A glaring omission from the Marikana Commission of Inquiry report is a finding with regard to political accountability of the executive.

The report seems to limit itself to the culpability of the bureaucrats to the exclusion of their political heads, in the form of then minister of police Nathi Mthethwa and of mineral resources, Susan Shabangu.

But the commission's reluctance to give findings with regard to the actions of the executive should not entirely be laid at its doorstep.

By their very nature, commissions of inquiry are limited by the terms of reference given to them by the president.

Also, as institutions  that are the sole preserve of the president, it is important not to be deluded that they can indeed be trusted to give substance to the accountability of the very executive that has the prerogative to determine what and how far they can probe.

Oversight institutions such as parliament, Chapter 9 institutions and the judiciary are most competent to hold the executive to account.

Although the commission might have exonerated them, in the court of public opinion Mthethwa, Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa and Shabangu will remain blameworthy in the Marikana massacre.

Here is why. During the commission's sittings, lawyers for the 34 victims argued about a toxic collusion between state and capital. They cited the example of the 1922 mineworkers' strike which was crushed when the government sent in the air force to bomb striking workers who had gone on a revolt in Johannesburg.

It can be argued that police commissioner General Riah Phiyega and her charges acted in the manner that they did because of pressure from their political masters.

It is already common knowledge that Ramaphosa used his position and influence to involve the minister of mineral resources in ending the strike.

Similarly, then National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) president Senzeni Zokwana, a member of the South African Communist Party and ANC NEC, also did likewise - calling his comrade Mthethwa to intervene.

While Ramaphosa and Zokwana have a right as the country's citizens to report crimes to the authorities, we must ask why they did not, as do all of us, approach the Marikana police station instead of the ministers for intervention.

Evidence before the commission also points to a cosy and somewhat irregular collaboration between the South African Police Service and Lonmin.

Why did SAPS take sides with the employer to the extent that it set up its operational centre on the company's premises and allowed its high-ranking officers to be flown in Lonmin's choppers?

Phiyega could never have taken such a decision, it could be argued, if the executive in the form of Ramaphosa, Mthethwa and to an extent Shabangu, had not given such a go ahead.

The political trio's initial involvement in fact turned the SAPS, which has a constitutional mandate to protect and serve all citizens, into Lonmin's private army.

We may never say for sure, but it's possible that if the political executive had not applied pressure on Phiyega, the strike could have ended differently.

The police officers on the ground may have acted as irrationally and recklessly as they did at "Scene Two", with the belief that they enjoyed the protection of their political masters.

Even by failing to suspend all those involved a day after the massacre, President Jacob Zuma sent out the wrong message that they were blameless and untouchable.

If he had used his constitutional powers to suspend Mthethwa, Shabangu, Phiyega and her subordinates until the outcome of the commission, this would have sent the right message.

But as the case of Nkandla and Guptagate has demonstrated, whenever the executive is given the leeway to investigate issues regarding its own actions and omissions into the exercise of executive powers, it is unlikely that it will make adverse findings against itself.

The failure to hold the executive to account makes doubtful the effect of the Marikana massacre in influencing a change in the behaviour of government, capital and labour to guarantee harmonious relations in the mining sector.

The Marikana massacre offended our senses more than any crisis that has befallen us since the installation of democracy. It was described at the time as a watershed moment.

The current wage negotiations in the gold sector testify that lessons were not learnt. Labour persists in its argument for higher wages, mines continue to hide behind falling profits and government is standing on the sideline as another, possibly deadly, impasse is on the horizon.

The events that led to the wildcat strike is indicative of how the workers had even before that fateful day on August 16 2012, lost confidence in authority, namely the NUM and arms of government.

The ANC government had already showed that its interests lay not with the workers but with the mining houses whose billions oil the country's economy.

And the deafening silence from the public in the wake of the exoneration of the executive and the business as usual stance of the governing party, tells us the massacre was not a watershed moment but just another of those failings we've come to accept from the governing party.

l Comment on twitter @nompumelelorunj