Paul Hoffman correctly points out that South Africans need to act ethically and  responsively and create an environment where accountability is accepted to ensure a sustainable future for everyone.

Paul is with the Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa and his article In search of an appropriate moral compass for the nation first appeared in Business Day today.

Extracts

“IT IS often remarked that some of those in positions of power in SA have “lost their moral compass”.   Cynics suggest that they never had one anyway.   When the topic is taken up by talk-show hosts, an outpouring of scepticism and distrust follows.   What, then, should a moral compass entail?   How can one be put in place?   And, more important, why is a moral compass so conspicuously absent in the governance of SA and in its business community?

Any examination of the appropriate content of a moral compass has to start with an assessment of the values of the society to which the compass applies.   SA is a constitutional, multiparty democracy under the rule of law in which unity in diversity and human dignity enjoy pride of place.   The enjoyment of the various freedoms guaranteed to all in the bill of rights incorporated into the constitution by the founders of the new order is the task of the state.   It is enjoined to “respect, protect, promote and fulfil” the rights for the benefit of all who live in the country.   The rights so entrenched are numerous: they range from matters as basic as life and personal security to as socioeconomic as access to healthcare and housing, with inalienable rights to education and religious/cultural freedom and political activity in between.

The foundational values of the constitution include nonracism, nonsexism and universal adult suffrage with regular elections “to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness”.   The constitution is regarded as the supreme law of the land; “law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid, and the obligations imposed by it must be fulfilled”.   Eleven official languages enjoy “parity of esteem and must be treated equitably”.

The words inside quotation marks all appear in the text of chapter one of the constitution.

The purpose of all this is summed up in the preamble to the constitution in the following words:

“So as to:

  • heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights;
  • lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law;
  • improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person; and
  • build a united and democratic SA able to take its rightful place as a sovereign state in the family of nations.”

Deriving as simple a device as a moral compass from the welter of information and options contained in the constitution is a question of prioritising the values that appeal most to the individual or organisation in search of a moral compass to serve as a guide.   As there is freedom of association and freedom of choice, within the constitutional confines outlined above, there does not need to be any single moral compass.   At different times, different points of the complex compass that the founders gave the nation may enjoy more, or less, prominence — depending on the exigencies of the occasion.

As a tentative suggestion for the present stage of development of the nation, it seems that the four cardinal points of the moral compass could be

  • ethics,
  • sustainability,
  • responsiveness, and
  • accountability.

Why has SA lost its moral compass, whatever cardinal points are chosen for it?   Adherence to the Leninist doctrine that underlies the “national democratic revolution”, the political programme of those in power in most provinces, cities and towns, seems to be at the root of this malaise.   The values of the constitution are rubbished by those in power, judges are tagged as “counter-revolutionaries”, and a striving for hegemonic control over all the levers of power in society remains the goal of those “revolutionaries” who should in fact be governing in accordance with the values of the constitution.   This speaks of a failure on the part of a liberation movement to adapt itself to the responsibilities and exigencies of governing a modern constitutional state in which the separation, checking and balancing of powers (not hegemony) is the order of the day.”