He also creates the impression that the Guptas are emerging businesspeople who are being victimised for attempting to enter industries dominated by “white monopoly capital”. He implies that the Guptas should be let off the hook because they have limited power to influence choices made by the state. Take the arguments advanced by former Economic Freedom Fighters parliamentarian Andile Mngxitama, for example. There are those who believe there has been “systemic” capture of the state by neoliberal politics and market forces. The input by some in South Africa fails to acknowledge this variation in the scope and impact of different forms of state capture. This is why it cannot be grouped together with the systemic influence of “white monopoly capital”. The alleged interference by the Guptas in the affairs of government seemingly assumes this character. A specific being, call him or her a predator, has the ability to call, follow up, threaten or even punish those who fail to comply. Predatory capture has potentially huge direct personal costs compared with its relatively impersonal systemic counterpart. It affects transactions, with specific individuals instructed to take certain decisions on specific procurement processes. This type of capture is “crude”, to borrow from Rok Ajulu’s upcoming book on Kenya. Secondly, there is what one may call predatory capture – a system in which one or a few individuals hold specific political figures ransom and bully their way to individual gain. ![]() These systems can be toppled by revolutions, not necessarily targeting specific individuals but institutions. Systemic capture is an example of what Marxist scholar Robert Cox refers to as “historic structures” in “Production, Power, and World Order” or what Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson refer to as “extractive institutions” that account for “Why Nations Fail”. ![]() But, they cannot be singled out as solely responsible for one decision or another. ![]() There may be particular families who are said to be chief architects or beneficiaries of institutions. This refers to “institutions” that affect the internal and external sovereignty of the state and limit its policy options to those that favour powerful sectors, which stand to benefit.Īn example of systemic capture could be neoliberal globalisation, which affects external sovereignty, or the capitalist system, which affects internal sovereignty.Ī distinguishing feature of systemic capture is that it can be faceless. One can categorise state capture in two forms.įirst, there is what can be called systemic state capture. A level of aggression and foul play is implied. In a nutshell, it denotes holding the state ransom to the private desires of a particular group or for their selfish gains. Examples of such behaviour include the private purchase of legislative votes, executive decrees, court decisions and illicit political party funding. The efforts of a small number of firms (or such groups as the military, ethnic groups and kleptocratic politicians) to shape the rules of the game to their advantage through illicit, nontransparent provision of private gains to public officials. Joel Hellman, dean of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, defines state capture as: Fukuyama cites an example of how the US seems unable to have a robust regulatory framework for its banking sector because banks fund political parties. Developing and developed countries have been subject to capture by interest groups. This process, which at its extreme develops into state capture, is not unique to South Africa. Generally it is referred to as neopatrimonialism. Fukuyama calls this repatrimonialisation. Political decay sets in when developed and impersonal institutions degenerate into personal fiefdoms, with kinship and friendship being reintroduced as determinants of fortune within the polity. In other words merit, vis-à-vis the relationship with the ruler, determines distribution of resources when states have developed beyond tribal organisation. The distinguishing factor is that in band-level or tribal systems access to resources is determined by personal relationships with the ruler, while it should be impersonal in fully “developed” states. The onset of decayįrancis Fukuyama’s recent work, “Political Order and Political Decay”, helps us understand the notion of state capture better.įukuyama describes the process of state development from kinship-based or band-level societies to tribal organisations and, ultimately, modern states. But, as is the case with the alleged influence of the Gupta family in the running of South Africa, state capture differs from stakeholder management.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |