Susan Shabangu hits the spot

For once, a Minister in Jacob Zuma’s Cabinet has made a statement which practically every South African can accept. Susan Shabangu, the Minister for Women, today made a statement about the true state of affairs in South Africa.

“The situation in South Africa is not right!”

Hmm, well, yes. It’s about time someone in the ANC Government has noticed that.

“There is evil in South Africa.”

Now you’re talking, madam Minister.

“It seems that the Devil is loose in South Africa. We need to do something about it.”

How did this usually obtuse Minister know that? She must have been listening to my informant, a driver for a motor dealer, who ferries me from the dealership to my office while they work on my car. He has told me his opinion, and that of many of his friends. This Black gentleman, a man truly deserving of the designation, has a firm opinion on the cause for the devastation brought about in the politics, the economy and the racial relationships of South Africa in recent years.

“That man is evil,” he said. “I think that he must be the Anti-Christ. He promises us many good things, but he brings nothing. He lies, he misleads, he causes problems between us. He talks of God blessing him and his Party, and yet, look at what he does.” He thought for a minute as he steered us carefully through the heavy morning traffic. “I think he is the Anti-Christ.”

I nodded my head in understanding. I can understand his reasoning, but, the Anti-Christ? Is that not a bit extreme? Even so, I feel desperately for this good man, for the fact that he feels compelled to tell me, a White, that his leader, the man who has appropriated the mantle of near-holiness that enshrouded Nelson Mandela, is the worst of all possible men.

And then Susan Shabangu made it all clear to me, and to the nation. She must be close enough to the man to know him. And she has said it in unambiguous terms. “There is evil in South Africa. It seems that the Devil is loose in South Africa. We need to do something about it.”

There is a saying, that the fish stinks from the head. The top man in an organization sets the tone for all his subordinates, and they follow that lead religiously. We have clear evidence of that in South Africa. It is practically not possible to talk with people without the subjects of economic collapse, racial tension and corruption coming up. They are like the weather. Everyone talks about them, but no-one feels that she can do anything about them. It seems that the problems are just so huge that no single person can do anything about them. And the worst of it is that practically everyone feels the same. Blacks and Whites do not hate each other. In fact, with the rare exception of ANC or EFF-motivated weak minds, they get on well together, and they want nothing more than to have those lunatics stop blathering about their differences, so that they can put their shoulders to the wheel and rescue our shared country from the bleak depths it seems to be headed towards. There are no differences. We are all South Africans, and let’s leave it at that. When Zuma blathers on about how evil the Whites are, how White Monopoly Capital is at fault for the unemployment flowing from the insane Communist policies of the ANC, how he and his Party have a policy to fight corruption, we all, Black and White, feel like throwing up, not because the statement has even a semblance of truth, which it does not, but because he occupies a position that we should all respect. And cannot. And now we know, from the horse’s mouth, why that is so.

I hope that Susan Shabangu survives long enough to tell the ANC NEC about it. And that they are not yet so ensnared in his wiles that they can believe her. Phineas, the driver, and his friends will be ready to confront the Anti-Christ if that is needed to save our beloved country from the evil that has beset it since Jacob Zuma became the President. As will I. We would all be willing to give our lives, if, by doing that, we could make the country what it should be, for our families and friends, All of them, Black and White.

I hope that it will not be necessary. We will know by next week.

What does Democracy mean? Part 2

In any sensible society, any sign of excessive wealth displayed by a public servant, whether he be a Politician or simply an employee of a Government Department, should be questioned, and explanations demanded.  A Manager of a small Department should not be entitled to drive a large and expensive limousine on the public ticket.  In other times and places, such a person would have been dragged from his vehicle and hung from the nearest lamppost.  A little extreme, perhaps, but certainly a way to make a point, and certainly better than burning down three schools to force the local municipality to build a road.  The Press, which so loudly proclaims its right to intervene in the lives of private citizens ‘in the interests of the public’, is generally deathly silent when it comes to accusations against senior Politicians. They, in common with business and industry, fear retribution, perhaps justifiably. Yet the scourge of Apartheid could have been stopped in its tracks by an even mildly competent and honest Press corps (perhaps working in concert with Churches in the interpretation of the Bible).  The 69% unemployment rate in the Eastern Cape Province in 1996 could have been cut to less than 10% if the Press had actively exposed the waste and incompetence of the Provincial Government, rather than the 72% that prevails in 2017. The disastrous education system could have been saved from 23 years of lying about the results of its ‘education’ of pupils if the Press had revealed the fallacies of the claims by the successive Ministers. The Iraq War could have been prevented, or stopped at an early stage if the Press had ventured to ask some pointed questions, not just related to the reasons for the war, the conduct of the war and the planning for the war, both of which have been proven to have been abysmally incompetent, but also by asking “Who will really benefit from this war?”  To understand more in this regard, see “Follow the Money”, to come.

A good starting point would be to establish a special body which is only responsible to the electorate, and should therefore be elected directly by the electorate, rather than being appointed by the Government in power, with the mandate to investigate, expose and bring to trial all wrongdoing in Government.  That body should be supported by an independent judiciary, and by the passing of a law which doubles the penalty for any crime by a person in a position of trust, particularly elected Politicians and Civil Servants, with a provision that any spurious legal manoeuvring by them in an attempt to evade the consequences of their wrongful conduct should incur additional penalties.  To make this even more effective, no legal costs for defence should be borne by the Government or any Government body if the accused is found guilty of the crime charged.  The investigating body should start its work with an investigation of the highest in the land, and continue to monitor every person who has been investigated, regardless of the outcome.  The claim that this will interfere in their privacy may be rebuked by the fact that each Politician chose to become one, and so has consented to intensive public scrutiny of his personal affairs.  This scrutiny should continue for at least several years after his departure from office.

Another start point would be the exposure of all Government contracts to public scrutiny.  They are, after all, an expenditure of public money, taxpayer money.  “All” means “all”, without exception.  Many Government bodies would resist this, for better or worse reasons.  The CIA would resist this strongly, but this system would have prevented the excesses of the CIA support of the Shah of Iran, which resulted in the Islamic Revolution and all the problems that came from this, as well as the Contra Arms deal, which resulted in a massive loss of respect for the US worldwide.  Similar measures would have prevented the French Government support of the Hutus in Ruanda, leading to a genocide, and to the Apartheid Government’s support of Frelimo in Mozambique and Unita in Angola in order to promote the civil wars and so instability in the neighbouring countries.  It might have prevented the enrichment of Robert Mugabe, Idi Amin, Muamar Gadhafi and all the numerous dictators who appear on the stage to rob the people they are elected to represent, and the impoverishment of many nations.

Finally, a good way to avoid the excesses of politicians would be to tie the taxes payable by citizens directly to the expenditure.  Allow the citizens to decide whether they wish to pay their share of the cost of security guards for the politicians, the limousines for Civil Servants, the executive jet for the President, the splendid health care provisions voted by Politicians for themselves, and so on.  Let these votes be published by an independent body, with the provision that no taxes be levied for more than three months after the voting period if the results have not been published. An effective way to do this would be to attach a list of the items of expenditure by Government, each item as a percentage of the tax paid by the taxpayer, along with the tax return, with checkboxes alongside each item showing that the taxpayer approves or disapproves of the item. This will very quickly demonstrate to the Politicians that they are being watched and judged.

Perhaps the major reason why democracy does not function as it should is the Party system, under which the Party bosses decide who should stand for election, and what their consciences should dictate. The system allows the bosses to dictate to the Branches who should be on the list for election, who should be elected President or Prime Minister, who should be a Cabinet Minister, and what the policies of the Government they control should be. In none of these does the average citizen play any role, and the election of a person to Parliament or Congress is largely a reward, in salary terms, for obedience to the Party line. In practical terms, most ‘democracies are really dictatorships, with the power reside in in the few Party bosses who call the shots. The real wishes and desires of the voters seldom play any meaningful role in how their elected representatives act or what they do. It is seldom that a representative chooses to vote according to his conscience – such an act would be tantamount to political suicide, unless it happens to coincide with the Party line. Even worse is the fact that, in a balanced democracy, the selection of people to become Ministers, even if it is done according to ability, is limited to those loyal members who have gained the chance to be elected by strict adherence to the rules set by the Party bosses, not, by any stretch of the imagination, as a result of their ability or intelligence, and the field of selection is reduced to the proportion of the public supporting that Party. It is almost unheard of for a highly-capable person from another Party being selected to hold a ministerial position, one in which his or her capabilities would be able to be exercised. In almost every case, the appointment of a person as Minister or Deputy Minister is made as a form of reward for service, in the past or the future, with little regard to the suitability of that person for the post. In South Africa, under President Zuma, the extent of this form of corruption is easily seen in the fact that there are nearly a hundred Ministers and Deputy Ministers, most of whom, if credible reports can be believed, have their hands deep in the cookie jar. One would be hard pressed to find even one amongst this horde who has demonstrated a real capability to do the job. If one were to manage a business in this way, any clear-thinking critic would recognise it as a formula for bankruptcy, yet, for some reason, it is the political way of doing things.

It is clear that the Party-political system was designed by politicians who have at heart their own best interests, regardless of their protestations that they ‘represent the people’. They do not. They represent themselves, almost to the exclusion of the people.

Perhaps the most meaningful changes that could be brought about to support democracy as a principle would be the following:

• Ban Parties. Ensure that the people select those who will represent them from amongst themselves, on the basis of their proven honesty, integrity and capability.
• Make it illegal for any grouping of persons to attempt to influence the votes of those representatives in Parliament or Congress by any form of coercion or reward.
• Elect the President or Prime Minister by direct vote of the electorate, from the numbers of those who were elected as representatives, with a requirement for such election being that the candidates present their qualifications and the reasons they consider themselves suitable in a standardised format, so that the voters are able to compare their qualities and their honesty easily.
• Ensure that the appointment of a Minister or Deputy Minister is made by a majority vote of the representatives after they have been cleared of any suspicion of dishonesty and have shown their credentials as ‘fit and proper persons’ for the job in the same way as a candidate for a senior banking position, with the investigation of these credentials being conducted by a person enjoying the confidence of at least 70% of the representatives.
• Allow a demand for a new election of a President or Prime Minister by at least 30% of the representatives, with those making the demand responsible to pay the costs should the incumbent be re-elected.
• In the event of a Court judgment involving dishonesty being given against a representative, a Minister or Deputy Minister or a President or Prime Minister, that person should be declared ineligible for the position and an election of a replacement within a month precipitated.

Other rules will be necessary, but the intention of every rule should be to ensure that the person selected to play a role in Government enjoys the trust and confidence of the electorate, considers himself to be responsible to the electorate and accountable to it and acts in accordance with that belief, and has the necessary qualifications in terms of integrity, trustworthiness, intelligence, skills and experience to be able to perform competently in the position of trust he or she will occupy.

Is this utopia, or is it what we all really want in our democracies?

What does Democracy mean? Part 1

The ideal for which Democracy stands is that each person in a State has an effective say in the Government which rules him or her, that he or she has a voice in the amount of taxes paid, and how these taxes are spent or invested, that the Government is responsible to the people.

The reality of “Democracy” is quite different.  The race to be elected is not spurred by a burning desire to apply one’s skills, abilities and intelligence to the ultimate ‘good of the people’, but rather a desire to join the gravy train.  Government provides an almost unparalleled income-generating opportunity.  Once the race is ‘won’ and the contestant ‘comes to power’ (both very revealing phrases), the process begins, of rewarding those who have supported the campaign, as well as those who are expected to have an influence in the next campaign, of building a ‘power base’, and of milking the Government funds for personal benefit.  The proportions of effort, and therefore of the flow of money and benefits from Government sources to each of these depends to a large extent on the country in which the candidate finds himself, on the sophistication of the electorate, on the efficiency and independence of the monitoring institutions, and on the degree of security felt by the politician.

First come the personal benefits – the Mercedes, Porsche, BMW or Range Rover, the salary and expense account, and similar matters.  Once this is in the process of being attended to, the politician sets about appointing his personal staff, including secretaries, personal assistants and bodyguards (is it not strange that every politician, who claims to be appointed by the people and to represent the people, has such a fear of the people that an entourage of bodyguards is considered essential, presumably to protect the ‘valuable’ person of the politician from the people?  Winston Churchill, as Prime Minister of Britain during the Second World War, needed only one bodyguard!). The security staff of the President of South Africa numbers more than seven thousand!  It is an established tradition in Third World countries, such as South Africa, that the appointment of a person to a senior post brings with it the opportunity to appoint numerous others in more junior positions, each one of them paying a proportion of his or her inflated salary to the senior person in the chain, and/or repaying that person by means of support and silence in acts which would not receive the approval of the electorate.  In this way, the benefits of Government service to the incumbents of managerial positions are inflated well beyond the relative average salary, while the capabilities of the persons actually doing the work are well below the requirement, with the consequence that the standard of performance of Government is generally below that in the private sector.  It is certainly no coincidence that the Eastern Cape Provincial Government in South Africa employed some 30 000 persons who showed up at their offices only once each month, to collect their paycheques.  This was admitted by the Premier of the Province, who stated in 1996 that the situation needed correction.  When a Management Consultancy offered to undertake an investigation at no charge to enumerate the workers and non-workers on the payroll, the offer was summarily declined!  The Premier obviously did not want this information to go on record!  A conversation with a senior person in Government in 2009 indicated that this situation had not yet been corrected. 

When the politician has had the opportunity to strengthen his connections in the power hierarchy of government, the next phase begins.  This is the granting of lucrative contracts to favoured persons, either as a reward for support given or to be given, or, more usually, as a simple business transaction, with the politician, his family, close friends or Party associates taking a substantial payment from the proceeds of the contracts.  Very often this payment is brazenly demanded in advance.  A company which was negotiating a contract (in 1996) valued at R12 000 000 was told by a ‘representative’ of a Provincial Premier that the normal fee, payable in cash in advance, was 15%, or R1 800 000.  When the company manager expressed surprise at this demand, he was told ‘do not be concerned – the 15% includes the Premier and the Provincial Minister for Economic Affairs’!  In other words, the payoff was probably sufficient to satisfy most ‘claims’ for illicit payments.  In another case, a building contractor was granted a contract to construct some 9 000 RDP houses, at a cost of R15 000 each.  He immediately on-sold the contract at R9 000 each, pocketing the difference of R6 000 per house.  It is reasonable to assume that he did not retain the whole of this difference – 15% (apparently the going rate) of R15 000 is R2 250 per house, a total bribe of R20 250 000.  At that time, it was almost impossible to build a house of any quality for R15 000, a fact borne out recently by the Government announcement that it was planning to spend over R90 000 per house on necessary renovations to bring them to a habitable state.  While inflation has savaged the South African economy in the intervening years, one is constrained to ask who was picking up the payoff in this case.

The newly-elected Prime Minister of the Bahamas, some two months after his ‘victory’ over the previous incumbent, was asked by a telephone caller on a radio chat show why it was taking so long for him to award the profitable contracts to his supporters, who had gone out on a limb to support him during the election campaign.  In some embarrassment, he explained that Government contracts had to be awarded in open tender, and advised the caller to contact him privately to discuss the matter. The content of that private telephone call would certainly be of interest to scholars of the democratic system.

As time goes on, and the newly-elected representatives of the people become more secure in their positions, they start spreading their nets more widely.  They support ‘peoples’ liberation groups’ in their ‘struggle for freedom’ or send ‘peacekeeping forces’ to those war-torn areas that they had created.  This is usually not done as an altruistic venture, but for hard-headed business reasons.  Robert Mugabe, President of a destitute Zimbabwe, sent a ‘peacekeeping force’ to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in support of threatened DRC President Joseph Kabila, and received a payoff of 50% of the three richest diamond mines in the country, a benefit which he, magnanimously, shared with the Zimbabwean Minister of Defence, a key man in keeping Mugabe in power in Zimbabwe against the will of the people. The mines were summarily expropriated from the Belgian owner, who had built them up at his own cost, with no compensation being paid.

They enter into purchases of vast amounts of equipment, often for military purposes, but almost always with a personal benefit by way of bribe.  The sums involved are enormous – in one clear case, the President of an African country was paid a bribe of $20 000 000 by one of the major munitions suppliers.  This set the standard in that country, and subsequent attempts to place large contracts have involved values three to four times the size of the initial contract.

It does not need to be said that the money leaking from these transactions into the Swiss bank accounts of the people in power represents only a small percentage of the total amount of money wasted – a bribe of 15% of the value of a contract leaves 85% to be ‘value’.  The question is whether this 85% is real value to the purchaser, the people represented by the free-spending Government who, at the end, pay for it, either by payment of taxes or by non-delivery of the services and benefits for which the taxes were raised in the first place.  In most cases it would be reasonable to say that there was no real need for the goods purchased.  The Zimbabwean people did not benefit in any way from the sending of a ‘peacekeeping force’ to the DRC, the South African people did not need, or benefit from, the purchase of Navy vessels, fighter jets and helicopters, and the American people did not benefit from the Iraq war.  There are small groups of people who receive some benefit in each case – the Zimbabwean and American soldiers who might otherwise have been unemployed, the groups of military officers who saw their personal power bases, and prospects for added income, enhanced, and the politicians who arranged for some of the work to be done in their constituency, with a big payoff in terms of votes, but the total benefit is almost always much less than the total cost.  It would have been infinitely cheaper to have paid the bribes directly to the politicians involved and avoided the additional 85% occasioned by entering into the contracts.

The largest problems, of course, are that the public who are being fleeced in this way are not sufficiently interested to investigate each action by the Government, probably because the officials involved take care to ensure that they are never given the full and unadorned facts of the matter, and that the ‘watchdogs’ who are there to protect the public interest are not sufficiently vigilant or are part of the system.  The Police, a body designed to detect, correct and deter crime, consist of people who are dependent for their jobs on the very people they should be watching. Unfortunately, their appointment was based on the fact that their loyalty to those people would ensure that no meaningful investigation of corruption by their patrons would ever ensue. A telling proof of this is the statement to Parliament by the Minister of Police that the whole of the R246 000 000 spent by the State on the private residence of the President was justified as ‘security upgrades’. (one may be excused for wondering how a mud hut could need a quarter of a billion Rands in ‘security upgrades’!). Of course, the Party ensured that this outright lie, by the Minister and by the President was endorsed by the ANC MPs, who shouted down the members of the Opposition during the debate on this report, and so earned the disapprobation of the Constitutional Court for the dereliction of their Constitutional duty to hold the Executive to account. A similar situation occurred when President Mbeki avoided any Parliament debate on the honesty of the multi-billion Dollar Arms Procurement deal that made so many ANC members wealthy.

The public has little or no interest in actively participating in the monitoring of the people who serve them, probably because the obstacles and risks in doing so are so great.  Generally, Joe the Plumber does not feel that he has any ability to detect wrongdoing or to do anything to correct it, or, if he does actually act, he becomes a target for people who wield massive power.  The woman worker in the Department of Defense in the USA who detected some serious wrongdoing by officials in the Department, involving the giving of contracts with little control and contrary to regulations, found herself suspended shortly after she had brought the situation to the attention of senior officials.  Although the matter subsequently came to the attention of the TV media, it was a short-term wonder, with no result.  She was subsequently discharged from her job after many years of service. Perhaps the fact that the Deputy President of the country was a substantial shareholder in the benefitting company had something to do with the outcome. An investigation by the German Police into the bribing of a senior South Africa politician in the granting of a very large contract came to an end after the South African authorities (the Police, supported by the criminals in high Government positions) refused to provide a file required for the investigation. (One may deduce from this case that the German Police are honest and driven solely by law, while the South African Police acted entirely in the interests of the highly-placed Ministers and officials who profited from the crime.) An investigation by the British Police into alleged illegal payments to a Saudi Prince in the negotiations for a large aerospace contract came to a sudden end when the Saudi Government threatened to cut off negotiations in other contracts.  The Speaker of the English House of Commons went to great lengths to prevent the publication of wrongful or excessive expense claims by Parliamentarians.  When these expense claims were published, without the permission of the Government, the Speaker was forced to resign his position, but was immediately rewarded for his ‘sterling work’ by an elevation to the Peerage.  This latter is one of the few cases where the actions of a person with information received the support they deserved from the Press, even though the action of the ruling Party was not what any sane voter would have expected.  The list of known or strongly suspected wrongdoings by Politicians all over the world is very long, yet the list of corrections is extremely short.  Do not believe that these wrongful acts are a mere peccadillo.  Adolph Hitler could have been stopped in his tracks at an early stage if people of courage had stood up to stop him.  Unfortunately, those who were afraid to talk numbered in the tens of millions, including the ordinary German citizens, who recognised that his actions were not right, but were afraid to talk out in the face of perceived public support and a very real threat of retribution by Hitler’s thugs. That form of internal terrorism was supported by a British Prime Minister, who wanted ‘peace in our time’ at any cost. 

In order for evil to prevail, it is only necessary that good men do nothing.

 

Ncebisi Jinas reveals classical ANC Lack of Economic Understanding

The recent report by Lameez Omarjee in Fin24 raises a number of points that need to be responded to, in case some reader simply accepts the assertions as valid, without really understanding what they imply. The reporter summarized a speech by Ncebisi Jonas, former Deputy Minister of Finance, to the Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection, as follows:

1.      South Africa’s underperforming mixed economy.

2.      Inequality, especially along racial lines, as a result of the apartheid legacy. If the wealth of the country was equally distributed then it would be possible to feed all families. Jonas pointed out that 8% of black households have a monthly expenditure of R10 000, compared to 63% of white households.

3.      South Africa is only partially industrialised, with a high unemployment rate and low labour market participation.

4.      The private sector is dominated by large scale capital and capital intensive industry. This indicates that capital is highly centralised, with limited distribution among small businesses and entrepreneurs.

5.      The South African economy’s integration into the global economy relies on trade of minerals and foreign capital flows. The country is too reliant on minerals as exports, which shows that industries need to be developed. Secondly, the country is highly dependent on foreign assets: guards should be placed against capital flight or disinvestment.

6.      The economy is dominated by the financial, insurance, business and real estate sectors, which have grown rapidly in the past 20 years. These sectors must be more responsive to increase fixed investment.

7.      Although there are large fiscal allocations to education and training, the outcomes still remain poor. This is a binding constraint to all facets of social development.

8.      The public sector is weak. It must become more effective, capable, less wasteful and less corrupt. We need political leadership.

These issues are mutually reinforcing, said Jonas. “We can’t address some and neglect others… It is possible to make progress with all eight at same time.”

 

The necessary responses to each of these points are set out below. It does not require rocket science to understand the lack of comprehension of the real reasons behind the comments.

“South Africa’s underperforming mixed economy.” The economy is underperforming for many reasons, most of them caused by the ANC. The simple fact is that investors need to be assured that the investment they make will remain theirs in the long term, and will make such an investment in other countries in preference to South Africa until they have that assurance, or simply withhold their funds. To put it simply, South African investors do not believe that the investment they make under the ANC Government will be safe. The repeated statements by Zuma, Malema and other populists with no understanding of how a non-command economy works are a very strong inducement to go elsewhere.

“Inequality, especially along racial lines, as a result of the apartheid legacy.” Such inequality exists everywhere in the world, even in the most prosperous and advanced economies. It is a simple fact that there are dominators everywhere, and they will take advantage of whatever opportunity presents itself. The way an individual can avoid becoming a victim is to gain education and skills that make him or her valuable in the market. That is not related to race, colour or any factor other than training and, possibly, culture. In this situation, the individual must recognize that the attitudes and habits gained in childhood and in association with other individuals and cultural (including religious and political) have a material impact on the ability to participate meaningfully in the modern world.

“If the wealth of the country was equally distributed then it would be possible to feed all families.” This is a nice theory, but it doesn’t work in the real world. The development of an economy depends heavily on the ability of people to invest in productive facilities and in all the other parts of a business (of any type) activity. Feeding all the people by distributing the available funds of the society equally between them (if that could ever be done, in a country where almost every person in control of funds feels entitled to put him or –herself at the front of the queue for payment) is a formula for disaster. As President Bush proved by making a payment of $1 000 to each taxpayer in an attempt to reboot the slowing economy, the vast majority of citizens do not have any inclination to make the long-term investments necessary to activate economic growth. The money would be squandered on consumption, and the country would very soon be back behind ‘Start’, looking for ways to feed the masses. A country in a development phase desperately needs investment, and the investible funds of the wealthier citizens represent that reservoir, if the owners of those funds can be convinced that to make the investment would not expose them to loss, as they now believe. Proposing to ‘redistribute those funds or earnings, however that is proposed to be done, is a sure way to discourage those holders of wealth from the investment that is needed.

“Jonas pointed out that 8% of black households have a monthly expenditure of R10 000, compared to 63% of white households.” This is the sort of statement that one has come to expect of the ‘experts’ in Government in South Africa. It fails to take account of the realities of the country. If one were to remove from the calculation the very large proportion of subsistence citizens, who do not contribute in any meaningful way to the economy, the comparison becomes much more meaningful. It is not possible to compare the expenditure of a peasant farmer in the Transkei with that of an advocate in Pretoria, or even with the secretary to that advocate. Take out the top 10% of wealthy individuals in the country, and the comparison becomes much more meaningful, with the ‘expenditure’ of Whites (seen by Jonas as ‘wealthy’) matching very closely the Blacks (seen by Jonas as ‘deprived’). It is dangerous to make bald statements such as Jonas does, and even more dangerous to base political policies on them.

“South Africa is only partially industrialised, with a high unemployment rate and low labour market participation.” This is true, but the reasons for that lie almost entirely at the feet of the Government, which has demanded bribes, equity participations at no cost, and excessively onerous start-up formalities of those wishing to establish industries, and still strongly supports the Trade Unions which make excessive demands for wages and benefits, demands which would be onerous in a developed society and are totally unaffordable in the developing state in which South Africa finds itself. If there is any doubt about this, consider the mining industry which has been faltering throughout the last several minerals booms, and which now employs fewer than a half of the people in t at the ‘dawn of democracy’. South Africa is a Third World country with First World aspirations in wages, employment standards, regulation and every other element of cost. Added to that is the appallingly low standard of education at school and tertiary level, as well as in the trades. The underlying problems need to be addressed before the aspirations of the workers and (might it be said) the employers can be met. Almost everyone would like the workers to earn more and enjoy better working conditions, but the demand that these aspirations be met before the workers are able to offer better productivity and quality is the reason that the industries cannot grow to the position of being able to offer them.

“The private sector is dominated by large scale capital and capital intensive industry.” This is an inevitable result of an economy that has grown out of mining, and the situation is not improved by the heavy bureaucracy that every company faces. A company which employs ten workers cannot afford to carry the cost of at least one additional employee to complete the multitudinous reports to Government every month, to pay the fees and levies imposed by half a dozen different Departments, and the legal costs required to fend off the predatory ANC cadres who want to participate in the profitability of the business without contributing anything. Then, to make it more difficult, the company is faced with the requirement to employ a ‘previously disadvantaged individual’ who is almost certainly under-qualified and over-priced, and, if it want to do business with the Government in any form, to pay the bribes required to win the business at an economic price. Then, when those hurdles have been overcome, an employee who slacks or steals takes the company to the CCMA, where a failure to obtain adequate (and expensive legal advice) results in an award of a year’s salary to the ex-employee.

“The country is too reliant on minerals as exports, which shows that industries need to be developed.” The answer is simple. Fix the problems inhibiting investment in industry, and you will fix the imbalance.

“Secondly, the country is highly dependent on foreign assets: guards should be placed against capital flight or disinvestment.” Even suggesting such a measure is an almost sure way to frighten off foreign capital investment, and to discourage any good-hearted foreign investor from even considering such an investment. The history of South Africa, and the insane rhetoric of the ANC and the EFF has already convinced most foreigners that investing in South Africa is almost equivalent to making a donation to the ANC.

“Although there are large fiscal allocations to education and training, the outcomes still remain poor. This is a binding constraint to all facets of social development.” This is the root cause of most of South Africa’s economic problems, apart from the overburden of Government controls. From the ANC’s point of view, however, the solution to the problem will generate a mass of ex-voters who are able to understand what exactly the Government is and isn’t doing. As Blade Nzimande of the South African Communist Party said, ‘If the mass of voters read a newspaper, the ANC would not be in power.’

“The public sector is weak. It must become more effective, capable, less wasteful and less corrupt. We need political leadership.” This statement is only partly correct. The public sector is both weak and crooked. No industrialist really believes that it is possible to get fair treatment from the public sector, unless a healthy bribe is paid. It is urgently necessary to upgrade the performance of the public sector, along with an intensive drive to eradicate all forms of corruption. This must take the form of putting the President and most of the Cabinet Ministers behind bars as a first demonstration of the commitment to honest and competent government. Coupled with this, there is a need to evaluate the real benefit, in the present context, of the numerous Departments that provide jobs to more than 20% of the salary-earners for no discernible contribution to the economy, and to reduce the size of the civil service drastically. The concept of ‘effective’ must be construed in the light of ‘contribution to the effectiveness of the country’, and anything found lacking must be dumped. There is a clear principle that business must be left to businesspeople. There is another rule that unconstrained business activity generates jobs and tax revenue.

Should the Courts interfere in Government?

The ANC and its multitudinous affiliates have started a campaign against the Courts ‘interfering in the rights of the Executive’, referring to the numerous cases that have been brought, in particular, against Jacob Zuma. However they fail to ask why this is so.

As in any situation where a problem is identified, the first steps in solving a problem are to define the problem and then to isolate the cause. Only then can any meaningful progress be made in solving it. Politicians seem prone to forget, or simply to ignore, these elementary steps, and the ‘uncouth rabble’ that makes up such a large proportion of Zuma’s supporters suffer from this syndrome to an extreme.

What is the real problem underlying the increasing recourse to the Courts?

The real problem is that the President and the Executive in general have increasingly ignored the laws that govern them, and particularly the Constitution, treating them as bothersome at best, and irrelevant to their elevated status. They have been supported in this by the ANC Party machinery, which seems to be bent, and bent upon maintaining this criminal President in his office of power. The Executive is running wild, and Parliament, under the stranglehold of the unrepresentative ANC’s NEC, supports the illegalities and lunacies. The sole aim of the majority in Parliament seems to be retaining power, regardless of the duties imposed on the MPs to represent the people, by demanding and obtaining accountability by the Executive, and by demanding that the Executive complies in every respect with the law. In the face of this breach of its duties by the legislature, the Opposition Parties and the people have no alternative other than to resort to the Courts to ensure compliance with the law by the Executive.

Examples of this are legion. Nkandla springs to mind as the prime instance where the President and his crooked Ministers abused their positions of power in an attempt to steal from the people, misleading a compliant Parliament by their transparent lies. The only way to ensure that the rule of law was applied was to seek recourse from the Court. Was that wrong? The only thing that could be said to be wrong about the matter was that it was necessary to go to Court to ensure that the law was applied. If the President and his men, from Ministers down to MPs, had complied with the laws in the first place, the Court would not have become involved. The same situation was applied in the default by the Minister of Social Security in complying with a Constitutional Court Order that the contract with CPS was unlawful. She knew the Order, yet she carefully refrained from doing anything to comply with it. When civil society obtained a further Order from the Court to ensure that the social grants would be paid, the Minister was more than surly, and has since declared that SASSA, which was set up with the mandate to ensure that it was able to pay the social grants itself, will not be able to do so within the next five years. That is a remarkable claim, given that CPS was able to set up the mechanism within a year. The statement by the Minister must, in any responsible society, result in another intervention by the Court. The actions of the Minister since the original Court Order would surely have resulted in the Minister being replaced, if South Africa had not been under the quasi-dictatorship of a gang of criminals, and her most recent statement should have resulted in an outcry by all MPs, regardless of Party, against the continued tenure of a Minister who has sown herself to be, at the least, incompetent, yet the ANC cadres have done nothing. Watch this space for the next Court intervention. The most recent attempt to pay Brian Molefe an ‘early retirement’ amount of R30 million, since replaced by a reinstatement of this tainted deployee as CEO of Eskom, with the blithe explanation that placing a man who could never be viewed as a fit and proper person in control of a major driver of the economy, as well as of bribes, finder’s fees and equity participations in contracting suppliers would be cheaper than fighting a Court battle in respect of non-payment of the R30 million after only two years of service. On this basis alone, Lynn Brown should be sentenced to 30 years of hard labour on Robben Island for treating the public as unthinking morons.

Now that it is clear that the real problem to be solved is the ability of the President and his executive to flout the law, it is possible to devise ways to ensure that the honesty, integrity and law-abiding character of the Courts and the Public Protector (sadly, no longer visible, now that Zuma has replaced a woman of integrity with a compliant puppet in the position) are no longer required to ensure that the letter and the spirit of the Constitution will be observed.

The first of these will be to place the appointment of the Ministers and senior officials of State Departments and State Owned Entities under the control of a Committee of Parliament, consisting of an equal number of governing Party members and Opposition Members, with the mandate to determine whether the candidates are fit and proper persons in respect of their qualifications, experience, conduct and integrity, and having the power to terminate their appointment if it is found that such state of fit and proper no longer exists. Such Committee shall make any appointment approval with a majority of 75%. It is not unreasonable to require that at least three-quarters of the representatives of the public trust the people running the activities that are paid by the Government.

The second would be to require that the President be elected independently by a vote by the electorate, after having obtained the approval of the Committee, with the Committee having the right to call a further election of the President at any time if it considers, by simple majority vote (held under conditions of secrecy) that the President has breached the Constitution or his oath of office, which shall be presumed if a competent Court issues an Order declaring that there has been such a breach.

The third would be to replace the current electoral system with one under which the MPs are directly responsible to their electorate, with the right of the electorate, by a petition signed by at least 25% of qualified voters, to demand a new election for that seat. The MPs would have an obligation to report to the electorate in open public meeting on their voting performance every quarter.

The fourth would be to ban any system under which a Party can force or coerce an MP to vote in a particular way. The requirement would reinforce the principle that MPs are directly responsible to the voters in their Ward, and must take directions and advice from those voters.

The fifth would be to reduce the salaries of MPs, Ministers and senior public officials, including their benefits, to a level commensurate with a similar position in the private sphere, and each such person will be subject to a performance appraisal by a dispassionate person. The performance requirements and the appraisal would be available to the public.

In summary, the intervention of the Courts in the affairs of Government is a vital means to hold of Government to account in its actions. The fact that such intervention has been necessary with increasing frequency is the problem, not the fact that a right which is enshrined in the Constitution should be used. The real problem to be addressed is the fact that the Government of South Africa has been captured by a gang of criminals.

Why must Citizens demand Free Speech?

The question comes up sometimes, why I write a blog which must be seen as critical of government and the way we citizens do things. The question sometimes arises why I raise the same issues in other ways in my books. The answer came in a conversation I had with a good friend, an elderly person with a very good education, majoring in economics. The person is one who, I would expect, would be as aware as I am about what is going wrong in our society, and what the consequences are likely to be. The conversation referred to a telephone conversation regarding communications via the internet, during which I mentioned the fact that there is extensive surveillance of private communications between individuals over supposedly secure channels, without any need or reason for such surveillance. After all, the vast majority of the public have no intention to bring about the downfall of the Government by illicit means. It is a known fact that the ruling Party views ‘regime change’ as a particularly despicable act, and any intention to do so in any way as an act of treason. This, belief, however, is not justified. The Constitution makes it abundantly clear that it is the responsibility, and the duty, of citizens to keep tabs on what the Government, and particularly the political arm of it, is doing, and to act positively to bring about a change when they see that the Government is not acting in the legitimate interests of the citizens. Part of that process is communicating with others what the Government is doing wrong, so that knowledge, the most dangerous adversary of unbridled wrongdoing, is brought to the minds of the voters, who can then exercise their legitimate rights. Dictatorial Governments, and, most obviously, Parties exercising the practices of the communist brainwashers, do not want the public to know what they are doing, or what the real consequences of their acts will be. Most citizens do not have degrees in Economics or Logic, or even understanding of the double-speak that is practiced by dishonest politicians. In fact, most people seldom take the time to analyse the news, limited though it is, to gain the understanding that is necessary for them to carry out their function as responsible citizens. As the South African Communist Party said, if the average voter would read a newspaper, the ANC would not be re-elected. The average voter does not read a newspaper, relying instead on what people with a particular axe to grind tells them of the state of affairs in the nation, and does not take the time, indeed does not have the mental equipment, to evaluate what they are told. It is no surprise that evil people are able to gain ascendancy in a country, as they have in South Africa, and then proceed to plunder the country for their own enrichment. And the worst of it is that they are generally prepared to do things that will pay the (sometimes) small percentage to them, ignoring the massive damage that it will do to the rest of the economy. A good example of this is the corruption that has been witnessed at Eskom. The loss to the public, although small in terms of the total volume of funds flowing through that entity, has been enormous in economic terms, as the reliable supply of power at an economic cost is recognized as a prime driver of economic activity. The unreliability of the supply by Eskom, and the ever-increasing cost of it, has been a significant driver of the decline of mining and industry in the country, resulting in a downgrade in the country’s securities and a rate of unemployment in reality of around 50%. If one is seeking economic crimes to track down and redress, Eskom and the crooks associated with it must be prime targets, all of them known to the newspaper, and yet, surprisingly, despite the hundreds of millions spent on State Security and Criminal Intelligence, not to mention Priority Crimes Investigation, not one person has been charged with wrongdoing!

There can be little doubt that an evaluation of the ‘work’ done by all of those involved in surveillance of the citizens will reveal that remarkably little of value has resulted. That evaluation would certainly show that much of the (legally wrongful) surveillance has been used for illicit purposes. Many innocent, but politically-aware people have mentioned that facts that should have been private have come out in unexpected places, leading them to believe that their private communications have been subject to eavesdropping. This is a classical tactic of authoritarian regimes, such as the Soviet Russian, the communist East German and the communist Cuban, and, far from gathering information for a legitimate prosecution of individuals intending unlawful conduct, it is used as a means of terrorizing dissident portions of the population. It is no less than State-sponsored terrorism of the people.

In these circumstances, it is close to criminally negligent of people to ignore the manifestations of wrongdoing by the Government or any organ of it. It is an abandonment of rights that thousands suffered to gain. It is the duty of every citizen to know, as accurately as may be possible, what the Government is doing to them and in their name. It is not acceptable to give the excuse that ‘it does not affect me’. It does affect you. Wrongdoing in any form affects everyone, without exception. An injury to my rights is an affront to every citizen, on every side of the political spectrum. Everyone has a right to express what he believes, in accordance with the Constitution, and everyone must afford him or her that right. Any attempt to obstruct that right is a grievous affront to those who suffered to create it.

Statistics and Lies

The Minister of Labour, Mildred Oliphant, has once again complained that companies are not adhering to the wishes of Government in the employment of Blacks and women in senior positions. She quoted a series of statistics, to prove that she really has no understanding of the situation, and that the expectations of businesspeople are being realized.

“According to Statistics SA’s 2016 third quarter figures, whites account for 9.5% of the economically active population (EAP) and black Africans 78%. The commission’s 2016-17 report says whites fill 68.5% of top management jobs, six times their EAP. Africans account for 14.4%. Males fill 78% of top management jobs. Whites account for 58.1% of senior managers compared to 22.1% of Africans. At the lower levels, Africans fare better, but still don’t match their EAP figures, accounting for 60.2% of skilled technical workers and 76.1% of semi-skilled workers.

“The continued high rate at which the white group appears to be afforded preferential treatment for recruitment, promotion and training opportunities at [top management] level is of concern. This trend renders it highly unlikely to achieve equitable representation at this level in the near future,” concluded the report [by the Commission for Employment Equity]. The situation is similar at senior management level.”

Frightening figures, when viewed from the point of view of the Government, figures which demonstrate the same lack of effectiveness as the Government under the ANC has shown in virtually every other sphere of the economy in which it has been active. However, when viewed rationally, the figures are both understandable and encouraging.

Let us look at some of the details, and really understand them.

Whites fill 68.5% of top management jobs, six times their EAP. Africans account for 14.4%, while Whites account for 9.5% of the economically active population (EAP) and Black Africans 78%.

Apart from the factually incorrect description of Blacks as ‘black Africans (which ignores the fact that numerous Whites are descended from families that have been in South Africa as long as most of the Black families), one must understand that a large proportion of the economically active Black population is engaged in work which has no potential to develop their education, knowledge and skills to the level where they can become effective top management. The statistics of that proportion are not presently available to the writer, but it is a safe bet to assume that, of the 78%, at least 50% are not qualified in any way and have little prospect of becoming qualified for a top management job, and another 20% of the remaining 38% are not yet old enough to have gained the experience required. Yes, top management requires many years of experience. If the Blacks who are educationally-qualified for the top management jobs had started their climb up the ladder in 1994 (assuming an adequate education), they would have gained 23 years of experience. How many of the top managers of large companies are aged less than 44 years? Again the statistics are not available, but the answer is certainly less than a handful. Why 44 years? Assume that an aspirant for top management completes Matric at 18, then a three-year degree, that person started work at age 21. Add the 23 years since 1994. He or she is now aged 44. Most of the Blacks who will become top managers of large companies are still working their way up the ladder, after gaining a good education and years of experience in many of the activities that are essential knowledge for the top job. In an interview on SABC this morning, the Minister of Social Security inadvertently confirmed this fact, when she stated that SASSA required at least five years to establish an in-house ability to pay social grants, after having worked on the problem since 2014 – a total of 8 years to do a project that a competent European or American company would certainly complete within 2 years (after all, CPS was able to develop the ability within less than a year!). She explained that the organization of SASSA, which was set up to do only the payment of social grants, consisted of low-level management. That statement is one of the few believable statements by the Minister, who has become known for obfuscation, circumlocution and even the use of Russian, in answering embarrassing questions. The simple fact, known to all of the companies burdened by the law requiring them to employ a certain ratio of ‘previously disadvantaged persons’. Is that there are simply far too few competent Black persons with the education, qualifications, skills and experience required to perform competently in a normal economy, never mind the minefield that the South African economy has become under ANC rule.

The situation on the ground is that a company’s prime requirement is to earn a profit for the shareholders. Once that is being done, the company has the freedom to comply with all the other nice-to-have objectives, such as Black Economic Empowerment. To do that, every top manager must perform at the peak level of performance expected from him or her. Where the profit flow is good, there is enough surplus cash to do the things that are required to meet the Government’s unrealistic expectation (that every Black is born with all the skills and experience to perform excellently – they are not, nor are Whites, Indians, Coloureds or Chinese), with a person being appointed to do a job that he or she is not qualified or experienced to do, supplementing his or her efforts with a skilled (probably White or Indian) who will filter out the gross mistakes deficiencies and add some on-the-job training in the process. That, of course, introduces managerial friction and inefficiency, and adds a considerable burden of cost, all of which weaken the market position of the company and detract from the attractiveness of the country as an investment destination. If you doubt this, ask why so many ‘proudly South African’ companies have largely withdrawn from the country (e.g. Anglo American, S A Breweries, Gencor) and others are doing whatever they can to minimize their exposure to South Africa. Ask why the economy is in a decline, where, previously, it was regarded as the ‘engine of Africa. Ask why the creditworthiness of the country has declined to the point where two of three Ratings Agencies have rated the country as ‘junk’. Ask why every Government-controlled business entity is in a state of collapse. Why cannot SAA make a profit, when the non-Government airlines do, why Eskom requires an ever-increasing tariff for the supply of the energy which, in the past, has been a major driver of economic growth, why the SABC requires additional funding every year, why SANRAL is rapidly approaching a fiscal cliff, even after a questionable accounting revaluations of its assets in order to maintain balance sheet solvency, could why PetroSA manage to deprive the country of its strategic fuel reserve? The root cause in every case is unqualified management. The compounding cause, corruption, is a direct result of the lack of moral honesty that is a prime element of a competent top manager, a quality that is built only by years of exposure to quality managers, absorbing their beliefs and morality.

“At the lower levels, Africans fare better, but still don’t match their EAP figures, accounting for 60.2% of skilled technical workers and 76.1% of semi-skilled workers,” the report continues. That again is no surprise. Although ‘Africans’ (correctly defined) occupy all but a tiny fraction of such positions, Blacks are severely disadvantaged in their capacity to occupy skilled or semi-skilled positions simply because the standard of education they receive is at an abysmally low level. The Department of Education systematically attempts to hide the real facts of this, by lowering the pass mark so that more ‘learners’ gain their piece of paper, but the truth is that an education at a level required to meet the minimum standards of most sophisticated employers is not available from the State schools. If there is any blame to be apportioned for this situation, it lies squarely at the feet of the ANC, which disrupted a proven skills-building system and introduced a system that had been proven elsewhere in the world to be defective. Once again, the ANC refuses to accept the advice of people who really know the truth, preferring to accept their ‘gut feel’ and the universally-disproven communist doctrine that they use as a master plan.

The figures issued, if correctly understood, are encouraging, in that they show that the Black citizens are working their way up the system, as any intelligent observer would expect. If we disabuse ourselves of the racist rhetoric spewed by the Government, it is clear that employers at all levels of the economy, would be delighted to find a qualified employee, whether at top management, skilled or semi-skilled, and would appoint such a person to an appropriate position. They would be pleased to provide the training, education and exposure that would maximize the value of such a person to the company. Every employer needs good people to sustain their growth into the future. Equally, every employer would be unconcerned that the best candidate for the job is Black or White, or any other race. Only the Government (and the few other Parties espousing similarly lunatic racial criteria, rather than promoting the economic growth that will create the situation where every person will have the job they want) would wish to push an unrealistic policy to the extent that the country’s already fragile economy will collapse.

The best thing that the ANC could do would be to expunge any reference to race from their lexicon, and that would be followed by getting out of the way of the hardworking people of all races who are working to make the country of Nelson Mandela succeed, for all its citizens.

The ANC does not Believe in the Constitution

Reports have it that the ANC NEC has called on Jacob Zuma to appeal the Court Order to disclose the reasons and documentation behind his firing of the Finance Minister.

There can be no clearer evidence than this, of the fact that the ANC considers itself to be above the Constitution. The have shown that when they failed to recall Zuma when he was found by the Public Protector, a body enshrined in the Constitution to protect the public against the predation routinely exercised by the Executive, to be guilty of unjust enrichment in the using of public funds to build his homestead. They enhanced that disregard of the Constitution by embarking on a vicious campaign to bring the Public Protector into disrepute. They failed the test of respect for the Constitution again, when they failed to reprimand Zuma for his breach of the Constitution and of his Oath of Office, and again when they meekly accepted his insult to the public by ‘apologising’ to the public for their confusion in failing to understand that he had accepted all along that he would repay the money. They have shown disrespect for the Constitution, the highest law in the land, by supporting him against motions to impeach him for his numerous acts of wrongdoing, for failing for several years to comply with a Court Order to hand over the spy tapes, for inducing the Minister of Police to lie to Parliament in order to protect Zuma from any requirement to pay back the money, for failing to respect a Court Order compelling him to arrest a renegade President, Omar al Bashir, who was subject to a Warrant of Arrest issued by the International Criminal Court for genocide (300 000 of his citizens were killed by his regime, yet Zuma did not consider him to be subject to the law, as he does not consider himself to be subject to the law), they have supported him in his lying about the status of the Waterkloof Air Force Base as a national security point when he permitted his friends, the Guptas, to use the Base to land several hundred guests for the Gupta wedding (permitting him to shunt the blame to fall guys who were then given plush sinecures as Ambassadors as a reward for taking the fall), and they have failed to reprimand or even criticize him for the multiple failings of his dozens of Ministers in their failings, such as Bathabile Dlamini, who disregarded an Order of the Constitutional Court and so precipitated a near crisis in the payment of social grants, the Minister of Communications in her reappointment of a man ordered by the Public Protector and the Court to be dismissed for lying about his qualifications, for his continued support of the Chairperson of SAA, who has brought a profitable business to its knees, at a cost of over R20 billion to the public, by an amazing lack of business capability and implementation of lunatic decisions aimed to enrich the ANC cadres, by his lack of action in correcting Eskom’s failings, which contributed to a decline in South Africa’s GDP b at least 2% p.a. by failing to run a previously world class utility in a responsible manner (even disregarding the ‘finder’s fees and share participations by the ANC in the contracts handed out by that body).

Now the ANC NEC has taken the ultimate step. It has encouraged Zuma to appeal an Order of Court compelling him to disclose the reasons for firing a Minister of Finance, in the aftermath of a blatant lie by Zuma to the people, claiming that he fired Gordhan on the basis of a security report on his conduct, which has now been shown for the childish excuse that it is. This Court Order is an affirmation of Zuma’s duty to account to Parliament for his actions as President, enshrined in the Constitution. It is also, in effect, a mandate to Parliament to hold the President to account for his actions. Parliament is the body in which the authority and obligation is vested to manage and control the actions of the Executive. By calling on the President to appeal an Order of Court compelling him to perform his function in the appointment and discharging of a senior Minister, the ANC NEC is effectively instructing the President, who is ultimately the President of the people, not only of the ANC, to ignore the Constitution, which is the ultimate law.

This does not come as a surprise. The ANC has demonstrated for many years that it considers itself to be the primary arbiter in the country of what is just and what is not, of what the Government does for and to the country, and, frequently, against the country, disregarding the prime intention of the Constitution, to ensure the best benefit for the citizens. The ANC and its associated ‘revolutionary movements’ saw nothing wrong with killing their own people to ensure that they toed the ANC line during the days before the peaceful handover of power to the majority and subsequent to that time. The political killings always reach a peak before the ‘election’ of candidates to feed at the trough of ANC-induced corruption. The ANC has tolerated a massacre of the farmers who, it assumes, represent a nest of opposition to their policies. The ANC has managed the Police Services, the Hawks, the National Prosecuting Authority, the State Owned Entities, the educational system, the Energy Authority and almost every aspect of the country’s institutions to a new low of performance and capability. It has succeeded in that aim also in replacing the Public Protector with a toothless stooge, after the high point in that body’s performance under the previous incumbent, and it is now working on the Courts and the justice system, the only remaining element of honesty and justice in the infrastructure of the country.

One can only hope that the impending implosion of this corrupt and inept Party will happen before it has the chance to bring about the final destruction of the Rainbow Nation that Nelson and so many of his fellows suffered to bring into existence.

A Cautionary Tale in Planning Race-Based Business Policies

An exam question was asked at the end of last year in a Logics course, with the caution that the question was compulsory. A failure to answer the question would result in failure of the candidate.

“A young Black man goes into a company’s office, clutching a Classified Ad from the ‘Jobs Vacant’ section of the local newspaper. “I want to apply for this job,” he says. “Let’s check your credentials before I tell you more about the job,” replies the man behind the desk. “I gained a B Com degree three years ago, but I haven’t been able to find work since I graduated, so I don’t have any experience.” The young man hands over letters from his teachers and lecturers stating their assessment of his capabilities and character. “That’s promising,” replies the man behind the desk. “We’re looking for a qualified person to do this job. It pays well, but we don’t do any work for the Government or the big companies that require that we comply with the BBEEE requirements. We would love to do some of that, but we don’t think it’s fair to our employees to subject them to arbitrary rules based on their race, so we limit our market to companies that think the way we do. We appoint people on merit, give them the training that they need to perform well, and then promote them according to their ability to do the work. We’re just an ordinary business that doesn’t apply any discriminatory rules based on race, gender or religion. All we’re looking for is someone who wants to build a long-term career on the basis of his or her ability.” The man behind the desk named a salary that was a little above the average for the qualifications required for the job. “Of course, in order to ensure that we keep the best people, we provide full training for the job as well as the next one up on the ladder, so that you can progress as quickly as your capabilities permit, and we’ll offer a participation in the shareholding of the company to people who have been with us for at least three years, and have proven their ability to perform in the jobs they hold by scoring above average on their annual performance appraisal. You can pay for your shareholding, if it’s offered, by deducting 1% of your salary for the purpose, until the agreed cost is paid. The likelihood is that the shares will earn you at least an additional fifty per cent of your salary once they’ve been paid. We don’t believe that anyone is entitled to demand a handout purely on the basis of their race, so your future will depend on you. Are you interested in the job?”

The applicant sat back in the chair and considered what he had been told. He needed the job, because the economy had been declining steadily since before he had commenced his studies, stifled by the economic policies imposed on the country by a Marxist-Leninist Government which appeared to have little understanding of proven economic theory, and he doubted that any of the many promises and job-creation initiatives by the Government would work any better in the future than they had done in the past twenty-three years.

Please respond to this situation as though you were the applicant by ticking one of the boxes below:

 

“Yes, please. I would like the job. I have always wanted to earn what I am worth, and I resent being treated as someone who needs special treatment. I believe that would degrade me personally as well as the knowledge I have worked so hard to obtain. You can count on me as a future shareholder.

 

No, thank you. I know that I do not have the skills, knowledge and capabilities of a White person, and I am not prepared to undertake any form of employment that does not recognise that my parents’ suffering under Apartheid entitles me to be paid for performing at a lower level than a White person with the same level of education. I believe that I am inferior, and I demand special rights to compensate for that.

Please amplify your choice in not more than 1 000 words below.”

*~*

No, this did not happen, but it is a situation that comes up many times each day in South Africa.

The Government places much emphasis on the creation of special entitlements for Black persons, and on the creation of ‘Black entrepreneurs’, apparently believing that a job created by a Black entrepreneur has more value than that created by a White. It does not seem to understand that an employer seeking a new employee will take whichever candidate meets its requirements in terms of education, experience and skills, which implies that the major responsibility of the Government is the provision of an education and training that will ensure that all of the people in the system gain the qualifications to hold they jobs they aspire to. In none of the companies assisted by the Management Consultancy of which I am part was race ever a criterion, except where the employer was forced to accommodate a lower level of capability in order to meet the requirements of the Government’s BBEEE laws, and, in most cases, that resulted in a form of restructuring to ensure that the candidate it was forced to take was supported by other employees with more skill and experience. The Government fails to understand, or perhaps does not wish to understand, that the world of business is focused on profit and effectiveness in a world where both of these are becoming more critical each month. They want to employ people who will enable them to achieve these goals, and do not even notice the race of the person doing the job.

As in so many aspects of Government’s actions, it appears that the insistence on employers choosing the correct racial mix is doing much more to drag down the ability of companies to do the work needed for the economy, than it is doing to advance the interests of the Black population. The declining performance of the economy is stark evidence of that. In the interests of advancing its prospects to be re-elected, the ANC is creating racial division and strife, totally ignoring the fact that the Government is the Government of ALL the people of the country. One must ask why it is good to destroy the ability of White-owned and –managed businesses to succeed and to continue to offer jobs to all races, while providing huge incentives to Black-owned (and probably White-managed) businesses to replace them, (probably at a lower level of effectiveness for many years) introducing a large cost burden on Government and continuity-risk burden on employees (in acknowledgement of the universal fact that the highest fatality rate for business is experienced in the first three to seven year period).

How would you respond to the questions above, if you were in the position of the young Black job-seeker? Do you qualify as a racist, or as an efficient player in the economy?