MIXED MESSAGES and communication blunders

Apparently, Deputy President Paul Mashatile and Trade, Industry & Competition Minister Parks Tau saw no problem in launching the proposed new 'transformation fund' before closing a public commentary window on its underpinning draft 'concept document'. Published on the Department of Trade, Industry & Competition website six weeks before the fund's launch, the document outlines the thinking behind creating yet another black economic empowerment vehicle – with expectations of more effectively facilitating 'access to funding for majority black-owned enterprises and SMMEs', according to its executive summary.

Unfortunately, the accompanying media statement didn't appear on the SA National Government website until sometime in April, when a backdated version was sneaked onto the appropriate page. This may explain why the public commentary deadline (originally 18 April 2025) was extended on 24 April to 28 May. And almost unbelievably, once again the statement announcing this was posted only on the department's site. It has yet to be sneaked in anywhere else, as far as we can tell.

The Deputy President's speech at the fund's launch didn't include an operationalisation date, although a Business Day article quotes him as having said things will be up and running 'by the year-end'. But without significant private sector buy-in the initiative could fall horribly flat. And according to Business Day, proposals in the draft concept document have 'received cynical reviews from organised business'.

In a broader context, while three paragraphs in the official version of the Deputy President's speech focused on a long-promised 'national dialogue' (nevertheless repeating what has already been said many times), it's still not clear when this is expected to take place. Meanwhile, he would like to see 'three war rooms' established to find ways of addressing ongoing concerns about:

• jobs and the economy

• poverty and hunger, and

• clean governance.

So, what's new? Seriously? Definitely not 'war rooms' or the complex, systemic issues underpinning longstanding concerns unlikely to be addressed any time soon in this troubled land (not to forget the rest of the African continent). Well-meaning policy interventions and noble legal precepts have clearly failed miserably. And let's not be fooled by the empty rhetoric of certain political parties represented in Parliament – or the point-scoring victory statements artfully issued by others in that august institution. No matter which political party is in power or how many GNUs are formed, South Africa is in serious trouble.

But we digress. This humble soupçon is supposed to be about 'transformation' and black economic empowerment. Which has never been 'broad-based', by the way.

The cynicism to which Business Day referred may have been rooted in justifiable reservations about government's capacity to manage the fund responsibly. After all, there will be large sums of money involved running into billions over several years if everyone plays ball.

Whatever the case, from where we sit (trawling the Department of Trade, Industry & Competition website), poor communication and a general lack of transparency about existing black economic empowerment and transformation initiatives don't exactly inspire confidence in government's ability to deliver on its promises.

For example, were 100 black industrialists with growth potential ever identified and supported to the extent necessary if new entrants to certain sector-specific local and international markets are to survive and grow? Because that was the intention of a 'black industrialists scheme' launched in December 2015 by former Trade & Industry Minister Rob Davies and his Deputy Minister at the time, Mzwandile Masina (now chair of the National Assembly's Trade, Industry & Competition Committee). At least, according to an article on the SME SA website.

No mention is made of that target on the department's site, where there are two separate pages dedicated to the initiative: one on the scheme (focusing on application procedures and related criteria); the other on the programme (including two success stories). We repeat: two success stories, four years into the initiative (which is when the page was published, at least according to the site search engine).

Neither is there any sign on the department's website of an undertaking reportedly made by the former Minister to 'accelerate the creation of black industrialists with an aim of creating 100 ... by the end of the coming financial year (March 2018)' (BusinessTech). Perhaps he made this commitment on the sidelines of the economic cluster media briefing held that week, because the official statement simply refers to the 'programme' having 'supported 27 entrepreneurs, leveraged R2,5 billion in private sector investment and created 5 235 direct jobs'.

While ensuing economic cluster media statements, annual performance plans of one sort and another and a search on the departmental site for 'black industrialists', may well throw more light on the matter, that's not the point. With apologies for using the term 'created' in this context (it was regularly bandied about by the former Minister), the nub of the matter hinges on whether or not 100 black industrialists were indeed 'created' before March 2018. And if so:

• we need to know if they're still open for business and in which sectors

• how many survived the Covid-19 pandemic

• how many survived the ensuing economic downturn

• in that context, how many were identified, supported and funded during the tenures of former Ministers Rob Davies and Ebrahim Patel, and

• whether any have since been supported under the GNU given budgetary belt tightening measures now in place.

We also need tangible evidence of 100 black industrialists 'created' during the 10-year-old scheme that have grown and are still trading. As things now stand, the most comprehensive information available is a News24 article published six years ago, penned by Soria Hay (head of corporate finance at Bravura, an investment banking and advisory firm). Among other things, the article draws attention to numerous challenges apparently being faced at the time by the scheme's beneficiaries. And as far as we know, since then not one of them has been meaningfully, practically addressed.