Can it possibly be right that untold wealth has landed in the lap of the small handful of “black economic empowerment” (BEE) beneficiaries while poverty, inequality and joblessness grow exponentially in South Africa?

Is there a viable alternative to BEE in its current race-based incarnation?

The first point to make in addressing these concerns is that South Africa is a non-racial and non-sexist constitutional democracy under the rule of law. The Bill of Rights, which is Chapter Two of the Constitution, has an equality clause that is the fons et origo of all laws that seek to effect redress for the racism of the past.

The relevant parts of section 9 read:

“9. (1) Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.

(2) Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken.

(3) The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.”

It is clear that affirmative action measures, as contemplated by section 9(2), must be designed to protect or advance persons or categories of persons disadvantaged by unfair discrimination. There is no reference to race in the sub-section. Race may not, under section 9(3) be used as a basis to unfairly discriminate against anyone. The purpose of affirmative action is to advance the achievement of equality, NOT to enrich a tiny minority of well-connected people who are favoured by those in power.

Professor William Gumede of the Wits School of Governance estimates that only approximately 100 well-heeled individuals have benefitted from the type of affirmative measures that are called BEE in SA. The invention of big business, BEE was not intended by big business or anyone else to address the past unfair discrimination against women, conscientious objectors, conscripts who became obliged to fight, die or be maimed and/or mentally scarred for life in border wars waged by the race-based white patriarchy that was apartheid.

Hardly the way

BEE is hardly the way to promote the achievement of economic equality or indeed any form of equality at all. Making a handful of chosen individuals super rich, to the tune of a trillion rand nogal, does not promote the achievement of equality that is the stated goal of the Constitution.

The pressure to dispense with the BEE scheme is growing and comes from various quarters, not least those in the US who are concerned about the wellbeing of the average South African of whatever hue, living in relative poverty and no better off than those who lived in poverty under apartheid.

Biznews is exercised on the topic of dropping BEE as we know it. Its editorial comment is instructive and worthy of quoting: “Einstein aggressively applied the concept of inversion to disprove ideas, no matter how pure and beautiful in theory. Only once they not only stood up against rigorous interrogation, but the evidence that emerged, proved the idea would be accepted. Any scientist with credibility still applies this principle.

“Pretoria should learn from this simple premise. Apart from a sliver of outrageous beneficiaries, BEE is universally derided. In our recent interview, Dawie Roodt said the name should be changed to BBE — ‘Black Billionaire Empowerment’.

The beneficiaries are led by Ramaphosa himself, apparently worth an astonishing R8-billion without, says Roodt, having created anything. Surely the son of a police sergeant has sufficient nous to appreciate that such an obscene transfer of wealth adds no value to ‘the collective’ he’s so proud of quoting.

“Once evidence shows an idea to be bad, it must be replaced, especially if it is something causing untold misery that accompanies a needlessly contracting economy and growing unemployment.”

Both beggars

A couple who are both beggars daily occupy an intersection between the two malls that Noordhoek in Cape Town boasts. They are married and each holds up a neatly handwritten sign for motorists to read. The signs are wrapped in plastic to preserve their messages against the rain of a Cape winter.

From his sign we learn that he suffers from epilepsy and is unemployable; from hers that she relies on an SA Social Security Agency grant and has very little left over after paying her rental in the settlement known as Masiphumelele, where they live and eke out an existence. Their respective ages and circumstances suggest that they are disadvantaged; they are not, however, entitled to the benefits of BEE. Both would, in the old SA, have carried an ID document identifying them as white.

To restate my earlier question, can it possibly be right that untold wealth has landed in the lap of the small coterie of BEE beneficiaries, themselves quite arguably the least disadvantaged of their black compatriots, while poverty, inequality and joblessness grow exponentially in SA?

The design of section 9 of the Constitution and its avowed objectives indicate a resounding “No” to this semi-rhetorical question.

All these factors and circumstances do not answer the question: What replaces BEE?

By the proper and constitutionally pure interpretation of the equality clause in the Bill of Rights it is possible to come up with the type of answer that has been proposed by the SA Institute of Race Relations. This venerable think tank has devised what it calls EED to replace BEE. Economic Empowerment of the Disadvantaged is the notion informing its campaign for changing the existing BEE dispensation.

Dr Anthea Jeffery is one of the originators of the proposal, which she has discussed in a podcast. Jeffery has also addressed the earlier concerns around the future of BEE and its replacement that were expressed by Stephen Grootes in March 2025 in his Daily Maverick column.

In short, anyone of any race may apply to the state for EED benefits in the form of vouchers for housing, education and healthcare services. A means test is then applied to the applicants and tax funding is used to pay for the vouchers issued to beneficiaries who qualify for the benefits of EED.

Increased urgency

The issue has obtained new focus and increased urgency in the light of deteriorating relations between SA and the US, as well as the introduction of punitive tariffs by the latter that leave SA with tariffs at 30% – double or more than double those imposed on SA’s neighbours by the US.

Clinging to the dubious benefits of a policy that has not worked to promote the achievement of equality when the EED alternative is available and will indubitably do so, is not good governance. The way in which the term “disadvantaged” is used in the Bill of Rights is completely colour-blind, as can be expected in a constitutional dispensation that is both non-racial and non-sexist.

At the dawn of democracy in SA there was an argument that disadvantage and race were synonyms due to the ravages of apartheid. This argument, such as it is, can hardly apply after 30 years of uninterrupted governance by the ANC and its allies. Current inequality, joblessness and the economic doldrums of the country can all be laid at the door of ANC policy-makers.

They would do well to pay proper attention to the scheme devised by the IRR.

*The IRR is to host a webinar on Tuesday in which Dr Anthea Jeffery will set how the EED proposal, unlike BEE, will “stimulate growth and help empower the poor in meaningful ways”.