Vick Momberg, Justice and the Thought Police

South Africa experienced a dramatic leap in the direction of injustice, or, should one say, unidirectional justice, with the sentencing of Vicky Momberg to three years imprisonment for the repeated use of the ‘K-word’ while she was in a state of shock and anger after she had experienced a smash-and-grab attack in Johannesburg. She has today been granted bail pending her appeal against the conviction and the sentence.

The facts of the case are simple. Momberg was stopped in traffic in her car when a Black thief broke a window and stole some goods from it. When she called the Police Emergency, she used the K-word, and then again when she was being assisted by the Police.

There can be no doubt that her aggressive nature was aggravated by the smash-and-grab. These attacks are common in many cities of South Africa, to the extent that motorists, particularly lone women drivers, are repeatedly warned in the Press to beware of men loitering at intersections, particularly exits from motorways. Disregarding these potential attackers is a routine in Police circles. Many motorists near Police vehicles have counted as many as thirty or forty ‘vendors’ loitering in these crime hotspots, all of whom appear to be invisible to the Police. A smash-and-grab attack on one’s car is always expensive, with the window in question having to be replaced, and it is not uncommon for a lone motorist who resists the crime to be physically assaulted with a knife or other sharp object, or with a club. The criminals who ‘earn’ their living in this way do not wish to endure the inconvenience of being arrested and then having to bribe the Policeman in order to continue with the night’s work. A smash-and-grab attack is not a petty crime, yet nothing seems to be done by the authorities to prevent it, and very few, if any, criminals are ultimately brought to book. However, it appears that the use of a single word is enough to galvanize the ‘justice’ system into action.

One can easily understand Momberg’s state of agitation after the crime. The facts of her ‘assistance’ by the Police have not been published, but anyone who has dealt with the Police in South Africa must know that it can be a harrowing experience. Not every Policeman is incompetent or corrupt, but there are enough of those deviants in the SAPS for an average citizen to hold the view that the Police are not there to help you. Virtually everyone has a tale to tell, of being asked for a bribe, standing in a queue in a Police station to report a crime while the cops eat lunch, pick their teeth, sleep or converse between themselves, or getting no reaction to such report. Whatever the facts of the event may be, Momberg’s state of agitation was not ameliorated by her dealings with the Police, and she gave vent to that state by demanding that she be dealt with by a White Policeman. One can only speculate whether that would have improved matters. Generally, a good cop is a good cop, whether White, Black, Indian or Colored, and a bad cop is a bad cop, but even the good cops are not generally known for their intelligence or understanding of the laws. The writer has personal experience of calling three Police Generals to get them to perform their clear duty as set out in a statute, only to be told by the ‘Legal Advisor’ that the Police policy prevents them acting in accordance with the law. An associate was arrested at a order post under a Warrant of Arrest for a ‘crime’ that could not be explained by any policeman, only to find, after spending a night in the filthy cells that the supposed ‘crime’ did not come onto the statur=the books until nearly a year after its supposed commission, and that date of commission fitted neatly into a four-year absence abroad, when it could not have been committed, and that to the clear knowledge of the Captain who swore out the Warrant.

Momberg was ordered by the Equality Court to pay R100 000 to the offended Policeman, and she was then brought before the Magistrates Court for the same offence, and sentenced to three years imprisonment, with one year suspended.

While one cannot sympathize with Momberg, who used a racial slur, one cannot fail to be shocked by these judgments, particularly in light of the fact that no Black, such as Julius Malema (“we’re not threatening to kill all Whites – yet”) and Jacob Zuma (“one Boer, one bullet”, “White Monopoly Capitalists” and numerous others) have been ordered to compensate the aggrieved victim of a racial slur, or been sentenced to prison. It is even more disturbing in the light of the sentence initially handed down to Oscar Pistorius for the culpable homicide of his girlfriend, by shooting four times at her through a closed door. He was sentenced to five years, and the parole conditions required that he spend only ten months – less than a third of Momberg’s sentence – in prison. The Pistorius sentence was increased on appeal, when the finding was changed to murder, but it seems to make little sense that a simple word, albeit one that has gained a particular meaning, quite different in post-Apartheid South Africa, from its original meaning, which was quite innocuous, has a greater impact than the intentional firing at close range of four bullets, designed to kill or maim, with the result that a young woman died. The Court also seemed to ignore the effect of the extreme stress in which Momberg found herself after a life-threatening experience. That stress is a normal state for many South Africans, with murder at the highest rate of any city in the world, rapes occurring every four minutes, and a Government that seems to be bent on enriching the few connected persons at the cost of the vast majority of the people. The Court also seemed to ignore the gross disproportionality of the sentence to the offending act, as well as the fact that the ‘victim’ had already been granted a disproportionately high compensation for his suffering – how many of your words are worth R100 000 (nearly $10 000) each, to the person listening to you?

There seems to be no doubt that Momberg will appeal, but the question remains: Have the Thought Police become effective in South Africa, when all other forms of law enforcement, including the Priority Crimes Investigative Unit, the South African Police, the National Prosecuting Agency and even Parliament have proven themselves to be close to valueless in combatting real crime, and when the Minister of Police was appointed after he had been dismissed as Commissioner of Police when he was closely implicated in a number of corrupt leases of Police premises, involving a loss of millions to the Fiscus? Has the precedent now been established that only White people can be racist?

This judgment is the start of a long and slippery slope into a condition of biased and arbitrary laws in South Africa, aimed at the White population (this case is not the first in this line. The Black Empowerment laws have done a very good job of depriving virtually any qualified young to middle-aged White man of employment) This is reverse Apartheid by stealth, one step at a time. This happens at a time when similar laws protecting certain classes of person against criticism are being enacted in several African countries, a time when even the President of the United States can be called a moron by the Secretary of State without a right to redress.

And Africa wants a Permanent Seat on the United Nations Security Council?

Cry the Beloved Country.

The Death of Democracy

Democracy means different things to different people. The definitions range from a system of government in which the State is responsible for providing every necessity of life, and even many of the conveniences of life, to one in which the citizens are exhorted once every four or five years to vote for a Party that makes promises that everyone knows they have no intention or prospect of keeping. The ancient idea of democracy – that it is government of the people by the people – does not seem to exist and, in fact, probably never did exist. In those ancient democracies, the people who participated in the system were those who had the most to gain or lose from the decisions made by the politicians who acted on their behalf.

In modern times, democracies seem to have evolved into a system of government under which professional politicians are voted into high-paying positions, in which they exercise the power of those positions to gain wealth for themselves with little or no ultimate responsibility to the people who voted to put them there. In most cases, they have earned nomination for those positions not by service to the people, but by service to the Party, which chooses those candidates on the basis of their perceived loyalty to the Party lie, rather than on their capability of making a meaningful contribution to the welfare of the people. In some cases, that nomination is bought by cash contributions, present or promised, or by the offer to make lucrative opportunities available. Generally, the support of the public is gained by extensive marketing, either paid, in the media or by ‘street parties’, or by means of promotion by door to door canvassing. It is seldom that a candidate is elected as a result of realistic, well-considered policy proposals – consider the campaigns by Barack Obama, who stated almost solely ‘Yes we can’, and Donald Trump, who promised to ‘Make America Great’. Neither of these campaigns offered a considered argument or a sound way of honoring the promise, but were based on a denial of the value of the previous incumbent’s achievements. In the case of Obama, the administration was marked largely by ‘more of the same’, with a hesitation to offer any bold moves for consideration by the people, and in the case of Trump, the administration has been marked by a series of lies and obfuscations, bombast and threats, and ill-considered and potentially deadly dangerous decisions, without any consideration being given to a range of expert opinions. In the case of South Africa, the election of Jacob Zuma was based on his selection by a small group of Branch delegates, most of whom had, and have, no understanding of the basic issues involved in the effective management of an economy but who understood well the politics of buying favor with key people by promising lucrative posts or contracts, to be delivered once he was in power.

The examples are legion, and one fact becomes abundantly clear to a dispassionate observer. In all but one of the modern democracies, there is no meaningful participation by the people in the processes of government, or in any important question faced by government, beyond the four or five-yearly election, in which the issues are seldom meaningfully canvassed, and the manifestos of the Parties are carefully blurred, with the intention of accounting for the performance by the winner only in respect of promises and policies which, in most cases by chance, the Party making the promise has at least partially performed, and the elected representatives of the people are selected by the powerful few in the Party on the basis of their capability and desire to toe the Party line. Only in Switzerland can one see a meaningful participation in the activities of the government by the people who put them there.

Why is this so? Why has democracy strayed so far from the original intent?

The first reason is that democracy offers a concentration of power to those who are willing to sell their souls in the gaining of wealth. It is very seldom that one can point to a politician who truly believes that he or she is there for the good of the people. Few politicians leave office with less wealth than they had on taking office. Ian Smith, the Prime Minister of Rhodesia, entered office with, reputedly, only a sports jacket and two pairs of trousers, but, some years after he was forced out of office, he died with a sizable fortune, including a farm in the Western Cape, South Africa. Few politicians consider themselves to be bound by their fervently-expressed views when they leave office. Malcolm Fraser, the Australian Prime Minister, often railed against supporting foreign businesses when he was in office, yet, when he left office, he wasted no time in taking the Australia franchise for Volvo, a totally foreign manufacturer that competed head on against Australian Ford and Holden. One cannot help comparing modern politicians with the Popes of old, who tendered for the office of Pope. One does not invest substantial money and effort in competing for a position that merely pays a living salary!

The second reason is that, in the modern understanding, a democracy implies the election of individuals as representatives by the mass of voters. By definition, ‘average intelligence’ implies that half of the measured population has a lower than average intelligence, and the other half an above-average intelligence. However intelligence may be measured, it is known that people with lower intelligence respond better to emotive statements and arguments than to statements that require reasoned evaluation and consideration. They succumb more easily to simplistic slogans and arguments that appeal more to their emotions and unconsidered views. That, of course, means that the speakers who rant, who repeat meaningless slogans, who espouse policies that do not necessarily address the complexities of a modern country, are more likely to be elected. An example in point is the debate on ‘expropriation without compensation’ in South Africa. Why ‘without compensation’? No government in South Africa has ever shied away from using the public purse for any purpose that may suit their book, so why not now? It is clear that this demand is attached to a racialist desire to ‘punish the Whites’. Several surveys have shown that the average Black – nearly 89% - does not want or need land. They do not know how to farm it, and have no desire to do so, and would much prefer a cash settlement of any claim to dispossession of land. However, a repetition of the demand by the extremist Economic Freedom Fighters has brought about an acceptance of the view that there is a desperate hunger for land in the Black population. The fact that giving every Black person a small piece of land (if, in fact, that is the intention, in the face of a statement by the leader of that Party that the intention is for the government to hold that land and grant a lease on it to persons they consider ‘suitable’ to derive benefit from it)is a sure means of condemning a large proportion of the Black population to a life of serfdom, tied to a peasant farming existence, at a time when the world is preparing for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, in which intellectual capabilities will have to be maximized if the country is to regain its position as a leading industrial nation. The thought that the land held by the tribal Kings and Chiefs – one of the least democratic systems of government possible – brought a quick response from the Zulu King, who, dressed in his animal skins, threatened to break away from the South African Republic. That, in turn, brought a groveling apology from President Ramaphosa, who stated that it had never been the intention to interfere with the tribal lands. He did not state whose lands he intended to interfere with, but it does not take much imagination to conclude that it can only be the lands, and subsequently the other assets, of the Whites, who produce the bulk of the food and wealth, including the economically-productive jobs, in the country. The fact that the Zulu King’s hereditary position is derived from the despotic and blood-drenched subjugation of other Zulu clans by King Shaka only two centuries ago does not seem to figure in any discussion of democracy in South Africa.

A third reason for the non-ascendancy of the principles of democracy is the fact that modern democracies are too large for the average citizen to believe that his or her input, by participation in a discussion or by casting a vote, can have any meaningful effect on the outcome. Even the communities that routinely resort to violence, such as the burning of twenty seven schools in Vuwani in order to force the tarring of a road, forget their anger at the ruling Party when it comes to time to vote, when the sweet-talk and promises that ‘we will do better this time’ carry the day. As a senior SA Communist Party leader said some years ago, if the average voter could read a newspaper, this Party would be out of power.

Probably the main reason why democracy does not work as it should, is that the politicians are empowered, and willing, to transfer the wealth of the society from those who earn it – the taxpayers – to those who vote for them. There is no system of punishment for those who transgress the rules of civilized society. Those who burn schools cannot be forced to pay more taxes to rebuild them because they do not pay taxes. The handing of social grants to 19 million recipients who are indigent is no more than a means of taxing the generators of wealth in the nation to buy the votes of the non-wealth-generating recipients, so reducing the ability and the motivation of the tax-payers to create more economic activity that would assist the present recipients to earn a living. The ‘giving’ of a fee-free university education to those who can’t pay the fees has gone a long way to degrade the value of that education, by cutting research, a critically important function of universities, and by inviting those, who are either incapable of gaining a degree or unwilling to do the hard work that a degree should entail, to take a free holiday for four or five years. The objective of supporting the higher education of the nation could more sensibly be achieved by granting a loan to deserving students, with the condition that the loan would be written off at the end of each year to the extent that the educational achievements required are made. That would permit the deserving students to gain their degrees while not imposing a needless financial burden on the universities and the taxpayers. However, the need to win the votes of the fractious university students overrode the need to achieve the real goal of achieving a better educational standard.

Perhaps the failure of the modern democracy can best be summed up in an old story. A politician on the campaign trail wrapped up an hour-long statement of his promises. “Well, folks,” he said. “Those are my heartfelt policies, but, if you don’t like them, I’ve got others.”

Perhaps the time has come for the voters to demand the right and the opportunity to hear and debate the questions of government, and the selection of all the senior people who will implement the will of the people. At the same time, we need the honesty and goodwill of citizens who are willing to make the decisions for the good of all, even if that costs them some opportunities for themselves.

Vicky Momberg and Justice

South Africa experienced a dramatic leap in the direction of injustice, or, should one say, unidirectional justice recently, with the sentencing of Vicky Momberg to three years imprisonment for the repeated use of the ‘K-word’ while she was in a state of shock and anger after she had experienced a smash-and-grab attack in Johannesburg.

The facts of the case are simple. Momberg was driving her car when a Black thief broke a window and stole some goods from it. When she called the Police Emergency, she used the K-word, and then again when she was being assisted by the Police.

There can be no doubt that her aggressive nature was aggravated by the smash-and-grab. These attacks are common in many cities of South Africa, to the extent that motorists, particularly lone women drivers, are repeatedly warned in the Press to beware of men loitering at intersections, particularly exits from motorways. Disregarding these potential attackers is a routine in Police circles. Many motorists near Police vehicles have counted as many as thirty or forty ‘vendors’ loitering in these crime hotspots, all of whom appear to be invisible to the Police. A smash-and-grab attack on one’s car is always expensive, with the window in question having to be replaced, and it is not uncommon for a lone motorist who resists the crime to be physically assaulted with a knife or other sharp object, or with a club. The criminals who ‘earn’ their living in this way do not wish to endure the inconvenience of being arrested and then having to bribe the Policeman in order to continue with the night’s work. A smash-and-grab attack is not a petty crime, yet nothing seems to be done by the authorities to prevent it, and very few, if any, criminals are ultimately brought to book. However, it appears that the use of a single word is enough to galvanize the ‘justice’ system into action.

One can easily understand Momberg’s state of agitation after the crime. The facts of her ‘assistance’ by the Police have not been published, but anyone who has dealt with the Police in South Africa must know that it can be a harrowing experience. Not every Policeman is incompetent or corrupt, but there are enough of those deviants in the SAPS for an average citizen to hold the view that the Police are not there to help you. Whatever the facts of the event may be, Momberg’s state of agitation was not ameliorated by her dealings with the Police, and she gave vent to that state by demanding that she be dealt with by a White Policeman. One can only speculate whether that would have improved matters. Generally, a good cop is a good cop, whether White, Black, Indian or Colored, and a bad cop is a bad cop, but even the good cops are not known for their intelligence or understanding of the laws.

Momberg was ordered by the Equality Court to pay R100 000 to the offended Policeman, and she was then brought before the Magistrates Court for the same offence, and sentenced to three years imprisonment, with one year suspended.

While one cannot sympathize with Momberg, who used a racial slur, one cannot fail to be shocked by these judgments, particularly in light of the fact that no Black, such as Julius Malema (“we’re not threatening to kill all Whites – yet”) and Jacob Zuma (“one Boer, one bullet”, “White Monopoly Capitalists” and numerous others) have been ordered to compensate the aggrieved victim of a racial slur, or been sentenced to prison. It is even more disturbing in the light of the sentence initially handed down to Oscar Pistorius for the culpable homicide of his girlfriend, by shooting four times at her through a closed door. He was sentenced to five years, and the parole conditions required that he spend only ten months – less than a third of Momberg’s sentence – in prison. The Pistorius sentence was increased on appeal, when the finding was changed to murder, but it seems to make little sense that a simple word, albeit one that has gained a particular meaning quite different in post-Apartheid South Africa, from its original meaning, which was quite innocuous, has a greater impact than the intentional firing at close range of four bullets, designed to kill or maim, with the result that a young woman died. The Court also seemed to ignore the effect of the extreme stress in which Momberg found herself after a life-threatening experience. That stress is a normal state for many South Africans, with murder at the highest rate of any city in the world, rapes occurring every four minutes, and a Government that seems to be bent on enriching the few connected persons at the cost of the vast majority of the people. The Court also seemed to ignore the gross disproportionality of the sentence to the offending act, as well as the fact that the ‘victim’ had already been granted a disproportionately high compensation for his suffering – how many of your words are worth R100 000 (nearly $10 000) each, to the person listening to you?

There seems to be no doubt that Momberg will appeal, but the question remains: Have the Thought Police become effective in South Africa, when all other forms of law enforcement, including the Priority Crimes Investigative Unit, the South African Police, the National Prosecuting Agency and even Parliament have proven themselves to be close to valueless in combatting real crime? Has the precedent now been established that only White people can be racist?

This judgment is the start of a long and slippery slope into a condition of biased and arbitrary laws in South Africa, aimed at the White population (this case is not the first in this line. The Black Empowerment laws have done a very good job of depriving virtually any qualified young to middle-aged White man of employment) This is reverse Apartheid by stealth, one step at a time. This happens at a time when similar laws protecting certain classes of person against criticism are being enacted in several African countries, a time when even the President of the United States can be called a moron by the Secretary of State without a right to redress.

And Africa wants a Permanent Seat on the United Nations Security Council?

Cry the Beloved Country.

The Vote of No Confidence

The eighth vote of no confidence in President Jacob Zuma has been rejected by a margin of twenty-one votes. What does the vote show?

Although the numbers show that a number of ANC MPs voted against the President, 198 MPs voted to keep the most corrupt President the country has known in power. They voted against a background of hundreds of thousands of emails, showing that he and his Ministers, and the people they have appointed to manage the State Owned Entities have been involved in a systematic corruption and robbing from the people of South Africa. They knew that the President they supported still faces 783 charges of fraud and corruption, which he has continued to dodge through his manipulation of the justice system. They knew that the Constitutional Court has declared him to have been in breach of his Oath of Office, and of his duties under the Constitution. They knew that the country is in an increasing state of collapse, as a result of the rampant corruption, the incompetence of Government to do anything effectively, unless it offers personal benefits to the chain of command, and the Marxist policies The President and his followers espouse, disregarding the clear proof that these policies continue to drag down every other country that applies them.

And yet they voted to keep him in power.

It would be reasonable to assume that many of the MPs voted to protect their jobs, the large salaries and the many perks they enjoy, which most of them would be incapable of earning in the real world, where capability and competence are required, rather than slavish devotion to a Mafia-style leader. This highlights the limits placed by them on their commitment to serve the people, rather than themselves. The vote is a clear statement that the majority of ANC MPs are willing to let the country bear the depredations of a corrupt and incompetent leader, provided they can hold onto power and receive their salaries.

The speeches by the ANC MPs before the vote were a mixture of outright lies and misleading statements, highlighting the extreme lack of capability of these people who were, presumably, the best that the Party could muster, given the importance of the debate to them. One notable observation that could be made of these speeches is that they all took the form of propaganda, speaking to the emotions and prejudices of the hearers, without any attempt to address facts and come to a conclusion on the basis of those facts. Those facts, if faced honestly, must lead any thinking person to a view that the present situation is a formula for disaster, and needs urgent and comprehensive correction. That applied, to a large extent, to the speech by the Leader of the DA, which was a disappointment to many of the listeners. It was an opportunity to set out in the highest forum a detailed statement of the derelictions of duty by the President and his Party under his leadership. The speech unfortunately turned out to be a sermon, demanding that the listeners believe and act. One might have expected that, given the background of the man. However, one would expect more from the Leader of the Opposition of a country in crisis.

In summary, the vote of no confidence showed clearly that our politicians are not a credit to the people of the country. The inescapable conclusion is that the country is in desperate need of good men and women, of leaders and representatives of the people who are willing to set their own interests aside, and to really understand what has happened to our democracy, to accept that horrific mistakes and acts of criminality have been made under the disguise of tending for the poor, and to take well considered and unselfish steps to correct what is now patently wrong.

It is highly unlikely that this will happen in a country in which the vast majority of the people are willing to be led by the lure of self-benefit, rather than national interest.

Does the SOE version of BEE comply with the Constitution?

Both Eskom and South African Airways, State-Owned Entities, are on record as having a policy that favours Black-owned businesses in granting of contracts. Those contracts run into hundreds of millions of Rands value, and they are granted to businesses that are owned, according to Eskom, as to 50%+1 by Blacks. Not previously disadvantaged persons, as the South African public was led to believe to be the intention of the Black Empowerment policies, but Blacks. It appears that the State-Owned Entities view the requirement of the Constitution that all persons shall be treated equally, regardless of race, as not being applicable. In case they don’t recall the relevant provision, here is the preamble to the Constitution:

 

We, the people of South Africa,

Recognise the injustices of our past;

Honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land;

Respect those who have worked to build and develop our country; and

Believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.

We therefore, through our freely elected representatives, adopt this Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic so as to-

Heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights;

Lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law;

Improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person; and

Build a united and democratic South Africa able to take its rightful place as a sovereign state in the family of nations.

 

The relevant sections are the following:

3. Equality.

(1) Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.

(2)    

(3) The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.

*(4) No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination.

(5) Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.

 

217. Procurement.-(1) When an organ of state in the national, provincial or local sphere of government, or any other institution identified in national legislation, contracts for goods or services, it must do so in accordance with a system ( 1 ) which is equitable, transparent.

( 2 ) competitive and cost-effective.

( 2 ) Subsection ( 1 ) does not prevent the organs of state or institutions referred to in that subsection from implementing a procurement policy providing for-

 ( i ) categories of preference in the allocation of contracts; and

 ( ii ) the protection or advancement of persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination. j'(3) National legislation must prescribe a framework within which the policy referred to in subsection (3) must be implemented.

 

While there may be an argument that preference should be given in allocating contracts to members of the previously disadvantaged groups, it is clear that a policy of a SOE that ensures that large contracts at grossly inflated prices be given only to companies owned 50%+1 by Blacks is both unduly discriminatory against all other groups of previously disadvantaged, and also economic insanity.

The granting of large contracts to Black-owned companies that already have net assets in excess of R10 000 000 cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as ‘leveling the playing field’, or ‘providing restitution to people who were disadvantaged by Apartheid’. That argument could apply to a contract valued at R100 000, where one could see it as a means of enabling a previously disadvantaged person to get a foot in the door, but when the recipient of this State largesse is a substantial business, that argument falls away, and the concession can only be seen as retribution against the Whites, or as a means of corruption, in which the favoured few are handed lucrative contracts at public expense. There is no shortage of examples of flagrant abuse of this good intention in SOEs like Eskom and SAA.

Even worse, the giving of huge benefits in relation to pricing is economically depraved. A pricing advantage of, say, 10% might be acceptable, if the beneficiary group were seen to be the ones intended under the Constitution, but a pricing advantage of up to 90% above the White or other non-Black competition is both economically and socially unsound. It is unsound in economic terms, because it disrupts severely the operation of the economy in promoting efficiency, ensuring that the least efficient supplier (not to mention the one with the best political connections) provides services to the Government in all its manifestations. It is well known that Governments do not rank high on the efficiency index, and this example of snouting exacerbates that. Under the BBEEE regulations, a price advantage of up to 90% is acceptable, even where the tender is fairly awarded under the law. That, of course, cannot be guaranteed in South Africa. The ANC Government is presently aiming to ensure that the greatest possible share of its R500 billion procurement is misspent under these provisions, implying that the cost of Government will increase in this aspect alone by R450 billion per year! That waste represents 34% of the annual Budget! It is not surprising that the GDP of the country is in negative growth territory. The rapid growth in the number of unemployed, now nearly 28% (probably over 50% of the work-able population), is a clear testament to the effect of this economic insanity. The policy does not seem to have created any substantial number of jobs amongst the poor, presumably those entitled to benefit from the purpose of the exception to the Constitutional right of equal treatment, regardless of race, while it has certainly contributed to the ability of the son of a goat-herder to purchase a palace in Dubai and of his (Indian) friends to reach the top of the list of wealthy persons in South Africa, after having started work as a shoe-seller at a flea market. Meanwhile, the taxpayer subsidises the unprofitable SOEs by transfers or guarantees in the hundreds of billions, while the State heads for insolvency, and the households, mines and industries subsidise the electricity monopoly via an electricity tariff that has increased 400% during the currency of the policy, and tens of thousands of jobs have been lost due to the very high cost of power.

These arguments, of course, ignore the equally disastrous effects of the State driving away thousands of well-wishing investors by imposing impossible conditions for the establishment of their businesses, by stealing huge shares in their business to hand to the connected few, and by demanding bribes to provide even the basic services, such as rail transport.

Any sane person wishing to invest funds in a country where they can expect fair treatment would do well to strike South Africa off their list of investment destinations to consider.

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?