Herman Mashaba’s forceful rebuke of Dirk Hermann, the CEO of Solidarity, accusing him of pushing a “malicious and treasonous agenda,” distancing himself from “dishonesty and racists not willing to accept the evil they inflicted on the majority of Black South Africans in the past,” is not just rhetoric. It is a defence of South Africa’s constitutional and moral roadmap toward effective and meaningful transformation.
To understand why any redress policy exists, one must first acknowledge the deep and systemic injustice of apartheid. For decades, laws ensured that black people could not own land, access quality education, or hold senior positions in business. Economic disenfranchisement was not incidental; it was deliberately engineered to disempower Black South Africans.
Post-1994, our democracy inherited not only political freedom but a structurally unequal economy. The Constitution of 1996, one of our most profound achievements, recognises this legacy in its founding values.
Critics like Dirk Hermann often argue that any race-conscious policy is inherently “racist”. But constitutional law does not support that simplistic view. Section 9, the equality clause, does more than prohibit discrimination. Yes, everyone is equal before the law. But crucially, Section 9(2) allows “measures designed to protect or advance persons … disadvantaged by unfair discrimination.” The Constitution anticipates remedial action.
However, and this is where ActionSA differs from the ANC, the Constitution does not prescribe B-BBEE as the only or even the correct mechanism for such redress. It demands effective redress, not the enrichment of connected elites.
The tragedy is that the ANC hijacked the principle of redress and converted it into BEE, a model that has largely benefited a politically-connected minority while leaving millions of poor black South Africans behind. Instead of broad empowerment, we got narrow enrichment.
Mashaba’s real challenge to Hermann (and others) is that dismissing the need for redress entirely is as dishonest as defending the ANC’s BEE framework that has not yielded the desired outcomes. South Africa does not need colour-blind denialism, nor does it need the ANC’s elite-capture machinery. It needs redress that actually works.
To reject the need for redress is to deny the lived reality of millions of South Africans who remain economically marginalised as a direct consequence of apartheid and ANC misgovernance. But to insist that BEE is the only way to correct this is equally misguided.
Effective redress is not charity. It is justice. And it must be built on principles that actually uplift the poor, develop skills, build entrepreneurship, and create real opportunities and not opportunities for the same few names who appear repeatedly on empowerment deals.
Some critics argue that redress should focus more on poverty and disadvantage than on race. ActionSA agrees. A policy model grounded in socio-economic disadvantage, historical exclusion, poor schooling and limited access to opportunity is not only fairer, but it is more effective.
This approach is entirely constitutional. Section 9 allows corrective measures but does not mandate perpetual race categories. Non-racialism and redress are not mutually exclusive. In fact, South Africa’s future depends on balancing both.
If we retreat into colour-blind denialism, we entrench the very inequalities apartheid created. If we cling to the ANC’s broken BEE model, we entrench corruption, patronage, and elite enrichment. Both paths betray the constitutional commitment to heal, rebuild, and unify.
Dismissing redress wholesale isn’t courage but rather complacency. But defending BEE, after decades of evidence that it has not delivered broad-based empowerment, is equally a refusal to confront reality. The conversation South Africa needs is about effective redress, not dogma.
Mashaba is justified in his strong response to Hermann. The Constitution provides for redress because of our history. But South Africa urgently needs a redress model that is transparent, non-racial in implementation, and focused on lifting the poor, all the poor, not enriching connected insiders.
To call all redress “racist” without acknowledging the apartheid legacy and without offering a credible, effective alternative to empowerment is not a principled stand. It is denial. And in a country built on the principles of equality, non-racialism, and dignity, we cannot afford denial if we are serious about building a fair and prosperous future.
And finally, with all due respect, Dirk Hermann must kindly stop pretending that transformation is an insult. South Africa has 62 million people trying to fix a broken economy. We don’t have the time or emotional bandwidth to babysit a grown man who throws a tantrum every time the word “redress” is mentioned. At this point, the only “limiting and degrading” thing in this debate is his refusal to engage honestly with our past and present.
South Africa is moving forward. Dirk can either join us… or stand on the pavement and shout at the clouds.
Why Mashaba Is Right. South Africa Needs Real Redress That Works
Herman Mashaba’s forceful rebuke of Dirk Hermann, the CEO of Solidarity, accusing him of pushing a “malicious and treasonous agenda,” distancing himself from “dishonesty and racists not willing to accept the evil they inflicted on the majority of Black South Africans in the past,” is not just rhetoric. It is a defence of South Africa’s constitutional and moral roadmap toward effective and meaningful transformation.
To understand why any redress policy exists, one must first acknowledge the deep and systemic injustice of apartheid. For decades, laws ensured that black people could not own land, access quality education, or hold senior positions in business. Economic disenfranchisement was not incidental; it was deliberately engineered to disempower Black South Africans.
Post-1994, our democracy inherited not only political freedom but a structurally unequal economy. The Constitution of 1996, one of our most profound achievements, recognises this legacy in its founding values.
Critics like Dirk Hermann often argue that any race-conscious policy is inherently “racist”. But constitutional law does not support that simplistic view. Section 9, the equality clause, does more than prohibit discrimination. Yes, everyone is equal before the law. But crucially, Section 9(2) allows “measures designed to protect or advance persons … disadvantaged by unfair discrimination.” The Constitution anticipates remedial action.
However, and this is where ActionSA differs from the ANC, the Constitution does not prescribe B-BBEE as the only or even the correct mechanism for such redress. It demands effective redress, not the enrichment of connected elites.
The tragedy is that the ANC hijacked the principle of redress and converted it into BEE, a model that has largely benefited a politically-connected minority while leaving millions of poor black South Africans behind. Instead of broad empowerment, we got narrow enrichment.
Mashaba’s real challenge to Hermann (and others) is that dismissing the need for redress entirely is as dishonest as defending the ANC’s BEE framework that has not yielded the desired outcomes. South Africa does not need colour-blind denialism, nor does it need the ANC’s elite-capture machinery. It needs redress that actually works.
To reject the need for redress is to deny the lived reality of millions of South Africans who remain economically marginalised as a direct consequence of apartheid and ANC misgovernance. But to insist that BEE is the only way to correct this is equally misguided.
Effective redress is not charity. It is justice. And it must be built on principles that actually uplift the poor, develop skills, build entrepreneurship, and create real opportunities and not opportunities for the same few names who appear repeatedly on empowerment deals.
Some critics argue that redress should focus more on poverty and disadvantage than on race. ActionSA agrees. A policy model grounded in socio-economic disadvantage, historical exclusion, poor schooling and limited access to opportunity is not only fairer, but it is more effective.
This approach is entirely constitutional. Section 9 allows corrective measures but does not mandate perpetual race categories. Non-racialism and redress are not mutually exclusive. In fact, South Africa’s future depends on balancing both.
If we retreat into colour-blind denialism, we entrench the very inequalities apartheid created. If we cling to the ANC’s broken BEE model, we entrench corruption, patronage, and elite enrichment. Both paths betray the constitutional commitment to heal, rebuild, and unify.
Dismissing redress wholesale isn’t courage but rather complacency. But defending BEE, after decades of evidence that it has not delivered broad-based empowerment, is equally a refusal to confront reality. The conversation South Africa needs is about effective redress, not dogma.
Mashaba is justified in his strong response to Hermann. The Constitution provides for redress because of our history. But South Africa urgently needs a redress model that is transparent, non-racial in implementation, and focused on lifting the poor, all the poor, not enriching connected insiders.
To call all redress “racist” without acknowledging the apartheid legacy and without offering a credible, effective alternative to empowerment is not a principled stand. It is denial. And in a country built on the principles of equality, non-racialism, and dignity, we cannot afford denial if we are serious about building a fair and prosperous future.
And finally, with all due respect, Dirk Hermann must kindly stop pretending that transformation is an insult. South Africa has 62 million people trying to fix a broken economy. We don’t have the time or emotional bandwidth to babysit a grown man who throws a tantrum every time the word “redress” is mentioned. At this point, the only “limiting and degrading” thing in this debate is his refusal to engage honestly with our past and present.
South Africa is moving forward. Dirk can either join us… or stand on the pavement and shout at the clouds.