats arise from issues, such as local tensions between citizens and local governments, which are not the business of spies.
That said, the country probably needs security agencies to guard against future threats, but precisely because they operate in secrecy, the interests of the people will only be protected if they are under strict control. the part of elected officials and citizen groups.
At the very least, oversight bodies need to know exactly what they are doing, how and why. This information, devoid of references to the persons and operations for which Parliament deems it necessary, must be accessible to all citizens.
If this does not happen, citizens’ rights will be eroded as they allow spies to prey on them when they claim to protect them.
Steven Friedman does not work, consult, own stock or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has not disclosed any relevant affiliations beyond his academic appointment.
By Steven Friedman, Professor of Political Studies, University of Johannesburg
Source link
