The growing chorus calling for the abandonment of Black Economic Empowerment rests on a dangerous myth that BEE has failed and is therefore beyond redemption. This argument is not only intellectually lazy, but also politically dishonest.It mistakes incomplete transformation for irrelevance, and in doing so, seeks to absolve those who have resisted change for over three decades.
At its core, BEE was never a charitable exercise. It was a structural intervention designed to correct a deeply unequal economy, one that was deliberately engineered to exclude the black majority from ownership, control, and meaningful participation.
The question we must ask today is not whether BEE has failed, but whether it has been allowed to succeed.
The fundamental pillar is that of ownership and the answer is clear. The South African economy remains overwhelmingly white-owned with a tiny fraction in black hands. This is also reflected in the JSE where the picture of exclusion persists. After 32 years of democracy, we are still grappling with an economy that looks eerily similar to that of the past.
Ownership, however, does not exist in isolation. It determines who holds power. It shapes who makes decisions. It influences who benefits. And this brings us to the second pillar which is management control. South Africa’s corporate leadership to date is stubbornly untransformed. Many companies parade black executives in visible positions, but real power often resides elsewhere. Boards and executive committees continue to be dominated by white professionals, particularly white males. This is not accidental.
It is a direct consequence of skewed ownership patterns. As long as ownership remains concentrated, management control will follow. Without meaningful shifts in equity, the leadership profile of corporate South Africa will remain unchanged.
Employment equity paints an equally bleak picture as recent trends show that approximately 70 percent of new appointments and promotions still go to white individuals. This is not a pipeline problem nor is it a question of skills scarcity. It reflects entrenched networks, bias, and a persistent unwillingness to disrupt the status quo.
Taken together, these three elements were all meant to drive inclusive economic growth. They were designed to ensure that the benefits of economic activity are shared more equitably. Instead, they reveal a pattern of resistance, compliance theatre, and minimal change.
The crisis extends beyond these pillars. Skills development, once heralded as a transformative tool, has become a bureaucratic exercise. Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) and the broader skills development framework have overseen the accumulation and in some cases, the waste of billions of rands. Funds are rolled over year after year, while the country faces a growing skills deficit. Instead of being strategically deployed to build a competitive and inclusive workforce, skills development has been reduced to a tick-box exercise.
Preferential procurement, another critical lever, has also fallen short of its promise. Fronting remains widespread. White-owned companies continue to secure contracts by using black-owned entities as mere conduits. Despite repeated calls for stricter enforcement, meaningful consequences have been rare. The result is a hollowing out of one of the most powerful instruments for redistributing economic opportunity.
Enterprise and supplier development tells a similar story. Large corporates sit on substantial funds intended to nurture black businesses, yet these resources often remain underutilised. The excuse is as familiar as it is flawed: “We cannot find black companies.” This is the same logic that has been used to justify the slow pace of employment equity. It is not a reflection of reality but a convenient narrative that’s stifles transformation.
Even corporate social investment, arguably the easiest component to implement, reveals the limitations of current approaches. While many companies do commit resources, these efforts are often transactional. Cheque book CSI has become the norm, with limited emphasis on sustainable impact or meaningful community engagement.
In light of these realities, the call to scrap BEE altogether is not only premature, but it is also reckless. It assumes that the problem lies in the policy itself, rather than in its execution. More troublingly, it offers no credible alternative. Those who argue for abandonment often suggest that black South Africans should simply start their own businesses, as if entrepreneurship alone can overcome structural barriers.
This is a false choice. Supporting new black businesses is essential, but it is not mutually exclusive with transforming existing ones. In fact, the two are deeply interconnected. A new black-owned enterprise does not operate in a vacuum. It must engage with banks that remain largely untransformed. It must compete in markets shaped by established players with entrenched advantages. Without systemic change, these businesses will encounter the same barriers that have persisted for decades.
What, then, is the way forward?
The answer lies not in abandoning BEE, but in confronting its failures with honesty and urgency. Every business in South Africa must be compelled to answer a set of simple but profound questions.
Who owns your business, and does that ownership reflect the diversity of this country? Who runs your business, and does your leadership represent the full spectrum of South African talent? Who do you hire, and do your employment practices align with the demographics of our society? From whom do you procure, and are you actively building black industrialists and suppliers? In which communities do you invest, and are you contributing to sustainable development?
These are not abstract considerations. They go to the heart of what it means to build an inclusive economy. They demand more than compliance and require commitment.
The myth of abandoning BEE is, in truth, an attempt to retreat from this commitment. It is a call to preserve existing privileges under the guise of pragmatism. But South Africa cannot afford such regression. The structural inequalities of our economy are not self correcting. Left unaddressed, they will deepen, with profound social and political consequences.
BEE was never meant to be perfect. It was meant to be a starting point, a framework through which we could begin to dismantle the long legacy of exclusion. Its shortcomings should drive reform, not retreat. To abandon it now would be to concede defeat in the struggle for economic justice.
The real question is not whether BEE must stay or go. It is whether we have the political will, the institutional capacity, and the moral courage to make it work.
Prof. JJ Tabane is the editor of Leadership magazine