Bending BEE laws for Starlink is a costly gamble SA can ill-afford

SOUTH Africa once again finds itself at a familiar crossroads. Growth versus transformation. Investment versus principle. Urgency versus process. 

The immediate spark is Elon Musk’s Starlink, along with reports that the government may soften Black Economic Empowerment requirements to fast-track its entry. 

But this debate is far bigger than satellite internet. It goes to the heart of constitutional governance and asks a simple but uncomfortable question: are our laws binding, or are they negotiable for those with enough power and influence?

In a constitutional democracy, ministers do not make or unmake laws. They execute them. Parliament legislates. The executive implements. This separation is not academic theory. It is the guardrail that prevents arbitrary governance.

If a minister uses policy discretion to rewrite BEE ownership requirements, that is not flexibility but overreach. When executive authority dilutes laws for convenience or political cost, the rule of law becomes conditional. Laws become suggestions. Enforcement becomes selective.

BEE is often called bureaucratic red tape that scares off investors. This framing is convenient but false. BEE is not accidental regulation. It is deliberate legislation to correct the structural exclusion of apartheid, still present today.

Black South Africans remain most of the population, yet ownership of productive assets, senior management positions, and equity remains stubbornly concentrated. This is not history. It is a present economic reality. BEE may be imperfect. It may be unevenly applied. It may require reform. But it represents Parliament’s chosen response to a deeply unequal economic structure.

The Starlink debate exposes a dangerous fault line. Supporters argue that equity equivalents are accepted practice, that South Africa must modernise to attract cutting edge firms, and that rigid application of BEE will leave the country digitally stranded. 

These arguments deserve engagement. South Africa needs investment. It needs technology. It needs global integration.

When regulatory accommodation appears tailored to a specific company, especially one led by the world’s wealthiest individual, the message is unmistakable. Laws are negotiable for the powerful and compulsory for everyone else. That is the opposite of equality before the law.

If BEE can be relaxed for Starlink because connectivity is strategic, then every sector will present its own urgency. Mining will cite competitiveness. Energy will cite load shedding. Finance will cite systemic importance. Each exception becomes justification for the next. Transformation becomes conditional. Compliance becomes optional.

There is also a deeper irony here. Elon Musk is South African by birth and early formation. Nationhood carries obligations as well as opportunity. One cannot selectively invoke South African roots while rejecting the social compact embedded in South African law.

BEE is not punishment for success. It is participation in a collective effort to build a more inclusive economy. If Musk’s companies can pioneer space travel and artificial intelligence, they can certainly structure compliant South African operations. The issue is not capacity. It is willingness.

Allowing executive shortcuts sets a precedent that bypasses democratic scrutiny. Reform by directive rather than debate. Adjustment without accountability. Over time, transformation policy is not repealed openly but hollowed out quietly, behind closed doors.

The idea that South Africa must choose between investment and the rule of law is a false choice. Serious investors value predictability. They value institutional integrity. They understand that countries where rules bend under pressure are countries where risk multiplies.

Applying the law consistently, even to powerful actors, sends a far stronger signal than any concession. It says this is a country where rules endure, where today’s law will not be discarded tomorrow for expediency.

If BEE needs reform for a digital and globalised economy, then Parliament must do the work. Let the business argue its case. Let labour and civil society respond. Let evidence guide change. That is how democratic law evolves. Not through executive accommodation crafted for specific interests.

South Africa should welcome innovation. It should pursue growth aggressively. But none of this justifies abandoning the principle that no one stands above the law.

Today it is Starlink. Tomorrow it will be something else. Each concession weakens the foundation. And once that foundation cracks, everything built upon it becomes unstable.

Trading institutional credibility for short-term connectivity is not pragmatism. It is a gamble South Africa cannot afford.

Qwesha is a trade finance consultant with expertise in global commerce and risk management and regularly contributes to a number of publications.