We are not amused, John
· Citizen
Another week, another own goal. Former DA leader John Steenhuisen is proving, as minister of agriculture, to be almost as destructive as the foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) that he has so dismally failed to contain.
The latest debacle is not another humiliating court reversal. It’s something smaller, pettier, but in its own way utterly revealing of the toxic culture that prevails at the top of the department of agriculture: a snide e-mail.
Visit newsbetsport.bond for more information.
Snide e-mail reveals a deeper problem
Last week, FMD Response SA wrote to Steenhuisen, stressing its commitment “to finding common ground”.
The agricultural action group acknowledged the department’s efforts “under challenging circumstances” and pleaded for direct engagement.
Jana le Roux, Steenhuisen’s chief of staff, forwarded the request to the department’s director-general and deputy director-general with the words: “Attached just received for some amusement…”
It was inadvertently copied to FMD Response SA. Given the conciliatory tone of FMD Response SA and the strain the disease has imposed on farmers of all races, Le Roux’s response was disturbingly tone-deaf and callous.
Indeed, the letter reads as a cap-in-hand plea from farmers desperate to help the state do its job. But in Steenhuisen’s world, it apparently passes for impertinence.
Culture behind the email
The significance of this apparently minor incident lies in the fact that Le Roux felt safe sharing her scorn.
No chief of staff writes in that tone to a department’s two top officials unless she believes the sentiment will be understood, shared, and enjoyed.
The e-mail merely exposed the arrogant culture that produced it. That was confirmed by Steenhuisen’s handling of the matter.
When the story broke, he ducked for cover and tried to ignore it. No rebuke of Le Roux. No disavowal.
Masterclass in deflection
Only when the public clamour failed to die down, did Steenhuisen eventually issue an anodyne response.
“I note an e-mail originating from a ministry staff member,” he wrote. The e-mail was “in bad taste”, and he had requested “the person concerned” to apologise.
Everyone should show “mutual respect and act in good faith”, because only through collaboration could obstacles in agriculture be overcome.
This statement was a marvel of deflection. A contemptuous response to an important agricultural entity was glossed over as an unfortunate lapse in taste.
Again, the DA has incurred needless political damage that its political opponents can capitalise on.
Political fallout and farmer frustration
Athol Trollip, ActionSA’s parliamentary leader and himself a farmer, said the episode revealed Steenhuisen’s “jaundiced and acerbic attitude” towards farmer organisations.
His parliamentary colleague, Ian Cameron, quickly assured FMD Response SA that Le Roux’s conduct was “inexcusable” and did not represent everyone in the DA.
FMD Response SA accepted Steenhuisen’s anaemic response with admirable grace. However, to its credit, it has not rolled over.
Writing in BizNews, its spokesperson, Andrew Morphew, made the critical point that “this is not a story about one rude e-mail”.
It is about a plan that farmers, industry bodies, veterinarians, and experts warned would not stop the disease.
Good and bad farmers
Steenhuisen’s message remains doggedly unchanged.
There are “good” farmers, safely inside his magic circle. And then there are the “bad” ones who dare challenge the policies and actions of him or his department, who are frozen out.
That is why he publicly derides scientists and now snubs FMD Response SA.
That is why he is untroubled by the conduct of a chief of staff who should face disciplinary consequences. Certainly, on South Africa’s farms, nobody is laughing.