Stellenbosch, transformation, and the unfinished business of belonging

A shaky video clip, leaked from Stellenbosch Municipality, has set off a storm.

In it, senior HR manager Alexander Kannemeyer appears to question why top-scoring candidates in recruitment processes are still often white males, and controversially suggests making life “difficult” for them so they resign and open space for others.

Within days, political parties called for his removal, civic groups demanded his suspension, and his words were condemned across the spectrum.

The temptation is to stop there, to vilify an official whose phrasing was ill-judged and whose sentiments appear discriminatory.

But doing so risks missing the deeper truth.

The outrage around Kannemeyer is not only about one man’s words; it is about the fault line running through South Africa’s democracy. Three decades after 1994, we still cannot agree on what a fair workplace looks like in a society built on deep inequality.

The Uneasy Intersection of Merit and Redress

At the core of the controversy is a paradox.

On the one hand, organisations insist that they appoint the “best candidate.” On the other, the outcomes of supposedly neutral processes often reproduce privilege where top candidates are disproportionately white, male, and middle-class.

For many, this confirms that meritocracy is still coded in whiteness that advantage reproduces itself through networks, schools, and cultural capital.

But for those who feel excluded by transformation policies, the argument is equally compelling: why should individual white employees bear the burden of historic wrongs when they may themselves have worked hard, scored highest, or performed best?

Both perspectives are claims to fairness. Both carry emotional weight. And both are easily weaponised in political battles.

Law, Policy, and the Slippery Slope

The Constitution and Employment Equity Act are explicit, affirmative action is a legitimate tool for redress. Section 9 of the Constitution recognises that achieving equality sometimes requires treating people differently. In this sense, the project of transformation is lawful, ethical, and necessary.

But the law also sets limits. It prohibits arbitrary exclusion or creating hostile working conditions based on race.

When Kannemeyer’s remarks suggested that white employees should be made uncomfortable until they resign, he crossed into territory that no court would defend.

What is legally mandated transformation cannot become punitive engineering. That tension between permissible affirmative action and impermissible discrimination is precisely why the debate remains so combustible.

Beyond Policy: The Human Dimension

Policy alone cannot capture what is at stake. Transformation is about more than numbers or compliance reports.

It is about dignity, belonging, and identity at work.

For white employees, transformation often feels like a moving target, a subtle message that their place in the workplace is conditional or precarious.

For Black employees, transformation often feels stalled promises of inclusion remain unfulfilled, and structural barriers remain intact.

Recruitment processes still privilege those with elite schooling, fluent English, or the “right” cultural fit.

Kannemeyer’s remarks, clumsy as they were, struck a nerve because they reflect the lived frustrations on both sides: a sense of exclusion, fear, and mistrust that runs deeper than any HR policy.

Why the Debate Still Divides Us

There are at least four reasons the issue remains so controversial:

1. Historical continuity. Thirty years is not enough to dismantle the layers of economic and educational advantage accumulated over centuries. Outcomes still skew toward the privileged.
2. Slow pace of change: For many Black professionals, transformation is more symbolic than substantive. Leadership pipelines remain narrow, and boardrooms still look much the same.
3. Communication failures: Leaders often articulate transformation in ways that fuel division. When change is framed as punishment, it entrenches resentment rather than building solidarity.
4. Instrumentalism: Too often, transformation is reduced to a headcount exercise, disconnected from the deeper reimagining of institutional culture. Swapping faces without changing systems leaves the status quo intact.

The Real Work: Beyond Compliance

The real question is whether transformation is pursued as a compliance exercise or as a values-driven commitment to justice. Making life “difficult” for anyone is not transformation. Neither is appointing a few candidates of colour while leaving organisational culture untouched.

True transformation asks harder questions. Are recruitment processes genuinely inclusive, transparent, and fair? Are organisations investing in mentorship and skills pipelines that prepare underrepresented groups for leadership?Are cultures shifting to make all employees feel they belong, not just tolerated?

Transformation that relies on antagonism will fail. Transformation that reimagines culture and structures can create workplaces that are both fair and effective.

Courageous Transformation

The Stellenbosch Municipality case is less about Alexander Kannemeyer than about all of us. It is about a nation still struggling to reconcile merit with redress, fairness with history, and diversity with cohesion.

What we need is not more scapegoating, but more courage, the courage to acknowledge that privilege persists and will not undo itself, the courage to say that punitive shortcuts are not the answer, and the courage to invest in the long game of building equitable institutions where belonging is not conditional.

If Stellenbosch teaches us anything, it is that transformation cannot be done to people; it must be done with them.

South Africa cannot afford a future where belonging is negotiated through discomfort or departure. Our democracy demands a deeper imagination: one where transformation is not a zero-sum game, but a shared project of justice.

The leaked video may soon fade from the headlines, but the questions it raises will not. Who gets to belong? Who gets to lead?

And how do we get there together without tearing each other apart?

Prof Armand Bam is Head of Social Impact at Stellenbosch Business School.

BUSINESS REPORT