Wednesday, 19 December 2018

Why is a new Referendum on Brexit a Betrayal of Democracy?

Theresa May has repeatedly stated that there will be no referral of the Brexit question to the people. She has stated that a mandate was given two years ago, and it is her duty to perform exactly in accordance with that mandate, even though the ‘facts’ that were known then, or, more realistically, that were stated to the people at that time in the interests of achieving a relaxation of the controls imposed on the British government by the EU, a much larger and, presumably, more democratic democracy, were wildly wrong. The decision was made and we must jump off the cliff into a dark unknown that becomes more frightening with every step we take closer to the edge of the cliff.

Why is May so determined to lead her people to a mass suicide attempt, when it is abundantly clear, or it should be, even to her, that the agreement she has negotiated does not carry the support of her own Party, far less the support of the majority of MPs? Is the Prime Minister so pig-headed that she cannot see that there are alternatives to her agreement or a no-deal Brexit? Is she simply stupid, as the Labour Party leader has said? Is she so committed to remaining in power in the Conservative Party that she is willing to lead her Party to destruction, rather than face the real facts?

One is tempted to compare Mrs. May’s stance with that of Adolph Hitler in the dying days of the Third Reich, when he refused to accept that he had led his country to catastrophe, insisting on fighting to the last man to support an ideology that was abhorrent to the vast mass of Germans. One can only hope that she, or, more likely, some of the more democratically-inclined members of her Party will come to understand that the decision made two years ago to leave the European Union was a decision made on the basis of incomplete information and a world situation that was vastly different to the one that prevails today, and that the decision now needs to be reevaluated by those citizens in the light of the facts and projections by experts available today.

Even the best case scenario of a Brexit with an agreement shows no significant advantages to Britain, and it discloses risks that would make any thinking voter uneasy. It is unlikely that such a best case scenario will be realized, and much more likely that the worst case scenario will be closer to the truth. In this case, the economy of the United Kingdom will fall by around ten per cent, the jobs market for those who voted for Brexit in the first case will collapse, the cost of food, health care, travel and many other elements of the life of the average Briton will be adversely affected, possibly to a greater extent than was caused by the 2008 financial meltdown, and Britain will revert to the status of a struggling island nation, trying to find its place in the world. It is sure that Britain will be isolated in a hostile world, with Russia and China ascendant and the USA in decline under an equally pig-headed and economically illiterate President, with a damaged European Union standing by as it watches the illness develop in its near neighbor. The EU will then be disinclined to assist Britain to any greater extent than it sees necessary to protect its own interests, and it may, probably will, be more inclined to exacerbate Britain’s suffering, even at its own cost, in order to demonstrate the evil effects of such an EU exit attempt by its remaining members. Certain Brexiteers have claimed that the EU cannot afford to have Brexit fail. Of course, what they do not say is that Britain represents only one sixth of the European population, and that the suffering of the average Brit will be at least four times that of the average German or French citizen. That would be a small price to pay to make a point that will reach the minds of even the most obtuse EU citizens.

On the question of whether to ask the people to reconsider the question of whether they wish to leave the EU, one must ask what is the function of the government. Surely, at is basis is the imperative to give reasoned effect to the will of the people. In the case where the politicians, always willing to pursue their own agenda unless the threat of a withdrawal of the support of the voters is dominant in their minds, can come to no clear consensus on what to do, the democratic imperative, the only democratic imperative, is to refer the question to the people, this time with clear facts and reasoned arguments. No longer will it be possible to argue that a Brexit will save £28 billion – that amount and more has already been wasted in the period of futile negotiations with the EU. No longer will it be possible to argue that it will be possible to reserve British jobs for Britons – for every EU citizen who comes to Britain for work, there is a British employer who needs that employee and is unable to find a Briton who is willing to do that work. Those jobs will be filled by immigrants from other nations, not by the non-existent Brits who don’t really want those jobs. British industry is already complaining that it will be starved of workers when the EU supply dries up. And, most of all, those EU workers pay tax in Britain, add to the economic activity, and push the economy forward. No longer will it be possible to claim that the EU needs British industry. It does need those industries, but it can attract them just as easily by offering concessions to the industries to relocate to the EU. It will not need those industries in Britain.

One of the factors that seems to be ignored is the Russian interest in breaking up an economic and military power that has the capability to stand in the way of Russia’s dreams of regaining its empire. The extensive involvement of Russia in influencing the 2016 American elections has been well documented, as has its continuing interventions in American politics since then. Is there any reason to doubt that Russia was at least partly involved in spreading fake news and ‘false facts’ during the Brexit campaign? Listening to the views of some leading Brexiteers in recent months, one can hardly suppress a suspicion that the whole Brexit issue was instigated and directed from Moscow. Think of it. Russia does not need a single unified economic and military power on its borders. It would much rather have a disputatious and disparate group of countries to oppose its ambitions. It has already, to a large extent, achieved that by buying the American President and spreading extensive misinformation throughout the only remaining power capable of opposing it. Brexit and the rise of the extremist political Parties in several European countries are logical next steps in the plan.

The European Union was a glorious plan, a plan designed to uplift the frequently-warring countries of Europe together. It has gone wrong, as most democracies do, because the citizens left too much power in the hands of anonymous bureaucrats, whose interests lie strongly in the extension of that power. However, a democratic institution is subject to the will of its people, even though those standing between the people and the implementation of that will often use obstructive and divisive tactics to maintain and extend their power. Surely Britain’s efforts would be better applied to reforming those aspects of the EU that it does not like, than to walk away from it all at a possibly ruinous cost? Any responsible leader of the people should put in the effort to convince the people who voted for Brexit that their decision, based on incomplete and improperly presented propaganda needs to be reevaluated in the light of new and updated facts and responsible projections. It is surely time for the British Government to come to the understanding that a re-referral of a possibly wrong decision to the people is not a denial of democracy, but a reaffirmation of it.

Friday, 12 October 2018

The Department of Home Affairs


A close associate told a story recently about his experience of dealing with the Department of Home Affairs in South Africa. At the time, the Government had recently announced that it would revise the system of issuing visas to foreign visitors, a system which has cost the tourism industry in the country many millions, due to potential tourists from abroad losing interest in the face of unrealistic demands and, probably, surly behavior by visa officials. The Minister had, over two years, refused to listen to reasonable information supplied by the many citizens who are both less arrogant and more attuned to the needs of the world outside the comfortable Parliamentary offices and the close friendship of their Cabinet colleagues, all of whom have applied their expertise to the destruction of the South African economy while extracting huge personal wealth from it. The story he told was typical of the experience of many citizens in their dealings with Government, so I requested that he write it for me. This is his story.

Recently, I visited the local office of the Department of Home Affairs to apply for a renewal of my passport. The last time I did this was in London, at the South African embassy, where the process took about two weeks after the obligatory wait on the telephone, at a fee of £1 per minute for a 45 minute wait to make the appointment. This time, believing the message of a ‘war on queues’ posted prominently outside the office, I went in.

The process to discover the system was lengthy, with the apparent security man at the front desk referring me to the woman sitting next to him, after a wait of about five minutes. The woman was both surly and uncooperative, but, eventually, she instructed me to ‘sit over there’. There was no apparent method of determine what my position was in the queue, but, after a wait of about half an hour, I was instructed by one of the four women at the desk to take a seat. I gave up my identity document and provided the information requested, including my Identity Number and my date of birth. Apparently, the Department of Home Affairs is not aware of the fact that the Identity Number starts with the date of birth!

When the information had been entered into the computer, I was instructed to press my left thumb on the electronic reader, and then the right thumb. This had to be repeated eight times, as the computer was apparently incapable of registering my thumb prints. Once the computer declared itself to be satisfied, I was directed to a small booth for the electronic photograph to be taken. That was done, and then I was instructed to repeat the exercise with the thumb prints and the photograph another five times, before a satisfactory result was obtained.

At last, I was directed to sit in another queue, to await the pleasure of yet another woman attendant who demanded the same set of details again, with yet further thumb prints (only four attempts this time!), before I was informed that the process had not worked. Back to the thumb prints and photograph lady! This time, it needed only three attempts to get the photograph right, then back to the documents lady, who referred me to the Cashier window. That was easy to find, being next to the large poster that proclaimed proudly that ‘We are accepting credit card payments’ (sic). It came as no great surprise that the credit card payment system was not working, but, fortunately, I had sufficient cash, an unusual event in this time of the cashless society.

After the Cashier had handed me a receipt, I was directed to sit again, to await the documents lady. The wait was no more than ten minutes this time, and I was instructed to give my thumb prints again! After the sixth attempt, the computer apparently decided that I was me, and allowed the formal application to be made, and then permitted the documents lady to release me into the open air again. The process had taken about two hours on a not-very-busy day.

Twelve days later, I received an SMS from the Department of Home Affairs to inform me that my new passport was available for collection from the local office.

The next day, I drove the 25 kilometers to the office in great excitement. I could collect m passport!

The excitement was doused when I arrived there, to see about fifty people sitting and standing outside the office. I managed to make my way through the crowd to the reception desk, where I went through the same process again of waiting for the uniformed man to demand my Identity Document. He did this three times before he heard me informing him that I was there to collect a renewed passport, when he felt that it was safe to refer me to his companion, the same surly lady as before, sitting next to him. The wait was somewhat longer this time, until the woman listened to my explanation, after demanding to see my Identity Document. She then informed me that ‘the system is down’. I asked when it would be up again, and she shrugged her shoulders before saying that it would probably be no sooner than late in the afternoon. I decided to come back the next time I was in the town, on Friday, two days later.

I did that, repeating the whole exercise of making my way through the crowd, giving m Identity Document twice and receiving the same answer. When I asked when the system was likely to be up, the response was a shrug of the shoulders.

I repeated the exercise on the following Friday, arriving shortly after midday, and, lo and behold, the system was up. After my details were entered in a register, I was directed to sit outside, where I would be called. I asked how long it would take, as I have health problems that do not lend themselves to lengthy immobility, and was told ‘about an hour’. I waited outside for an hour and a half before I saw a man standing at the other end of the crowd of about fifty people, holding a sheaf of papers and passports. It was impossible to hear him above the sound of the passing cars, so I approached and tried to hear if I were being called. No luck! After listening to him for a further ten minutes, my name had still not been called, and the man returned to the airconditioned interior of the office. I followed him and made my way directly to the surly woman at the reception desk. She apparently was offended that I had not made my approach through the uniformed man who would refer me to her, but, after I explained several times that I desired to know how long the further wait would be, she told me that I had to register to be able to have any hope of collecting my passport. I informed her that I had done so, nearly two hours ago. She demanded to see my Identity Document, and satisfied herself that I had, in fact, registered one page of the register earlier. She then informed me that they were very busy (I had noticed that the waiting area was full, with at least another forty people sitting outside, and used my failing mental capability to deduce that they were actually busy!) I asked, politely, what the system was, so that I could make an assessment of whether it was worth waiting any longer. She replied angrily that I must wait my turn. I replied that I had no objection to taking my place in the queue, provided that I knew where that place was. She replied angrily that I could not expect preferential treatment. Sensing that the discussion would not provide the information I was seeking, I asked to see the Manager. The angry lady refused to tell me where I could find the Manager, but, after I demanded another two times to see the Manager, informing her that I had a right to proper treatment, she referred me to the lady at Counter 3. When I asked who that person might be, I was informed that she was the Supervisor.

Now confident that I might be able to obtain information on how a waiting time of ‘about one hour’ could have morphed into more than two hours without hope of resolution, I waited politely at Counter 3 for the person being served to finish her business, and then asked what the system was to collect my renewed passport.

The Supervisor clearly did not like my looks (I am White, male and 75 years old) or the question, and she told me to take a seat and wait my turn. I informed her that I had no desire to be treated in a preferential way, but requested again to be told what the system was, so that I could understand what the likely waiting time would be. The Supervisor then demanded to see my number. I informed her that I had not been given a number, commenting that the lack of a number might explain why my presence was being ignored. The Supervisor then instructed me to return to the reception desk to register. I informed her, again, that I had done so, two hours earlier. She then told me in a very officious tone that she could not give me any preference. I gathered that she either could not explain the system to me, or did not wish to do so, and I requested that I be referred to the Manager. The Supervisor informed me some ten minutes later that the Manager was not there. I asked her to provide his name, and she referred me to the poster outside the office for a national complaints number. I told her that I had no interest in what the poster said, as I had already experienced twice the inaccuracy of the Home Affairs posters (‘war on queues’ and ‘we are accepting credit cards’), and demanded that I be given the name of the Manager, noting that, as a taxpayer, I was entitled to correct and complete information. She mumbled a name in a barely audible tone, and I requested that she write the name and the telephone number on a piece of paper. She replied that she did not have any paper! By now, my powers of patience and credulity were stretched to breaking point, but I managed to find some paper and asked for a pen. I was told that the Supervisor did not have a pen. I asked her what the object was that she held in her hand. (I suspected that it was a pen, as she had been using it to write only a few minutes earlier!) Fortunately, another person handed me a pen, and I managed to obtain the information needed and to write it down.

I then informed the Supervisor that I would take my place in the queue, wherever that might be, and await my turn to collect my renewed passport.

To cut a long story short, I was finally called to collect my new passport at 16h19 (four hours and twelve minutes after I joined the first queue that day, and sixteen days after I had been informed that I could collect it). The process at the counter required only three attempts at thumb prints before I was free o go with my new passport. I noticed that I was the last but two to be called to collect my passport, even though I had seen that I was at least a full page before the last entry in the register!

As an aside. I noticed during the long wait that a large bag had been left unattended in the waiting area for more than an hour before I was able to attract the attention of an official to inform him of the obvious risk it posed. (I had seen in airports and official offices throughout Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States that officials are particularly sensitive to the potential bomb threat posed by unattended large bags in public areas.) Apparently, the Department of Home Affairs does not consider itself to be vulnerable to such a threat, or that there is no violent criminality in the country. (Many foreigners who have been subjected to xenophobic attacks, residents of poorly-serviced areas, women and children might dispute that belief.)

What are the conclusions that I, as a Management Consultant with 27 years experience in fifteen countries in the diagnosis and correction of problems in organizations of all classes draw from this experience? The following points seem to be relevant:

  • The Department of Home Affairs has inadequate systems to handle the work it is required to do, in terms of:
    • Computer systems
    • Staff training
    • Operational systems
  • The staff, at least at the Komatipoort office, is:
    • Poorly trained
    • Unresponsive to the reasonable needs of the public it supposedly serves
    • Inadequate to meet the needs of the large number of ‘customers’ witnessed at the office on many occasions
    • Not willing to provide service to the ‘customers’
  • Petty and obstructive in their treatment of any ‘customer’ they perceive to be unwilling to take their surly instructions to sit quietly and wait their turn (whenever that might be), by pushing them to the back of the queue, and making them wait until the last possible moment for the service for which they have paid.

After my experience at the Department of Home Affairs, I have gained a much better understanding of the sentiments of citizens who burn schools and stone passing cars in order to gain the attention to their needs and rights. If there had been a school nearby, I might even have been tempted to set fire to it.

 

Saturday, 29 September 2018

The Senate Hearing and Democracy


If there was one element of the Senate Judiciary Hearing that stood out clearly it was the clear indication that the principles of democracy are in the process of breaking down, if they have not already.

The purpose of the Hearing was, theoretically, to determine whether the candidate was a suitable person to be given a life appointment to the highest court in the land. In practice, the Hearing was no better than a rubber stamp process to appoint the President’s nominee, regardless of whatever evidence was led.

The testimonies were remarkable, with Dr. Christine Blasey Ford demonstrating to the American public the courage and honesty that should be a hallmark of American society. She was honest about what she remembered and did not remember of that traumatic night, when she was attacked by two brutal drunk men, who attempted to rape her, a fifteen year old girl. Every indicator demonstrated her honesty, and her conviction that she knew who the two attackers were. One of them was Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the candidate. Not one of the twenty-one Senators questioned her honesty, yet the eleven Republican Senators did not believe her clear statement that the man whose integrity they were there to evaluate was one of the men involved in that primitive act. Judge Brett Kavanaugh made an aggressive statement, denying any wrongdoing, ever. His record shows that he, at that age, was an aggressive drunk, prone to binging on the beer that he forthrightly admitted to enjoying. His statement contained many of the All American stereotypes, including weightlifting and training, with a heavy emphasis on how he has always liked women, to the extent that his list of friends includes an unusually heavy preponderance of women, that he has always been heavily involved in promoting the interests of women and girls, including coaching a girls team for his daughters’ school, something he loved. He declared that his father had always maintained a ‘calendar’, a form of diary on a daily basis, enumerating the events that were later enjoyed by the family as reminders of the years past, and that he, Kavanaugh, had done the same since two years before the event. He alleged that this calendar was contemporaneous evidence of the fact that he had not had the time over a weekend during the period of the event described by Dr. Blasey Ford to do anything of the kind.

An evaluation of the signs of credibility shown by the accuser leaves no doubt in one’s mind that she was telling the truth. That same evaluation of the alleged perpetrator raised huge doubts in the mind of the observer as to his credibility. Those doubts were further confirmed when he refused to answer a question whether he had ever drunk so much that he could not remember the events of the time, questioning the Senator whether she had ever blacked out in that way. When she replied that she had never had a drinking problem, he said, smugly, that he had not had one either. That was not a clear and unambiguous answer to a simple question. It was an evasion, a means to seem to reply without saying that he had never blacked out. As a Judge, Kavanaugh must have known what is answering tactic implied, and, as a Judge, he would almost certainly have demanded an answer to the question. The conduct of Kavanaugh throughout the Hearing was far from what one would reasonably expect from a man who will need to consider the meaning and implications of every word he says in the Court. He also failed to accept the offer by a Senator to await a detailed investigation by the FBI that, he had averred, would clearly exonerate him of any wrongdoing.

The Senate Hearing refused to withhold their decision to obtain further evidence from the companion of the attacker or from the two other women accusers of Kavanaugh. They refused to withhold the approval of the man to await a detailed investigation by the FBI, endorsing Kavanaugh’s view that facts were not an essential consideration in the appointment of a Supreme Court Judge.

The Senate finally voted to pass approval of the candidate to the full Senate, although Senator Flake, in compliance with his name, suggested that his critically-important vote in favor of appointing Kavanaugh should be considered to be with the proviso that further investigation be conducted by the FBI before the full Senate decided. The vote, predictably, was 11 Republican votes in favor of the appointment and 10 Democratic votes against.

An impartial observer might be forgiven for wondering how it could be that an extremely important appointment, having potential influence over the highest Court for possibly thirty years into the future, could have been arrived at on purely partisan lines. Surely, if the Democratic Senators had firm doubts about the suitability of the candidate, at least some of the Republican Senators would also have harbored some such doubts, and vice versa, surely some of the Democratic Senators should have shared some of their counterparts’ views that the candidate was an excellent choice?

But no. The Donald has spoken, and we Republicans shall obey.

The Senate Judiciary Committee rubberstamped the approval of Kavanaugh, in the face of the damning allegations, convincingly presented by one highly-credible woman Professor and made by two further women, with all Republican Senators toeing the Republican line, and all Democrat Senators toeing the Democrat line. The Hearing was a farce. It was a show for the public, to convince the voting suckers that these highly-paid and supposedly unbiased men and women were doing the job they are paid to do. It was a convincing display of how the system of democracy has been perverted to serve the needs of the Party bosses.

A novel, published man years ago, entitled ‘The Year of the Angry Rabbit’ described the Australian political system. An election was held, to determine the number of seats held by each of the two Parties. Once that number was known, the Prime Minister took office, appointed twelve Ministers, whose sole function was to be fired in the event that there was a public outcry against the actions of the government, and all the Representatives went home, to enjoy the salaries they were paid. The difference in the American system of ‘democracy’ is that the political masters are not so open about what they are doing. They need the Representatives to be at the office, to make the worthy public statements about their positions and their Party, and to campaign for the next election, but, in essence, the system is the one described in that book. The Representatives and Senators are bound to toe the Party line in everything. The Senate Hearing has proved that conclusively.

Under this system, the only thing that can save Democracy is to have Party bosses who are exceptional thinkers, mean and women of the highest capability and integrity, people who will act solely in line with the best interests of the nation and the individual voters who elect their public Representatives. That could not have been said for most of the past several Administrations, and it is a description of the exact opposite of the Trump Administration, which has done so much to destroy the standing of America in the world, and to hand over so many of the gains made over decades of careful work to build the credibility of the country as leader of the Free World. America is not alone in this retrograde step. It now officially joins the ranks of the African banana republics, in which the Parliaments and Congresses are no more than irritations for the Man who would be King.

The world mourns the passing of a system that promised so much to so many, and now hands so much to so few.

Friday, 28 September 2018

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford

It was a heart-wrenching experience to watch Dr. Christine Blasey Ford tell her story to a panel of Senators. It was a story that is all too common in our modern world, a story of how two athletic near-adult boys trapped her in a locked bedroom and, in a semi-drunk state, attempted to rape her. The actions of one of them were accompanied by exhortations to ‘get it on!’ by the other. She, a terrified fifteen-year old girl, feared for her life and for her physical safety. Those fears were well justified, in a situation in which two stronger males were exploiting their strength and size, and her weakness. She managed to escape, but today still bears the mental scars of that assault, and those scars were ripped open in the last weeks by the callous disregard of the mental suffering she has been through for all of her adult life. She has been accused of making up the story.

No-one who witnessed Dr. Blasey Ford telling her story could doubt the suffering she endured at that time, and still endures today, nor could they doubt the huge courage it took for her to tell her story, in the interests of her country and of Humanity, unless, of course, they had a political agenda that demanded that the story be a falsification. It was even more distressing to those who have endured the vilification of politicians and their tame media when telling a story that is not politically correct.

The story of Dr. Blasey Ford had a parallel in the story of Jacob Zuma, the man who became the President of South Africa and proceeded to loot the country, to destroy the Constitutionally-mandated protections of law and justice and the rights of the citizens. Zuma was accused by a young girl, the daughter of a close friend, of raping her. She was of a similar age to Dr. Blasey Ford at the time of the rape. Zuma was found not guilty of rape, in a verdict that has been questioned by noted jurists, after a trial in which the ANC cadres demonstrated their hatred of the girl seeking nothing more than justice. She received death threats and vilification, although she was the victim of a crime that should have been banished from civilized society centuries ago, a crime that holds that the man has an automatic right to abuse the body of his victim purely as a consequence of his greater size and strength. That young girl went on to live a life of suffering, and, last year, she committed suicide, unable any longer to bear the hatred of the people who refused to believe that she had not consented to the rape.  Zuma saw the process as a great victory for him. It was not a victory for the people of South Africa. It was the start of an intensification of the regime of rape and assault of women and girls, some as young as two years old, almost always without consequence to the perpetrators. The incidence of rape in South Africa now runs at one rape every two and a half minutes! Under the Apartheid regime, for all of its faults, rape was by law a capital offence, drawing the death sentence. Under the current ANC government, for all the supposed excellence of its Constitution, it is treated almost as a minor misdemeanor, to the extent that a man accused of raping a woman was released on bail of R400 (about $26), while the same Court granted bail of R5000 to a man (falsely) accused, in his capacity as Director of a company that released an amount of nitrous oxide gas, without causing any injury or damage.

Even more serious than the damage caused to the young psyche of Dr. Blasey Ford is the fact that the Senators hearing the story told by her, which she decided to tell in order to protect her society from the serious danger that might be brought on the American people by the elevation to senior office of one of the perpetrators of the vicious assault, were visibly not interested in the truth of the matter, but only in the political consequences of it. As a Supreme Court Judge, that man would be in a position to hand down judgments that could have destructive effects far beyond the immediate case, yet the Republican Senators seem to be willing to overlook the serious charge on the basis that it was her word against the candidate’s word. They were willing to accept that view without taking the trouble to require an in-depth FBI investigation of the event. Of course, it is entirely possible that such an investigation could show that the candidate is innocent of the charge, and of the further two similar charges that have been made against him, but it is equally possible that the investigation would show is guilt. In pressing ahead, ignoring the suspicions that must arise from the claims of three credible witnesses, the Republican Senators are putting the interests of their Party above those of the nation. Just as the ANC did with Jacob Zuma, with predictably disastrous results for tens of millions of citizens. One is constrained to ask whether this action is an anomaly, in a country supposedly dedicated to democracy and the rule of law, or is it a normal event, blown up in the glare of public attention? One wonders. In South Africa, the (mis)trial of Jacob Zuma and the love shown for him by his Party was soon to result in a plundering of the State on a grand scale.

Probably the most prominent outcome of the Hearing in which Dr. Blasey Ford told her story in the glare of international television, was the patent honesty of this woman, the doubts she had about the effects it would have on her and her family, and the integrity she showed in telling the story. It was a demonstration of the finest and most important attributes of a good citizen – she was willing to put aside her personal interests in an attempt to avoid a huge mistake being made by the American Administration. She is a woman who has become an icon of the civilization all good people strive towards, a woman who has earned the unbounded admiration of the world.

One can gain hope, from the courage of Dr. Blasey Ford, that her action is equivalent to the flapping of the wing of a butterfly, a seemingly insignificant event in the grand scheme of things, but one that will precipitate the hurricane of reversion to the old and proven values of honesty, integrity, courage and good citizenship throughout a world that seems to have a lemming-like impulse to rush headlong over the cliff of personal ego, personal pride and political ambition.

Monday, 24 September 2018

Ramaphosa’s Stimulus Package

After the excitement of the great announcement by President Ramaphosa that he would introduce a stimulus package to restart the ailing South African economy, after it had finally fallen into a full-blown recession, a minor hiccup, apparently, in the mind of Ramaphosa, who persists in describing it as a technical recession. It appears that a ‘technical recession’ is a slight inconvenience as the country’s economy goes from one achievement to another, under the benevolent and expert management of the ANC.

Unfortunately, the more extensive explanation given by Ramaphosa to a very careful SABC interviewer of the exact extent and measures of the stimulus package was, to say the least, underwhelming. Observers have come to expect that of Ramaphosa, who is always light on facts and heavy on words, oily words spoken in an unctuous tone, to confuse those who don’t bother to note down the essence of what he says, and then verify the assumptions underlying them. Here is the content noted by this reporter after a half hour of listening to this man.

  1. The biggest problem we have in the education system is the continued lack of toilets.
  2. There are 57 non-performing municipalities.

That’s it. There was nothing more said that was worth writing down.

However, there was a lot more that came out of this tedious interview, reminiscent of so many SABC interviews of Cabinet Ministers and Presidents in the dark days of Apartheid.

The clearest message that came out of the interview was that Ramaphosa does not run the country, regardless of the Oath of Office he made on his accession to the office. The President declared that he is the President of the ANC, and that he does what the ANC tells him to do. He ignores the fact that he is the President of ALL the Blacks, ALL the Indians, ALL the Coloureds, and ALL the Whites, not just the mouthpiece of the select bunch of undemocratically elected ANC office bearers who rigged their route to this level of power, a group that, at best, represents less than one-fifth of all the voters. Ramaphosa’s commitment to that description of his job is no less treasonous that Zuma’s handing over of the powers, duties and obligations of his Office to the Gupta cabal.

Of course, Ramaphosa repeated the assertions made repeatedly by his predecessor, Jacob Zuma, that ‘we have made mistakes, but we now have a plan to correct them’. He seems to believe that the ‘mistakes’, many of them criminal acts or grossly negligent decisions, made by any ANC government are those of another entity, not of the current group of capos who hold themselves out to be as pure as the driven snow. Of course, the ANC has plans. It has always had a plethora of plans. It probably has a complete floor of Luthuli House dedicated to the storage of plans to be hauled out whenever a disaster looms, shown to the world as yet another example of ANC governmental brilliance, and then stashed away before anyone bothers to read them. It would be more than helpful, albeit incredible, if Ramaphosa were to state a problem in Government, dissect it carefully and then define the real causes of the problem, state solutions to the real problem, and then actually implement those solutions, with an audit afterwards to determine the correctness and effectiveness of the solution in resolving the real problem. Instead, new policies are rolled out, each one imposing new and, often, intolerable burdens on the long-suffering citizens. None of these policies is supported by scientific research, and all of them are the results of a Trump-like need for an expedient action to divert attention from this week’s other pressing problems.

Ramaphosa seemed to believe that his ‘infrastructure projects’ are immediately ready to go, and that they will bring about an immediate relief to the suffering of the 50% real-unemployed. Quite apart from the real-life fact that any economic turnaround takes from one to three years to start taking effect, Ramaphosa’s assertion that the projects will be supervised by central government and implemented on the ground by local government officials (remember that he also admitted that the ANC Government at all levels has a large preponderance of underqualified or mis-qualified people, including managers who have no management experience, CFOs who have no financial experience?) gives any experienced Government-watcher great cause for misgiving. Those are exactly the people who brought the country to its economic knees in the first place! Also ignored by him is the likely result of the intention to reallocate funds from other activities, so that there will be no effect on the fiscus! Does Ramaphosa not understand that a reallocation of expenditure does nothing to change the economic effect of the total of such expenditure, unless, of course, that reallocation is away from projects in which a significant proportion of the expenditure was intended to land up in Dubai, or in the ANC’s Swiss bank account? That seems to be unlikely in the face of the ANC’s need for funds in the run up to next year’s election, coupled with the retention in the Cabinet of proven fraudsters and strongly-suspected corrupt persons. Short story? There will be zero economic stimulus from those ‘planned’ projects in the short term, even if they do actually exist, in which case we would have expected Ramaphosa to put some meat on the bones of his grand announcement. Oh, we forgot! The building of school toilets might have some little effect on the economy as experienced by the overpriced builders (such as those who built Nkandla at 700% of real cost), but it will make no reportable difference to the GDP numbers.

Ramaphosa attempted to shift most of the blame for South Africa’s economic distress onto the shoulders of Donald Trump and his trade wars, and onto the oil price. A perceptive observer might point out that Japan and Germany, both devastated by the Second World War, became economic powerhouses in a shorter time than the ANC has been working at mismanaging the South African economy, bringing a once-powerful economy to its knees while its favoured few gained huge wealth and the less-favoured many descended into poverty, while driving away local and foreign skills and funds that could have made much more than the difference Ramaphosa now claims to be aiming for. They did that by pursuing realistic economic and political policies, and by promoting an excellent education for their children, all of which are foreign concepts to Ramaphosa and his ANC puppet-masters. Building school toilets, something that could easily have been done within the budget spent on Nkandla and within the time it took to build that monument to corruption, greed and Party stupidity, was never part of the plan for the Japanese and Germans. That was just one of the elements of those plans that were taken for granted.

The grand plan to encourage tourism by amending the lunatic visa policy that has kept tourists, investors and skilled workers from our shores, does seem to contain a grain of common sense. It should. That amendment has been recommended by the tourism industry since it was first mooted by Gigaba, the man who will now be in charge of correcting it, the man who has been demonstrated to have been in the pockets of the arch-manipulators of the South African Government, the Guptas, who have now been revealed to have manipulated the facts to gain illicit visas for their stooges. Does that mean that Gigaba has now decided to change sides, to come clean and declare to the South African public that he was only carrying out the orders of his master, Jacob Zuma, who, in turn, was only following the orders of the puppet-master ANC? One can hope.

No, Mr. Ramaphosa, your slimy words will not convince any thinking person, and certainly not the ANC-deprived Whites who, according to your Party, own and manage the greatest part of the economy in the face of everything you and your Party have said and done to drive them away, that you are now carrying out the new orders of a reformed puppet-master. No-one will believe you now, as they should not have believed you back in February, when you made promises of massive changes and improvements. No-one will conveniently forget the eight months of disillusionment since then, as they waited for senior officials and Cabinet Ministers who were party to the ANC malfeasance and who largely still hold the positions that enable them to corrupt their way to wealth, to promise their way to ANC re-election and to misdirect the activities of the Government towards the Zimbabwe-style future that the smart money sees as the future for South Africa.

Mr. Ramaphosa, if you wish to gain even the smallest degree of credibility, for you and for the ANC, now is the time to put hard facts on the table, to invite the best and brightest in the country to assist in solving the desperate problems you and your ilk have created, and then to follow that advice. There still remains a small element of goodwill in the country, in people who love the country above all else, and who will be willing to put in the time and effort to bring it back to what it should have been. If you don’t do that, the probability is that the IMF will. The choice is yours.

Monday, 10 September 2018

Some basic principles of economics

However much politicians would like the opposite to be true, it is a law of nature that an economy is subject to the rules of economics. If those rules are ignored, subverted, legislated or litigated, the true laws will return to bite in a merciless way. Here are some of those laws for your consideration.

You can set the price, but the market will decide whether to buy. Put simply, if you offer to sell a kilogram of butter or an hour of labor, the market has the freedom to accept your price and buy, or to reject it and not buy. The labor unions demand a high price for what their members are able to offer, and, in the short term, the buyers may be forced to accept that offer, simply to keep in business until they are able to find an alternative, or to find a way to wind down that element of their business without too much loss. The mines in South Africa have been subjected to an unrelenting, government-supported series of wage demands by their workers over many years. The workers’ demand were met by the employers, which then set about finding ways to reduce the dependence on that labor, by automating jobs, by finding more efficient ways to doing the work, or simply closing shafts and investing their money in other countries. The result has been that the number of workers employed in mines in South Africa have reduced to less than a third within one decade! The lucky workers who remain employed may be paid more now than they were before, but a large proportion of those making demands for more wages are now sitting at home, wondering where their source of income has gone. Those who are still employed are, generally, earning more, and being paid more, because they have improved the value of what they supply to their employers. The simple rule is that, if you want to be paid more, you must offer better value for that payment. The higher the price for the same level of value, the lower will be the demand.

The Government can set unreasonable rules, but the market will decide whether to accept them. Governments everywhere have an imperative to legislate on everything. They assume that they have a monopoly on wisdom, and they believe that what they proclaim shall be done, will be done. In reality, the parliamentarians debating wisely and learnedly (?) on the needs of the country are not in the top 5% of smart people in the country. They are almost certainly not in the top 50%. That is clearly demonstrated by listening to what they say. Remember Thabo Mbeki, the President of South Africa, stating in learned tones that “AIDS is a syndrome, and a syndrome doesn’t cause an infection”? Or George W Bush claiming that “the French don’t even have a word for ‘entrepreneurship’”? Or Cyril Ramaphosa defending Jacob Zuma when he stated ““We are saying that the integrity of the President remains intact and that this President has the ability and know-how to lead our Government and South Africa going forward.”? Or Neville Chamberlain claiming that his agreement with Adolph Hitler would ensure ‘Peace in our time”? When a Parliament or Congress or Duma lays down the law, it is a statement of what a few, self-interested and not-very-intelligent people at the top of the Party want to happen. Business then decides whether they can tolerate it. If not, they pull out of that business, or set up a different structure to evade the rule. Then the citizens come into the picture. As always, they might be taken in, for a shorter or longer time, but eventually, they will decide whether the rule is good for them, and comply with it, or not good for them, and take whatever action is required to avoid the undesirable consequences. The National Party legislated a minimum wage for domestic servants, and the result was that more than half of the domestic servants, people doing menial work largely because they had no other skills to offer, became unemployed. A low wage became a no wage. The ANC, faced with a lack of medical skills because they did not pay enough to compete with the earnings in private practice, imposed a rule that all newly-graduated doctors must serve a lengthy period in public service, in places nominated by the Department of Health, before they could go into private Practice, suddenly found that the newly-graduated doctors emigrated to avoid this discriminatory rule, forcing them to import poorly-qualified doctors from Cuba (of course, people will claim that the Cuban doctors are well-qualified – the response from a number of highly-qualified specialists is that they have skills no better than a senior nurse, at best. The other aspect is that the rule was introduced in order to permit the ANC to make good on its terrorist-era promise to pay back the Cubans for their help in coming to power in South Africa without having to use their own ill-gotten funds to do so). What the lawmakers should do in place of throwing mud at each other under the guise of a ‘parliamentary debate’ is to put all of the facts on the table, invite considered opinion from qualified people on what really constitutes a problem and on how to solve it, and then use the skills available in the Public Service, if there are any, to formulate the law to be passed. The simple rule is that you can demand, but the buyer will decide whether you will receive.

Everything is a trade-off. Nothing comes free. TANSTAAFL (There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). Whatever you want has a price. It is a wise man (or more often woman) who recognizes that if you take this, you can’t have that. Life is a series of alternatives. If you want to become a senior executive in a competitive world, you have to pay the price of gain the necessary education and experience. Unfortunately, being in possession of a black skin does not absolve you from that rule. Unfortunately, gaining twenty years’ experience takes twenty years. Pushing unqualified people to the top ranks of an organization is a sure recipe for the failure of that organization, either because they are incompetent, or because they are necessarily crooked to pretend (even to themselves) that they have what it takes. Witness Dudu Myeni and South African Airways, Brian Molefe and Transnet and Eskom, Hlaudi Motsoeneng and SABC, Bathabile Dlamini and SASSA, Jacob Zuma and South Africa, Donald Trump and the USA, Theresa May and the UK Conservative Party, Adolph Hitler and Germany, Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin) and Russia, and Vladimir Putin and Russia. The failure of the management objectives of BBEEE has resulted in South Africa declining in importance as an African economy. Unfortunately, the price of a failure to recognize this rule is often paid by the persons who did not make the decisions, but, ultimately, even they can be shown to have been complicit in allowing the nonconforming decisions to be made, even if only as a voter who failed to make the facts known to other voters. Many Americans will be joining their South African counterparts soon, in regretting the decisions, or non-decisions, of which they were culpable in choosing the wrong man. The simple rule is that the ultimate price to be paid for today’s free lunch should be carefully considered before opening that lunch pack.

The final rule for today: Governments are not immune to the rules of economics.

The Nicole Stuart eBooks


You can find all the Nicole Stuart books at http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B00BCWJ6P0.

Her books are designed to entertain, to educate in a pleasant way, to widen horizons, to give the reader a chance to experience different worlds, different places, different ways of thinking. They take the reader to places they could not otherwise go, to the experiences of people they could not otherwise be.

Widely acclaimed for their refreshing insight into complex, hidden and obtuse facts, and into the possible outcomes of those facts, her books cover a wide range of subjects, from the emotions of a writer producing his first best-seller and a large man who would love to be a prima ballerina, to a couple building a new civilization after a world catastrophe, a group of tourists escaping the consequences of that catastrophe in a remote corner of Africa. Her characters are real people confronting real situations, overcoming their limitations and problems and demonstrating that the world does not consist solely of degenerates and parasites. Comments include the following:

·         “The story moves through several countries and places, with descriptions that will make them familiar, and deals with real situations and people in a way that convinces the reader that the author is writing from first-hand experience.  There are no contrived situations, no derring-do that is written for the Hollywood special effects addict.  Everything is possible.
This is a thoroughly good read!”

·         Once again, the book is written in a fast-paced and convincing style, with plenty of credible excitement, evocative descriptions of places, and a satisfying romantic content.  It is clear that the author knows the detail of the events and places, and he is able to give the reader an ability to know them too. This is a totally satisfying read!”

·         Once again, the author has come up with a fast-moving, believable story that makes the reader happy to be on the side of the ‘good guys’!”

·         “I have just recently discovered this author, and, so far, have enjoyed the books a lot. I will return to this series once I finish re-reading Extinction Event.”

·         “Our reviewer found the description of a storm and sinking at sea nerve-jangling.  The writing puts one on the spot, and makes one ask what else could be done?  The writing is economical, and the book fast-moving and enjoyable, going from the peacefulness of a trans-Atlantic voyage single-handed in a sailing yacht, through the building of a storm and the rescue of a crewmember from a sinking yacht, then into the aftermath of the sinking.  It leaves the reader with a satisfied feeling that things are as they should be at the end.
We found it enjoyable, easy to read, fast-moving and technically accurate.  Recommended for all ages, and particularly the adventurous.”

·         “I think the story could be developed a lot further. Other than that, I completely enjoyed the story. I read it all in one sitting and wish there were more.” (The story is developed a lot further in subsequent books (now twelve) in the series.)

·         “I have enjoyed all of the books in this series so far, and am on the 3rd or 4th book, Some of the ingenious ways they solve their problems that have come about due to the eruption of the Yellowstone National Park supervolcano. I'm a sucker for a well written disaster book.”

·         “The explosion of Yellowstone is bound to happen with the results well illustrated in this book. Yes, governments should have survival plans but they are inept and self serving. Needless billions will die. Hopefully such a disaster is far in the future, however, we are overdue! READ THIS SERIES!”

·         “I am in the process of reading this volume in the series at this time. I enjoy the imagination used to come up with the solutions to the various problems facing our survivors, and the solutions are unique to each volume.”

·         “This is an exciting and realistic adventure combined with a serious warning. I like the characters and their story. I admire their altruism when they find room in their hearts and on their boat to share with total strangers. The tsunami scene is breath taking. Also, their plan to ride out the first bit hidden away is very wise. I recommend this one!”

·         “The author's views on governments and their self serving corruption is right on! I have thought long and hard along the same lines but could have not put the right words to it. She is well studied in the after effects of volcanic explosions. I live 300 miles from Yellowstone and have been there many times. It's beauty is awesome, yet there is always the underlying threat. The story is spell binding, yet I realize it is mostly a fairy tale. Nothing could ever occur, as this did, without a hitch. However, I highly recommend reading it and thinking about the planet's possible future.”

·         “Spend the money and enjoy the ride, I certainly did! Plus there is at least one side story that is also worth the time - "Chain Reaction" that is stand alone or a companion piece, again with new ideas that will make you wish to explore them, the mark of truly great writer, makes you wish to find out more about the ideas and visit places and methods of transport!”

·         “A beautifully crafted book about a book. The only thing which could possibly improve it would be another hundred or so pages. However as the main character, Roger, stated, "His story was finished. No, he thought. Not Finished. Complete." This is a complete work which is a joy to read.
If your view of South Africa was formed during the era of Apartheid and the Soweto Uprising you may come away with a totally different opinion.
I can think of no greater compliment to pay a writer than to say, "You have changed my view of the world."

Wednesday, 5 September 2018

Principles, not Policies

South African foreign policy, if, in fact, there is such a thing, appears to be solely aimed at paying back those countries that assisted the ANC to come to power. Medical students, unable to qualify for South African medical schools, are sent, at huge taxpayer-funded expense, to Cuba and Russia, to study medicine in the outdated institutions there, in a foreign language, after which they return to South Africa to work on the poor in the clinics and hospitals, The Government regularly makes huge cash remittances to the Cuban Government, in addition to the portion of the Cuban doctors salaries withheld from them and remitted to the Government, presumably as a form of reward for the indentured labour. Israel is frequently criticized for reacting to Palestinian rocket attacks, without any censure against the Palestinian terrorist leadership, which has been instrumental in maintaining Israeli hostility by means of frequent terror attacks, threats of invasion and repeated demands for the destruction of Israel. The continued support of Robert Mugabe’s dictatorship in Zimbabwe and his lunatic social and economic policies, disguised under Thabo Mbeki’s “quiet diplomacy’ while tens of thousands of Zimbabweans flooded into South Africa in search of a means to earn a living, and further tens of thousands were brutalized and starved in their homeland in order for the dictator to remain in power has never been explained in truthful terms, although the direct cost to South African taxpayers is substantial. The maintenance of “peacekeeping forces”, although paid for directly to the Zuma family in preferential access to mines and mineral deposits, has achieved nothing for the citizens of the DRC and other similar economic catastrophes masquerading under the name of “democracies”, while keeping despotic, exploitative and corrupt leaders in power in those countries well beyond their sell-by dates. The clear love affair with Vladimir Putin by the ANC brooks no comment about his invasion of Crimea, shooting down of a civilian passenger aircraft, poisoning with a banned chemical warfare agent of a supposed “enemy” in Salisbury, England, contrary even to the Russia-loving Trump White House. His clear attempt to bribe a South African President to hand over its entire nuclear activity to Russia for twenty years, renewable, has never been scrutinized by the ANC Government. The ANC Government strongly supports Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, citing his policies as a model for South Africa, notwithstanding an inflation rate of a million per cent per annum, and a population exodus of tens of thousands each day, in search of food and work. They love the Venezuelans oppressors of the Venezuelan people so much that a South Africa diplomat was constrained to promise that South Africa would go to war with the United States in support of its friend! Where were the oppressed people in that decision?

And so it goes.

Even the so-called ‘”new broom” Ramaphosa has demonstrated in unmistakable terms his deep love for China, disregarding the fact that an entire Muslim population has been relocated to re-education camps (shades of the Soviet era Gulags!), and his respect for Mao-style Communist teachings, disregarding the fact that those very teachings and policies resulted in the death of between forty and sixty million Chinese!

And so it goes, on and on, seemingly without end.

Why is this so?

It seems that the primary reason is that the ANC has no principles that it is willing to lay out for public comment. It does not have a principle such as “We will stand up for the poor and oppressed.” It cannot say that Israel is sometimes justified in its actions without losing its appeal to the terrorist nations of the world, even at the risk of alienating its biggest trading partners. It is clear: in the mind of the ANC, Israel is always wrong and the Palestinians are always right, even though this blinkered belief removes South Africa’s credibility in the mind of any thinking person. The ANC is always willing to stand up for its BRICS partners, although every one of them is guilty of gross human rights abuses, defective economic policies and crass dictatorship. Remember how Zuma held up Lula da Silva as a shining example of a President, shortly before he was put behind bars for corruption? Not a word on the shining example since that happened. Notice how the SABC, a supposedly independent bringer of the news has studiously avoided any item of news referring to the Russian GRU killings of its citizens on British soil, using a universally banned chemical warfare agent that it was not supposed to have? And this was not the first time that Putin felt free to commit a gross transgression of a universal law to which it is a party. There are many simple principles that can be stated by the Government, to be evaluated by its citizens and approved as a yardstick by which to measure its actions, to which to demand that the Ministers and diplomats subscribe, so that each action is measured and rational, so that the world knows where we stand.

It is not much to ask that a Government abandon the principle of flying by the seat of its pants, shooting from the hip. That is the failing which will pull Donald Trump, and his country, down from the lofty pinnacle they claim to be theirs by right. It is the failing that will make South Africa, once again, the polecat of the world.

Tuesday, 4 September 2018

Better an end with horror than horror without end


South Africa is officially in a recession, caused entirely by the crackpot policies adopted by the ANC, in defiance of all the advice offered them by people who understand economics, who have studied history, and who can see clearly where it is all headed. Ramaphosa assumed the Presidency, making promises that no-one believed he could keep, indeed, had any intention of keeping. His first act was to appoint to his Cabinet a group of corrupt, incompetent and failed Ministers, none of whom has demonstrated any understanding of modern economic thought, including several who have been found by supposedly righteous bodies to have been corrupt and incompetent to hold any public office. He has spoken several times and, tediously, at length, without telling South Africa what his plans really are to correct the course the country is on, and he has announced grand investment plans, miraculously falling into his lap, without disclosing what those plans really entail, or what the cost will be for the country of his financial rescue, if that is what they are.

South Africa is in a recession that could have been foreseen three years ago, at a time the ANC nominees in Parliament were gleefully telling the electorate that Jacob Zuma was the bee’s knees, totally disregarding the facts already clearly pointed out by the Constitutional Court, that he was delinquent in failing in his observance of his duties under the much-vaunted Constitution, clearly a criminal act of the worst kind, and clearly disregarding the compelling evidence of judgement after judgement declaring the functioning of the State to be both dishonest and incompetent. Ramaphosa took power, declaring that he would fix those failures, and then appointed David Mabuza as Deputy President, an act that induced no less a journalistic great then the New York Times to point out in painful terms that South Africa was now a Mafia state. Ramaphosa and his ANC did nothing to correct this report, allowing Mabuza to make a pretentious statement that, in effect, he was no more dishonest than Jacob Zuma.

South Africa is in a recession that will endure for years to come, with the difficulties facing the ANC of continuing to support the ever-more-rapidly declining State-Owned Entities, to provide the funding to keep buying the favour of the beneficiaries of the SASSA grants when it comes to election day, to continue to find ways to explain how Jan van Riebeeck and his horde of White Monopoly Capitalists are responsible for the ever-rising unemployment figures, the declining performance of the education sector, the public health sector, the public administration sector and all the other problems that are popping up with annoying regularity. That recession will end, in real terms, when the IMF is begged for assistance by the Government, and imposes draconian rules on public expenditure and control of corruption. The years until then will be more than painful to the South African public, as an increasing share of GDP is required to cover the interest payments on the money that the Government has thrown at the twin needs of finding projects that can be ripped off by the cadres and of buying votes to remain in power while they continue their depredations. Surely the daily horror reports from various Commissions, stating how Jacob Zuma and his gang, many of whom are still in the Ramaphosa Cabinet, viewed South Africa as their private piggy bank, to be plundered at will, how the Gauteng Provincial Government, in league with the national Department of Health oversaw the killing of 169 mentally-ill patients, with no apparent consequences for any of those ultimately responsible for the tragedy (in any sane country, the national Government would have fallen: in South Africa, not even the Provincial MEC for Health has resigned, never mind being put behind bars), while the Minister of Health plows ahead with the newest plan to rip off the public while, at the same time decimating the health care system and driving doctors to seek other homelands where they can earn an honest living. And all the while, we are sending aspirant Black doctors to learn their skills in Cuba, in Spanish, and Russia, in Russian, while the White students who want to study to serve their country in the medical field, are being sidelined, because the universities have a quota of Black students to fill, regardless of their educational standard.

South Africa is in a recession as a result of the harebrained socialist policies of the ANC, and Ramaphosa goes to China to negotiate assistance from the Chinese Communist Party to enhance the ANC’s commitment to the very policies that have brought us to this.

The only light on the horizon is the faint glimmering from business that they have the power to stand up to the Government and the Unions. They are not investing the spare funds at their command in the local economy, and it is now time for them to state that they will no longer comply with the insanity of the BBEEE policies that have made the country’s businesses uncompetitive on the international market, that they will no longer employ the workers at the blackmail rates enforced by the unions, that they will wind down their businesses until the government illustrates convincingly a commitment to supporting the very business world that earns the profits to provide the taxes that the Government needs, that employs the millions of workers who agitate daily against the ‘plague of capitalism’ that employs them. There is no doubt that this will hurt in the short term, but, if they had done this ten years ago, and brought the ANC to the realization that they can only command if others obey, South Africa would have been a booming economy today. How much is the cost of a forsaken additional annual growth of at least 5%, a figure that could easily have been attained under an effective Government? If the price is too much, close your business now, because it will be paid unless the Government is brought to understand where the wealth of the country is generated.

The price will be paid, out of a much less wealthy economy than we have even now. The sooner the price is paid, the sooner will come the recovery, and the easier it will be for all of us.

Monday, 27 August 2018

Donald Trump’s Republicans, Jacob Zuma’s ANC and Pope Francis’ Catholic Church


The people and groups named appear to be a disparate bunch – a renegade Republican President of the United States, a renegade ‘Freedom Fighter turned plunderer of his people and a leader of one of the largest religious organizations. Yet there are many similarities that need to be looked at closely by anyone seeking to understand what is going wrong with our world.

Donald Trump is a president who is proud of his inability to understand details of situations and the nuances that have enabled the world to function effectively until recently. In his world, everything revolves around him. Even truth is what he says it is. He has captured the populist imagination of a group of people very much like him. They see everything in black and white. They do not understand the other sides to each story, and they do not want to understand them. Trump appears to be happy to lead his nation into a bigoted ignorance, maneuvering his way through the facts, blaming others for what is going wrong, ignoring what is clearly failing, in the blind belief in his own incomparable abilities to bluster and blackmail every opponent, including people who would like to help him to achieve the best for his people, into submitting to his will. It is already clear that this President has taken the international standing of his country several large steps backward. He is willing to hand over dominance over, and influence in, the Asia Pacific region to China, by backing out of trade treaties and negotiations which, in his ignorance of the wider context, he describes in his usual exaggerated and uncompromising terms as ‘the worst ever’. He is willing to alienate his country’s closest allies in Europe by his oafish words and his false claims, that ‘they must pay their share of the NATO budget, they must increase expenditure on the military’, disregarding the fact that a large part of expenditure by, for example, Germany, on elements that are not strictly military are designed to avoid the situation that could easily turn those situations into pressing military problems. Roman Herzog, the then-incoming German President, recognized that the way to peace did not necessarily involve artillery and fighter jets when he told the German nation that ‘we must take steps to resolve the problems of Africa in Africa, because, if we do not, they will become European problems.’ Trump, notoriously ignorant in matters of history, does not understand that view. In his eyes, military might is THE way to exercise influence in the world. His background as a student at a military college goes a long way to explain that shortcoming, yet other military men, such as President Jack Kennedy and Senator John McCain, did not suffer from such a defective understanding. They understood that prosperous friends will generally not be willing to sacrifice that prosperity in order to gain a military superiority, a situation which, at best, will be temporary, enduring only until the opponents, fearing the threats contained in a military build-up and working to match that military capability. They knew that a two-times overkill capability, coupled with an active support of friendly countries, and countries that might become friendly, is more than enough to maintain a status in which a potential enemy could recognize that a military adventure would be a sure loss. They knew that diplomacy, not unfounded bombast, was the only way to maintain a peaceful world. They were also able to recognize that courting the association of manifest enemies, to the detriment of proven friends, was to place their country on a slippery slope to global catastrophe.

The fact that the Republican Party has, for so long, tolerated the buffoonish antics of Donald Trump is a question that must raise the suspicions among Party supporters about the leaders of the Party, who are responsible for holding the excesses of the leading Party members in check and forming the opinions of the Party rank and file. It appears that those leaders are not willing to speak out against the most divisive and destructive man in American politics since the McCarthy era.

Strangely enough, the rule of Jacob Zuma in South Africa bears remarkable parallels to the rule of Donald Trump in the United States. Like Trump, he had no hesitation in lying outright to suit his purpose. He had no sense of shame in dividing the nation to achieve his nefarious ends. He had no sense of the damage he was doing to the nation and to those who identified themselves with him, needing only to achieve his personal objectives. Like Trump, Zuma had no understanding of history, or of how the flow of it resulted in the present and will result in the future. Like Trump, he had only the barest understanding of the interrelationship of events, of how pushing here has the potential to bring about a huge distortion there, and he has no feeling of personal responsibility for the outcome of his maneuvering, beyond the desire to achieve something for himself. Like Trump, he relies on native cunning and animal instinct, not on understanding and careful evaluation. Like Trump, he surrounded himself with sycophants and yes-men, people who are always reluctant to stand up to the perceived excesses of their chief in the interests of their personal benefit. Like Trump, he was always willing to throw those ‘dear friends and trusted confidants’ under the bus when the time came, and, like Trump, he was unable to comprehend that those people would be just as willing to throw him under the bus when that became expedient in the preservation of their own safety and comfort.

Pope Francis, on the other hand, is an organization man. The Catholic Church continues to hold onto the illusion that it is the representative of God on Earth, that it speaks the words of God and is therefor infallible in its pronunciations. It ignores at every turn the fallacy of this view, disregarding the evidence, or, at best, explaining it as a ‘human failing, excused in each case by a benevolent God. It ignores the long-held Church belief that the Earth was flat, that it was the center of the Universe, that only those baptized by itself were good enough to enter Heaven. It ignores the brutality of the Spanish Inquisition, perpetrated in the name of the Church. It ignores the constant stream of acts of inhumanity perpetrated by the representatives of the Church against children, men and women over many years. It ignores the fact that the Papacy, the very leadership of the Church, acting under the authority of God, was the subject of a competitive tender in the not-so-distant past, that favors of the Church were the subject of payments. The present tour of Ireland by the Pope has shown itself very clearly to be little more than a public relations exercise, planned to boost the flagging membership of the Church in the face of the revulsion against its actions and inactions. The Pope remains unwilling to confess the sins of which it has clearly been guilty, to make public reparation to the thousands, possibly millions of its adherents, for the gross misconduct of members of the Church. The Pope would have the members of the congregation believe that such misconduct was not known to the senior management of the Church. Such a claim is disingenuous in the extreme. At the very least, the supposedly all-knowing God which the Church claims to represent must have made the ‘indiscretions’ of the clergy known to those at the top of the Church, even if it was possible for those responsible for such a well-organized pattern of conduct to have hidden it, in the face of the policy of ‘confession and forgiveness’ exercised by the Church. It is hard to conceive of a situation in which a substantial number of senior clerics, across many countries, could have succeeded in maintaining the lie that had been exposed, over and over, by the people who had suffered at the hands of the Church.

Yet the Pope continues to uphold the fiction that the Catholic Church is the upholder of virtue and spiritual rectitude. He continues to avoid handing over to the criminal prosecution agencies every single priest and bishop suspected of sexual offences against those who entrust their spiritual guidance to the Church. He prays to God for forgiveness for the sins of the Church, yet he fails to pray to the members of the congregation for such forgiveness. Of course, it is easy to pray for forgiveness for such heinous behavior, when you, yourself, claim the right to dispense such forgiveness. If the church were a formal company, the shareholders would long since have sold their shareholding on the basis of being fed such obvious lies and disinformation by the Directors.

What are the grossly obvious similarities between these people and the organizations they represent? Some answers leap out of the facts.

None of the persons in question truly believes that they are responsible for their actions to the people they claim to represent. Every one of them has an ability to interpret the events and their actions solely in relation to themselves, twisting the facts to present a picture that they need to show themselves in the right light. They all have an ability to manipulate the views and beliefs of their constituency to their own ends. They all have enormous power, a power that could as easily be used for good as for the evil that has been their choice, and they all have a hunger for such power, to the extent that they are willing to lie and twist their story to ensure that they are able to hold onto such power, regardless of the views and advice of better people. None of them is prepared to face the world openly, to confess that what they are doing is against the interests of Humanity and of the world. None of them is willing to accept the loss of their leadership role, and the power and wealth (in their terms) that comes with it, in the interests of the greater good.

Worst of all, each of these men and the organizations they represent is willing to continue to inflict on the world the incalculable harm that they have done in the past.

Perhaps the most glaring similarity is that none of these men and their organizations have any discernible set of principles by which to measure their actions and which can truly be said to be devoid of personal interest or benefit. None of them is willing to stand up to wrong if there is any possibility that they will be harmed by such a stand.

In the words of Jo Stevens (‘Connection’ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N1XTDYD): “her dislike for Mr. Jenkins Jr. would not cause her to abandon that principle now. That was what principles were for. If one felt free to abandon them at will, it made no sense to have them at all.”

What is wrong with our world?

It seems that the crisp answer is that the people we allow to represent us do not have principles that are understood and accepted by the majority of us, and, by their example, we allow them to degrade the principles that we as people consider important for civilization to work.