South Africa’s post-state capture experience has left an important legacy – a heightened awareness of the dangers of hidden influence, elite networks and the abuse of public power for private gain. That vigilance is necessary. However, democracy is weakened when legitimate engagement with government is treated as something inherently suspicious. We make a serious mistake if we allow that history to turn every act of advocacy, every policy submission and every meeting between a lawful enterprise and a policymaker into a presumed conspiracy.
Tony Leon, in his New24 article, made precisely this point in arguing that ordinary, transparent public affairs work should not be mischievously equated with Bell Pottinger-style manipulation. His central distinction is an important one: state capture depended on concealment, subversion and criminality; legitimate public affairs depends on openness, lawful process and persuasion on the merits. That is not a cosmetic difference. It is the difference between democracy being corrupted and democracy functioning as it should.
Why engagement matters
Public affairs firms such as Frontline Africa Advisory render an important service because modern policymaking is complex. Legislators and officials are routinely asked to make decisions that affect investments, employment, public health, consumer choice, innovation, small businesses and entire communities. No department, committee or regulator can fully understand those consequences in isolation. They need evidence from the people who will live with the law once the debates are over and the regulations are gazetted.
That is where responsible public affairs work fits in. It helps private companies, industry bodies, unions, community organisations and other stakeholders understand the policymaking process, prepare credible submissions, test proposals against practical realities, and engage the institutions of government in a manner that is orderly, transparent and accountable. It does not confer a right to win. It does not entitle any client to dictate policy. It simply ensures that those affected by policy are able to contribute meaningfully before decisions are made.
In a constitutional democracy, that is not a vice. It is a virtue. The alternative is a policymaking culture in which government hears only from itself, mistakes criticism for sabotage, and treats practical evidence from affected sectors as an inconvenience. Such a system may appear cleaner from a distance, but in reality, it is poorer, less informed and less democratic.
The Constitution requires more than ritual consultation
The Constitutional Court has repeatedly made clear that public participation is not a decorative extra in the legislative process. It is a constitutional obligation. In Mogale and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others, the Court declared the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act invalid because Parliament and the provincial legislatures failed to comply with their duty to facilitate reasonable public involvement before passing the law. The Court’s concern was not whether every participant got the outcome they wanted, but whether the process gave affected people a meaningful opportunity to understand, engage with and influence the legislation before it became law.
That judgment matters far beyond the facts of traditional leadership legislation. It reminds Parliament that public participation cannot be reduced to a box-ticking exercise. Notice must be adequate. Information must be accessible. Hearings must be meaningful. Voices from affected communities must not be crowded out by procedural haste or official certainty. If the law is to command legitimacy, those governed by it must be heard before they are bound by it.
This is exactly why a reflexive suspicion of lobbying is so misplaced. Transparent advocacy is one of the practical ways in which public participation becomes real. It enables stakeholders to marshal evidence, explain unintended consequences, propose workable alternatives and ensure that lawmakers are not legislating in the dark. If Parliament is constitutionally required to facilitate meaningful public input, then organised, lawful and open engagement cannot simultaneously be treated as inherently illegitimate.
The Tobacco Bill proves the point
The current debate around the Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill illustrates the point with unusual clarity. For years, the Department of Health and the African National Congress appeared to view material differences of opinion on the Bill as little more than a coordinated attempt to defeat public-health policy. Criticism of particular clauses was too often treated as opposition to health itself. Concerns about enforcement, proportionality, illicit trade, small business survival, township trading conditions, harm reduction and product differentiation were frequently collapsed into a single accusation: that vested industry interests were trying to stop regulation.
Yet Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Health has now adopted a Motion of Desirability on the Bill, moving it to a detailed clause-by-clause consideration after an extensive public participation process. Parliament itself recorded that the committee took the Bill to 27 municipalities across all nine provinces, that nearly 7 900 people attended public hearings, that 1 113 oral submissions were made, and that about 40 000 written submissions were received. The committee also acknowledged that not all tobacco and nicotine products carry the same risk and that differentiation should inform the next stage of deliberation.
That is not a small development. Nor should it be misread as an altruistic or damascene moment from government. The expected changes to the Bill are the result of concerted, open lobbying by organised business, including small businesses, unions, communities, technical experts, consumers and other interested stakeholders. Those voices did not appear by accident. They organised, gathered evidence, made submissions, attended hearings, briefed legislators, challenged assumptions and insisted that public-health regulation can be firm without being blunt, evidence-free or economically destructive.
Transparency, not silence, is the answer
Public affairs consultants have supported this process in precisely the way responsible professionals should. They have monitored the policymaking process, advised clients on timing and substance, helped translate technical concerns into accessible arguments, and, where possible, facilitated engagement with policy structures in an open and transparent manner. That work should not be hidden in embarrassment. It should be disclosed, defended and judged by the quality of its evidence and the integrity of its methods.
Equally, private companies must own up to their lobbying. After all, they are not the only ones to do so. They are certainly not the most proficient at it. South Africa’s democratic history tells us clearly that labour unions are the most prolific at lobbying. This is evident in South Africa’s labour legislation, as well as their representation in government through the ANC-led Tripartite alliance. Even the formation of the Government of National Unity (GNU), following the 2024 National and Provincial Elections, involved intense negotiation and lobbying, including by private sector players. Similarly, NGO’s have proven very adept at lobbying with less budget. The assumption that labour and NGO’s have a more legitimate need for lobbying than business is misplaced and underpinned by a flawed understanding of democratic participation. If business believes a proposed law is unreasonable, unworkable or unfair, it should say so openly. If it believes a policy will damage jobs, investment, innovation or consumers, it should bring the evidence to the attention of policy makers.
Equally, domestic businesses must not engage policy makers tangentially by leaving their international allies to articulate views on matters of concern. Domestic business has both the legitimacy and responsibility to participate directly in policy debates that affect their operations, employees, customers and long-term sustainability. While international partners can provide valuable perspectives, they should not become substitutes for domestic voices. When local businesses rely primarily on external actors to raise their concerns, they risk weakening their own social license to engage, reinforcing the perception that policy debates are being driven by outside interests rather than by legitimate domestic stakeholders.
Effective public affairs require businesses to take ownership of their positions, engage transparently with policy makers, and contribute evidence-based perspectives to national conversation. South Africa’s policy environment is shaped by local realities; therefore, those closest to those realities must be willing to participate openly in shaping solutions.
South Africa should never be casual about state capture. The country paid too high a price for that. But vigilance against corruption must not become hostility to participation. A democracy in which business, labour, communities and civil society are afraid to engage government is not a cleaner democracy. It is a quieter, poorer and less accountable one.
The lesson from the Tobacco Bill is therefore broader than tobacco, nicotine or public health. It is that policymaking improves when government listens beyond its own assumptions, when stakeholders participate openly, and when public affairs is practised as a transparent bridge between those who govern and those who are governed. That is not state capture. It is constitutional democracy doing its work.
