KGANKI MATABANE | Who will defend the gains of transformation?

South Africa is approaching another uncomfortable milestone in its democratic journey: 32 years since the end of apartheid and the beginning of constitutional democracy. Yet one question continues to confront us with uncomfortable persistence: who is prepared to defend the gains of economic transformation?

The question is particularly relevant in the current debate about broad-based BEE, employment equity and the future of economic transformation.

There is no shortage of voices criticising B-BBEE. Business organisations, political parties, commentators and other interest groups have increasingly questioned whether the policy has delivered sufficient economic growth, whether it has benefited a sufficiently broad section of black South Africans, and whether aspects of the regulatory framework have become too burdensome.

Some have called for fundamental changes, while others have argued for replacing race-based measures with alternatives based primarily on income or socioeconomic circumstances. These debates are now taking place alongside the government’s review of the B-BBEE framework.

Criticism of a public policy is legitimate. Indeed, after more than two decades of implementation, B-BBEE should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. But there is another side to this debate that deserves much more attention: where are the voices of those who benefited from transformation policies?

This is not an argument that every beneficiary of B-BBEE or employment equity must become a political campaigner for the policy. Nor should beneficiaries be expected to defend every aspect of a policy simply because they benefited from it.

These possibilities deserve an honest conversation rather than accusations.

But there is something worth examining about the relative quietness of many successful beneficiaries: Consider the thousands of black professionals who entered senior management, executive committees and boardrooms through the transformation of South African workplaces. Consider those who benefited from employment-equity policies and are today CEOs, CFOs, HR executives, board chairs and directors of major companies.

Consider also those who participated in B-BBEE ownership transactions and other empowerment schemes and who went on to build substantial personal wealth. Many of these individuals are now living evidence that transformation policies have had consequences beyond legislation and compliance reports.

The Employment Equity Act was introduced to promote employment equity and address unfair discrimination in the workplace. B-BBEE legislation was subsequently developed to create a framework for advancing economic transformation and increasing the participation of black South Africans in the economy.

So why are some of the people who benefited from these interventions not more vocal when the policies themselves come under sustained criticism There are several possible explanations, and we should be careful not to assume that one explanation applies to everyone.

One possibility is self-preservation. A person who has spent decades climbing the corporate ladder may understand that publicly defending controversial transformation policies could create tensions with shareholders, colleagues, investors or other powerful stakeholders. A CEO may ask: why should I put my position at risk to defend a policy when I have a family, employees, a career and financial obligations to consider? That is a legitimate question.

Another possibility is that some executives simply see themselves as corporate professionals rather than political actors. They may believe their responsibility is to shareholders, employees and the performance of the company, rather than to defend public policy.

Being a black CEO does not necessarily mean owning the company. Being an executive director does not necessarily mean controlling the shareholders. Being a board chair does not mean having unlimited authority

And perhaps this is where we need to ask another uncomfortable question: do we sometimes exaggerate the power of black executives simply because they occupy senior positions?

Being a black CEO does not necessarily mean owning the company. Being an executive director does not necessarily mean controlling the shareholders. Being a board chair does not mean having unlimited authority.

Many senior black professionals are, ultimately, employees of institutions whose ownership and strategic control may remain broader and more complex than their job titles suggest.

The same question applies to black businesspeople who are genuine owners. If someone owns a successful company, has accumulated substantial wealth, and has no conventional employer to fear, why might that person remain silent?

Perhaps they believe B-BBEE has already done what it needed to do for them. Perhaps they are concerned that defending B-BBEE will invite criticism of how their wealth was accumulated. Perhaps they believe the current system needs such significant reform that defending it publicly would be counterproductive. Or perhaps, quite simply, they do not believe that they have an obligation to defend the policy.

These possibilities deserve an honest conversation rather than accusations.

There is also a larger question about social responsibility. If transformation policies created opportunities for a generation of black professionals and entrepreneurs, does success create an obligation to help preserve and expand those opportunities for the generation that follows?

This is not about asking successful people to surrender their wealth. It is not about demanding political loyalty. It is about whether those who benefited from structural change have a responsibility to participate in the national conversation about whether that change should continue.

South Africa’s own official 30-year review provides a sobering context. It records significant progress but concludes that outcomes remain inadequate, with persistent disparities in ownership, income and corporate control. It also notes that tensions between policymakers and business have at times delayed implementation of transformation measures.

The argument, therefore, cannot simply be that B-BBEE has failed or that B-BBEE has succeeded. The more useful question is: what has worked, what has not worked, who has benefited, who has been left behind, and what must change?

Perhaps the question is whether those who know most intimately what transformation has made possible are willing to stand up and participate in the difficult debate about what transformation must become next

The government itself has acknowledged the need for reform. In 2026, President Cyril Ramaphosa said the B-BBEE framework was being reviewed to ensure that it supports greater transformation and inclusive growth. At the same time, the government has maintained that economic transformation remains necessary because substantial disparities persist.

That creates an opportunity for beneficiaries to enter the debate — not as beneficiaries demanding that the status quo remain untouched, but as citizens who can say: “This is what worked for me; this is what did not; this is what must change; and this is what the next generation needs.”

Transformation cannot become a system in which a relatively small number of people climb through the door and then quietly close it behind them.

Equally, transformation cannot be defended by pretending that every criticism is motivated by opposition to equality or redress. Serious criticism must be answered with evidence, just as serious opposition must be challenged with evidence.

The silence of beneficiaries therefore matters — not because every beneficiary has a legal or moral duty to become an activist, but because democracy depends on citizens participating in debates that affect the future of society.

South Africa needs successful black executives, entrepreneurs, professionals and investors to speak honestly about their experiences. They should tell us what transformation made possible. They should tell us where it failed. They should acknowledge where empowerment became narrow, transactional, or vulnerable to abuse. And they should help ensure that the benefits they received are not treated as the final destination of transformation but as part of a much larger project.

After 32 years of democracy, perhaps the question is no longer simply whether B-BBEE should be defended. Perhaps the question is whether those who know most intimately what transformation has made possible are willing to stand up and participate in the difficult debate about what transformation must become next.

The future of economic transformation cannot be left only to the government, political parties, business lobby groups or ideological opponents.

Those who have benefited from the journey must also have a voice in determining where the journey goes next.

• Matabane is CEO of the Black Business Council