Barbara Hogan really did not belong in former president Jacob Zuma's cabinet. There cannot be anyone who followed her testimony at the state capture inquiry this week who was surprised that she was fired a year-and-a-half into her term as public enterprises minister. It is shocking that she lasted that long.
Malusi Gigaba, on the other hand, was the perfect fit. He understood what was required of a minister in the Zuma administration and was appointed to several key portfolios, including finance. It is chilling to think that just a few months ago, Gigaba was charged with one of the most crucial positions in the government, and presented the national budget.
Gigaba was the type of political functionary essential to the Zuma-Gupta clique - unquestioning, unethical and grovelling to the higher power, irrespective of who that was.
As he marinated in shame and finally made an undignified exit from public office this week, he was still in denial about what caused his downfall. He attributes it to a conspiracy against him rather than the reality that midwifery for the Guptas has consequences.
The contrast in character and values between Hogan and Gigaba, and in their approach to governance, is stark.
Hogan is a morally upstanding person who is a stickler for the rules of governance and constitutionality. Zuma's expectations that she flout company law, surrender her executive authority and participate in unconstitutional activities did not wash with her.
Hogan testified at the Zondo commission that Zuma, the ANC, the SACP and some of her cabinet colleagues tried to bully her into appointing Siyabonga Gama as CEO of Transnet when he was facing disciplinary charges.
The Transnet board recommended the exemplary Sipho Maseko, now CEO of Telkom, for the position, but Hogan's comrades claimed Gama was being persecuted and a white candidate was favoured over him.
Hogan held firm against political pressure and was therefore branded "ill-disciplined" by her comrades. Some senior ANC leaders grumbled this week that Hogan defied the instructions of the president, and wanted to act independently of the ANC.
This is due to a lack of understanding of the legal powers of presidents, ministers and boards of directors. It is a fundamental violation of the line between party and state for the ANC to interfere in appointments that have to be made via rigorous interview and selection processes.
In order to support Zuma, senior ANC leaders opted to desecrate the reputation of one of the party's own veterans.
"I was cast as an anti-transformation racist who did not appreciate the necessity for transformation in this country … That really offended me. I expected better from my colleagues who knew my history," Hogan said.
The real problem is that her organisation did not share her adherence to governance procedures or meritocracy. The ANC's inclination is towards those who enjoy political favour, particularly with the president.
It is not even true to say that all ANC members are given preference through the cadre deployment policy - it is only those aligned with the dominant faction of the party who are likely to land top positions.
In the process of building a credible state following the devastation of state capture, it is necessary to consider how senior appointments are made and how much involvement there is from the ruling party and the president.
Across the world, parties that win elections have the right to make strategic appointments in the administration. But the dysfunction in our government and state-owned enterprises (SOEs) is largely as a result of having the wrong people in key positions.
As Hogan told justice Raymond Zondo, unduly influencing the appointment of key executives and board members in SOEs "escalated over the years and has resulted in a litany of maladministration, abuse of resources and theft". Hogan's testimony about how appointment processes contributed to state capture prompted Zondo to ask her for a written submission that could be included in the recommendations of his final report.
It is not easy to get the best people into key positions when politics and subversive agendas supersede merit.
President Cyril Ramaphosa deferred his powers in favour of an open interview process to select a new national director of public prosecutions. It could be that the president just did not know who to choose, or did not want to be held responsible should the appointment turn out to be another blunder at the National Prosecuting Authority. It is nevertheless laudable to have a credible, transparent process.
It will, of course, be difficult to have televised interviews for all key positions, and even such a process is not foolproof - as exemplified by the selection of the public protector.
But the experience of state capture should prompt a reassessment of how major appointments are made so that political favouritism is eliminated.
A strong bureaucracy with good, dedicated and capable people is essential to SA's recovery...