I was not sure exactly how to react when I read that Higher Education Minister Blade Nzimande (who also moonlights as the Secretary General of the South African Communist Party) yesterday expressed his support for striking public servant workers and said the government must deal with the huge salary gap between low-earning public servants and the government’s “highest paid echelons”.
The central committee [of the SACP] calls on the government to set an example by ensuring that there is a collective moratorium on salary increases in the upper echelons of the government…. We note that [the] wage gap in the public sector between the highest-paid echelons and the lowest is 91 to one.
Should one applaud what appears to be a fine sentiment, or should one point out a few inconsistencies in Comrade Blade’s position? Oh well, let’s opt for the second option.
First, it seems perhaps just a tad hypocritical of Nzimande to bemoan this huge gap in salaries when he has been feeding at the through himself without complaining at all – at least not in public. Was he not the guy who last year purchased a R1.1 million BMW 7501 with tax payers money as one of his official vehicles (of course, all in line with that Bible of Ministers called the Ministerial Handbook)?
He was also criticised when it was revealed that he had stayed at the Mount Nelson Hotel (Cape Towns’ most prestigious address) for fifteen days. A room at the Mount Nelson costs between R6000 and R13 000 a night but Minister Nzimande got a government discount so it “only” cost tax payers about R40 000 for his hotel bill.
As a Minister, Nzimande owns R1.7 million a year, which obviously excludes the perks such as free stays at the Mount Nelson, driving in R1.1 million BMW and having access to round the clock bodyguards to protect you from attacks by bullies called “Bees”, “Vleis” or “Klippies”. The President earns R2.254 million and ordinary MP about R760 000.
Nzimande and his fellow MP’s sure are lucky. 99% of South Africans earn less than these “servants of the people”. The median salary in South Africa (in the private sector) for a financial manager, for example, is around R367 000, while a construction project manager earns slightly less. The median salary for a personal assistant is about R110 000. The minimum wage for a domestic worker has been pegged at R1400 a month, which is R16800 a year. (For the price of Nzimande’s stay at the Mount Nelson almost three domestic workers could have been paid an annual minimum wage.)
Minister Nzimande’s statement might have had more credibility and might not have reeked of hypocrisy if he had also announced that he was trading in his BMW for a Toyota or a Small Volvo and that he was donating the money to a job creation scheme. It might also have helped if he at the same time had launched a bitter attack against the Ministerial Handbook and the excesses allowed by it and had decried the habit of cabinet Ministers who stay in the poshest Hotels on tax payers money while they are being paid a salary that is more than 100 times that of the minimum wage of a domestic worker.
Maybe a proposal by him for a 50% salary cut for all Ministers and other members of the Cabinet would also have gone a long way to give his otherwise hollow statement at least a tinge of credibility. I thought that I was a bit of champagne socialist, but Minister Nzimande really takes the cake.
I have nothing against hard working people earning a decent salary and can understand that Ministers must be paid more than a domestic worker. However, when one complains about the gap between the salaries in government paid to those in the top eschelons and those at the bottom one should at least signal that one was prepared to put one’s money where one’s mouth was. The statement by Nzimande looks suspiciously like: one rule for others and another for myself.
Second, Nzimande’s expression of support for striking workers – while commendable in the abstract – seems to break every convention of collective cabinet responsibility as enshrined in section 92(2) of the Constitution. When a government has adopted a particular position after a discussion of the matter in the cabinet (which one assumes is what happened when Cabinet decided on offering no more than its 7% increase to workers), all cabinet ministers have an obligation to support that position and not to criticize it in public.
So, either the government is dysfunctional and never discussed this matter of vital importance for the governance of the country – which means we have no Cabinet government in South Africa and that policy decisions are made on a completely random and ad hoc basis – or Nzimande is in flagrant breach of his constitutional duty to observe collective cabinet responsibility.
Usually when a cabinet Minister disagrees with a government policy, that Minister can forcefully argue his or her case in Cabinet but once Cabinet has rejected the view of the Minister and adopted a policy (say a policy to offer only a 7% increase to striking workers), that Minister must either shut up or resign from the Cabinet. He or she would then be free to criticise the cabinet decision as a backbencher in Parliament (although he or she would then face the danger of being redeployed as South Africa’s ambassador to Outer Mongolia).
But a Cabinet Minister cannot have it both ways, enjoying the perks of Cabinet office and the power that goes with it, but criticising Cabinet decisions when it is expedient to do so. This is unfortunately not a demonstration of high principle, but rather hints at political opportunism. It also completely undermines the notion of collective cabinet responsibility enshrined in section 92 of our Constitution.
But it seems that Nzimande has decided that the R1.7 million salary of a Minister and the R1.1 million BMW will make resigning from Cabinet on a matter of principle far too painful. Ordinary MP’s don’t get to stay at the Mount Nelson and in outer Mongolia the Hotels are just not up to standard. No wonder he seems to be ignoring the Constitution. This allows him to take a position that diverges from that of the Cabinet while holding on to his fat cat salary and all the perks that go with the position of a Minister.
Some would say this is opportunism and hypocrisy masquerading as principle. I would be one of them. Wonder when the workers will also notice that the Secretary General of the SACP is wearing no clothes.
“that Minister must either shut up or resign from the Cabinet”.
The entire cabinet is responsible for the mess that our country is getting into.
We did a great job on the SWC (at great cost too) – that’s now history.
Now it’s back to the present.
Each and every Minister in the current cabinet is culpable.
Justice Malala in his column today (http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/columnists/article629093.ece/Zuma-has-a-fight-on-his-hands) says This is, after all, the same man (President Zuma) who sees no problem with his children and friends participating in dodgy “black empowerment” deals, who supports a wicked campaign to gag the media, who appointed to the National Prosecuting Authority a man who is a danger to the judiciary and who destroyed the Scorpions investigative unit. The list is long.
It’s not just the President, it’s the “brave” women and men who make up our cabinet who are collectively responsible for heading us in the terrible direction which our country is headed.
Eish!
The newly appointed executive manager for stakeholder management at the SABC, Hlaudi Motsoeneng, is known by SABC staff as the “conduit” because of the close relationship he claims to have with President Jacob Zuma.
Unions claim that the corporation’s group chief executive, Solly Mokoetle, hired Motsoeneng irregularly as a senior manager in his office, despite the fact that Motsoeneng allegedly lied on his application form that he had passed matric.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-08-27-unions-aim-to-block-sabcs-conduit
@ PdV
What if Blade was merely announcing an SACP position? I did not see a government spokeperson next to him and this was not a departmental or cabinet press conference.
Prof we had a discussion earlier” ANC not the State” about state/institutions and individuals who occupy those positions whilst serving party structures.
This is one of those moments where we need to ask which cap is Nzimande wearing when he makes this statement?
Having said that I hate this hiding behind collective decisions and it one of the main reasons that today we do not know how we got to where we are. In the US they keep a record of voting on issues for all their Senators and it is publicly known what their positions are , on important issues.
I agree with you that when one is serving in a structure that most of the time takes decisions that one does not support , they should resign but I am against individuals denied their right to make their views known.
Gwebecimele says:
August 30, 2010 at 10:25 am
hey Gwebs,
“What if Blade was merely announcing an SACP position?”
Any idea who of the Cabinet, apart from Min Nzimande, are SACP members?
Prof,
I agree with your points raised in relation to s92(2) of the Constitution. However, were you not the one defending Min Hogan when some of us where criticising her for exactly the same reason – going against a govt position?….or an I just confusing you with someone else in this blog?
It seems as if Nzimande should have spoken much earlier, read below:
An 8% across the board salary increase for public office bearers has been recommended, the Independent Commission for the Remuneration of Public Officer Bearers said on Thursday.
The commission had considered responses from Cabinet ministers and the chief justice, said its chairperson Judge Willie Seriti.
The 8% increase, if approved by Parliament, will result in President Jacob Zuma receiving an annual salary of R2 275 802, up from R2 107 224, and will be backdated to April 1, 2009.
Seriti said the proposal had been supported by all ministers except Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan.
“He did not support it, but I cannot speculate and tell you why not,” said Seriti.
Mzo, this is what I said about Hogan:
Of course, if it was a collective cabinet decision to prevent the Dalai Lama from entering South Africa, Hogan would have acted improperly as section 92(2) makes clear that cabinet members are collectively and individually accountable for the decisions of cabinet. This means once cabinet has made a decision, all cabinet ministers must abide by the decision and should not criticise it publicly. If they cannot do so, they must resign.
@ Maggs
I suspect Mayende, Patel, Mdladlana, Godongwana and others are SACP members but I might be wrong.
@ PdV
This concept of independence which has been thrown at us for centuries by legal scholars and others including the setting up of trusts only exists in theory. It merely facilitate the multiple occupation of positions by the elites in business, government and other influentilal spheres of our lives.
@Maggs
It would be interesting to know what other SACP Cabinet members have to say about this statement and if this turns out to be a personal statement then Prof’s argument wins.
You see, what Uncle Blade wants in for the “highest paid echelons” to be paid less, because he will then also be paid less. He just wants the plebs to be paid more, with money the same plebs will then have to give back in taxes, so that the government can afford to pay them.
Gwebecimele says:
August 30, 2010 at 10:35 am
Do you perhaps have a link to this? I would like to read the whole story.
Prof., politicians living the high life on taxpayers money is the African way. Look north of the Limpopo for 50 odd examples. Nzimande’s performance on Justice Malala yesterday was nauseating. His position taken is so desperately opportunistic. And give up his BM and pay cheque? You must be joking. And of course, which cap to wear is dictated by the moment; it can change all the time for the sake of expediency/self-interest.
Gwebecimele says:
August 30, 2010 at 10:45 am
Gwebs,
“I suspect Mayende, Patel, Mdladlana, Godongwana and others are SACP members but I might be wrong”
Davies, Gordhan, Cronin as well I think.
It may turn out to quite a (and quiet) list.
Don’t bother Gwebe, I found it. You are referring to last years recommendation, which was then rejected by the President. The anouncement you quoted was made in 2009.
The statement by Nzimande looks suspiciously like: all animals are equal, but some are more equal.
Gwebecimele, if Minister Nzimande was only putting froward the SACP position it brings into stark focus the problem of the alliance. In other democracies where coalitions govern, the parties negotiate a programme and then stick to it and as long as the coalition holds, the leaders of those parties will not directly contradict the policies of the government which was adopted by the Cabinet (at least until an election is called). They can put their view forcefully in public before the Cabinet makes a collective decision but once made they have to go alonmg with it or quit the coalition. Many coalition governments come to an end in this way. Nzimande as leader of SACP therefore had every right to argue for a higher increase for workers until the Cabinet endorsed the 7% offer after which he had to remain silent or resign from the cabinet.
Sorry to change the subject but I would like to hear Prof. de Vos’ (and some of the bloggers’) take on the closing statement of the ANC YL’s recent National General Council.
The statement refers to the need for a more “militant leadership”. Where I am from, there is nothing positive about politicians, organisations or others being militant but ANC YL seems to consider this an admirable quality (it seem to be mentioned fairly often). Can anyone explain what ANC YL means by “militant” and why being “militant” is so admirable?
The statement also expresses “displeasure with the re-emergence of a political tendency in the ANC of politically accounting in London, a trend that was defeated by the founding generation of the ANC Youth League”. Now, the statement talks about “re-emergence” in the ANC; I am not an expert on ANC history but maybe someone can tell me when the ANC originally had a tendency to do “politically accounting in London”? And how this was “defeated defeated by the founding generation of the ANC Youth League”? Also, normally a tendency has to be something that has occurred several times (one occurrence cannot be a tendency); I am only aware of Zuma’s visit to London earlier this year – what other instances are ANCYL referring to? Finally, the same paragraph refers to imperialists, mentioned in the same breath as investors; does this mean that ANC YL equates foreigners investing in SA with imperialists?
The statement talks of a need to urgently amend Section 25 of South Africa’s Constitution, “because it has potential to prevent progressive programmes and interventions by the State to drive redistribute wealth for the benefit of all our people”. It is further stated that “The State should be empowered to expropriate all property in the justifiable interests of the people of South Africa”. But I wonder that it exactly is that ANC YL considers problematic with respect to Section 25. The ANC Yl wants the state to be “empowered to expropriate all property in the justifiable interests of the people of South Africa” but this is already in Section 25 which permits expropriation “in the public interest” which is clearly defined to include “the nation’s commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa’s natural resources”. Furthermore, Section 25 clearly set out that the price of expropriated property shall take into account “the history of the acquisition” and that no provision of section 25 may impede land reform to “redress the results of past racial discrimination”.
So, what exactly is ANC YL’s problem with Section 25? When reading some of Julius Malema’s statements at the NGC, it might be inferred that what he does not like is the provision that the payment shall be subject to court decision or approval in the absence of an agreement. But even changing Section 25 would not take away the right to take such a matter to court as this follows by the principle of the Rule of Law as set out in Sections 33 and 34, giving everyone the right to court review of all administrative decisions (a decision on the payment for expropriated property would be an administrative decision if not made by a court) and the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair hearing before a court or independent and impartial tribunal. In addition, not giving access to courts for such matters would be against SA’s international obligations, see for instance the SADC Tribunal’s decision in both the Campbell and the Luke Tembani cases which found Zimbabwe in breach of the SADC Treaty for denying access to fair trials for various land related issues.
Our overall assessment is that the ANC Youth League is far much stronger and better positioned to lead struggles for social and economic transformation and will intensify in all fronts to ensure that young people have access to better education, healthcare, housing, and many other social needs. Our branches of the ANC Youth League should be at the forefront of the struggles against crime, alcohol abuse and rapid spread of HIV/AIDS. Multi-sexual relationships cannot continue to be fashionable amongst the youth and should be combated.
Finally, it is stated that ANC YL will “continue to relate internationally with progressive formations, particularly former liberation movements such as Zanu PF in Zimbabwe”. I wonder in what way Zanu PF can be considered progressive? Its views on minority rights can definitely not be considered progressive. But maybe ANC YL believes that if you were once a liberation movement, you continue to be progressive? Of course this understanding would mean that the communist party in Russia is still progressive (and was progressive under the terror regime of Comrade Staline) as it lead the liberation of the Russian serfs from the Zarist government.
mzo says:
August 30, 2010 at 10:29 am
Hi Mzo, I aslo remember Pierre defending a certain former deputy minister of health, who had similarly breached section 92 of the constitution. It appears to me that his lack of consistency in this regard also shows “unfortunately not a demonstration of high principle, but rather hints at political opportunism”!
@ Pierre,
“Maybe a proposal by him for a 50% salary cut for all Ministers and other members of the Cabinet would also have gone a long way to give his otherwise hollow statement at least a tinge of credibility.”
Do you think that would make much of a difference?
I read that when the big US banks went to their government for the bailout part of the bailout was for the very extravagant “contractual obligations” for astronomical bonuses for their management members, which the US taxpayer eventually funded.
It seems that we are not much different – the ordinary workers are asked to tighten their belts and make personal sacrifices in order to fund, directly or indirectly, the extravagances of most at the top.
The opportunity to become an activist society seems long gone, especially with the extremely generous numbers and extravagances that have been going around at virtually every level.
Vuyo, first deputy Ministers are not members of the cabinet so your statement falls away due to ignorance. Second, please provide details of where a cabinet decision taken collectively was challenged by the Deputy Minister and I defended her. As far as I can recall there was no such instance.
It is not possible to find universal agreement on specifics within parties let alone coalitions hence there are policy conferences to measure support regularly. It is no seceret that those who agreed with most of the pre-Polokwane position are not all supporting the post Polokwane implementation. There is absolutely nothing wrong with members of a party or alliance pronouncing different positions in public. Any decent leader will want his supporters to know his positions. What is unacceptable is to actively sabotage or prevent a majority(party members included) decision in PUBLIC.
The alliance has a mandate to deal with inequality in all its forms and Nzimande is right to make that call.
Pierre De Vos says @ August 30, 2010 at 11:47 am
Pierre, I did not say that deputy ministers are members of cabinet. I DO however say that deputy ministers are bound by cabinet decisions.
As regards you second statement, I will remind you of an instance of the breach of a cabinet decision, whereupon you defended the offender. You said on 14 August 2007, about a former president, “[h]e fires the Deputy Minister for showing compassion and understanding of the health crisis faced by many ordinary South Africans”(http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/finally-he-fires-someone/). You even went to the extent of launching or distributing a petition (http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/want-to-sign-this-petition/). This seems like defending the deputy minister to me. You would know that all government policy documents and protocols are, in practice, the products of cabinet approval and therefore subject to cabinet collective responsibility. This includes the executive rule to which Trevor Manual refers here: http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71656?oid=195530&sn=Detail&pid=71616, and for the breach of which, two deputy minister have been dismissed since 1994.
Vavi’s clearly “out-of-bounds” comments in contradiction of cabinet, are these not another indication of a split of alliances within the tripartitie alliance? Does this not suggest a far weaker cabinets, by its Ministers failing to toe even the basic etiquette of collective cabinet responsibility?
For an Minister to clearly side with his powerbase against government, is a signal from an ambitious politican to his supporters, and to his alliance partners where his loyaty resides. This, in itself, is an indication of weak or weakening leadership.
Gwebecimele says:
August 30, 2010 at 14:12 pm
Hey Gwebs,
I have said previously and will say again that Min Nzimande is among the few very brave activists who, together with Vavi, was among the very few to stand up when determined voices were needed most.
For that he deserves admiration and respect.
It was hoped that the current cabinet, being drawn from a very wide range, would establish a new wave of activism to bring us back to where we ought to have been post 2007.
It’s not happening!
Thank you Prof
Just over 3 years ago (on 14.08.07 to be exact) you said the following:
“In his (President Mbeki, as he then was) letter firing Madlala-Routledge, the President said that the Constitution requires Ministers or Deputy Ministers to be team-players, but he seems to think this means that they must always toe the official line and must never be critical of the collective wisdom of the cabinet.”
I just find it difficult to reconcile what you said then to what you are saying now. I would appreciate some clarification before I unfairly call you a hypocrit!!
clearly all this debate amounts to one very simple issue,, greed!
Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com says:
August 30, 2010 at 14:51 pm
Are you suggesting that it’s fine for Ministers to violate section 92(2) of the Constitution all in the name of being “brave”???
Mzo says:
August 30, 2010 at 15:00 pm
Hey Mzo,
92(2) says :
Members of the Cabinet are accountable collectively and individually to Parliament for the exercise of their powers and the performance of their functions
I am not sure that I understand your question in regards to my post.
Unpack it a bit please.
JZ, explain to us what ‘hlonipha’ means.
A leader who is so scared of being recalled to follow the Jackie Selebi example that anyone who feels like taking shots at that leader gets away with it scot-free?
Maggs,
If Ministers are accountable COLLECTIVELY and if you accept that Prof’s analysis is correct when he says: “When a government has adopted a particular position after a discussion of the matter in the cabinet (which one assumes is what happened when Cabinet decided on offering no more than its 7% increase to workers), all cabinet ministers have an obligation to support that position and not to criticize it in public”…
In your view, is it then correct for Dr Nzimande (a Minister) to “attack” a government position on a particular issue?
Mzo says:
August 30, 2010 at 15:15 pm
92(2) is what it is.
My view is that no Minister can escape responsibility for whatever emanates from Cabinet even if that Minister decides to go public and say “I don’t agree”.
Whoever is in Cabinet is part of the collective that bears responsibility for all that is going on, good and bad.
For example here’s an interesting read :
The workbooks introduced in primary schools do not work better than traditional textbooks, a study found.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/africa/article629725.ece/Workbooks-no-better-than-textbooks
Every member of Cabinet has to bear responsibility for the costly experiment which was not sufficiently researched while simultaneously claiming that the country does not have the money to pay a wee bit more to our civil servants.
My view is that Minister Nzimande (not in the least distinct from Dr Nzimande) is as responsible for the 7% wage offer as is the Min of Water Affairs.
Nzimande is transmitting a SACP CC position;
“central committee [of the SACP] calls on the government to set an example by ensuring that there is a collective moratorium on salary increases in the upper echelons of the government…. We note that [the] wage gap in the public sector between the highest-paid echelons and the lowest is 91 to one.”
Maggs is right, Nzimande must be appluded but we must EXPECT other members of SACP in cabinet to advance this position in cabinet and in the Alliance.
BTW, this is an alliance and ANC decision to deal with inequality.
Infact the adverts on inflated salaries, court orders and arrogant negotiating tactics should be condemned by cabinet and the alliance.
Mzo and Vuyo, I think you are confusing or conflating two or more distinct things. If one is a member of the cabinet (which Madladla-Routledge was not as she was a Deputy Minister) then section 92(2) demands that one respect the principle of collective responsibility for policy decision of the cabinet. This means once the cabinet has discussed a policy issue and has come to a decision, then an individual minister may not disagree with the collective decision in public. Before such a collective decision on a policy was taken by the cabinet, cabinet members are of course entitled to vigorously debate and argue their point – even in public.
Madlala-Routledge was never a member of the cabinet and hence not constitutionally bound by section 92(2) (how could she have been as she was not privy to cabinet discussions and was not allowed to put her point accross at cabinet because she was not a member of that body). But even if one somehow conjures up such an obligation (which I believe does not exist – based on the text of the Constitution and on our constitutional conventions), the two cases are worlds apart. In Nzimande’s case a policy decision was taken by cabinet and then he stated AFTERWARDS IN PUBLIC that he disagreed with the policy decision. My post on Madladla-Routledge argued that she was fired by Mbeki because she showed compassion for poor sick people and visited a hospital where she admitted that there was a problem with its management, something that Thabo Mbeki did not like as he had written an internet letter (the infamous bikini letter) in which, true to form, he denied that babies were dying or that there was any problem at the hospital. As far as I am aware the cabinet (even under Mbeki) never adopted a firm policy that it was not allowed for cabinet Ministers or deputy Minister to show compassion for poor and sick people or to admit that mistakes had been made. If cabinet had indeed adopted such policies and if the deputy minister was indeed bound by section 92(2) then my statement would have suggested that I hold a double standard. But to argue that cogently, you would have to argue that canbinet adopted the policies mentioned above – which, in my opinion, would cast rather a dim light on the Mebki cabinet. In any case when I wrote that post I was not aware of any such policy positions adopted by the cabinet.
Pierre De Vos says:
August 30, 2010 at 15:45 pm
Hey Pierre,
“In Nzimande’s case a policy decision was taken by cabinet and then he stated AFTERWARDS IN PUBLIC that he disagreed with the policy decision”.
Why do you suggest that Min Nzimande disagrees with the policy decision?
If you are suggesting that Nzimande is suggesting different to 7% increase for civil servants, that has not come out anywhere.
As best as I can make out, he is suggesting that the increases for the top earners in government be capped.
And the top earners are not necessarily members of Cabinet!
Prof, my difficulty in reconciling your statements has little to do with Madlala-Routdedge situation, but more to do with the principle you seem to advocate for therein. You said:
“…..he seems to think this means that they must always toe the official line and must never be critical of the collective wisdom of the cabinet”.
My question then is: in light of a requirement for Ministers (let’s exclude Deputies for the purposes of this debate) to be “team players”, under what circumstances would Ministers ever be allowe to “be critical of the collective wisdom of the cabinet”??
Mzo, whenever the cabinet has not come to an official policy decision on a topic.
Maggs, see the part where the newspaper report said that Nzimande “yesterday expressed his support for striking public servant workers”
@ PdV
Why are you not accepting that Nzimande’s statement is not from his Cabinet Office but from an SG Office?
Pierre De Vos says:
August 30, 2010 at 16:18 pm
Hey Pierre,
Is it fair to conclude that Min Nzimande disagrees with the policy decision on the basis of what AMUKELANI CHAUKE thought the Minister said?
As the SCA learned, it’s safest not to accept hackery for the the truth, the whole truth and nothing but scandal!
Gwebecimele, your question makes no sense. If Nzimande is a member of the cabinet he is bound by the Constitution. His leadership role in another organisation cannot trump provisions in the Constitution. Whether he made the statement in capacity as SG of the SACP, as cabinet minister, as chief bottlewasher or as an extra on Idols is completely ireelevant from a constitutional perspective. This principle – which is not too difficult to grasp – does of course present challenges to someone like Nzimande who (unlike Vavi) is both a leader in another political party and a member of cabinet.
PdV
Your opening statements suggest that this is a SACP statement but you overall article and your argument centre on Nzimande as a cabinet member.
Pause for a moment and see this for what it is “SACP statement”
@ Maggs
“It’s not just the President, it’s the “brave” women and men who make up our cabinet who are collectively responsible for heading us in the terrible direction which our country is headed.”
Maggs is wrong.
Such sweeping negativity is what one hears from the DA — when they naively pretend that they are in any sense an “alternative” government. Fact is, only the ANC can lead our people!
Thanks.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
August 30, 2010 at 16:36 pm
“Such sweeping negativity is what one hears from the DA”.
You convinced me to support the DA. Now that I am a devout supporter you complain.
But you got a point there “only the ANC can lead our people”, so I guess I just have to do the John Kerry flip-flop!
@ our dearly beloved Mossad Guy.
This is how the defenders of democracy do it.
The backlash against Obama’s blackness
DAN KENNEDY – Aug 25 2010 13:54
The August madness into which America has descended is about several things. It’s about the still-sputtering economy, of course, and the fear it engenders. It’s about xenophobia, never far below the surface. And it’s about a right-wing media-political complex that plays on the public’s ignorance.
But there’s a unifying theme that few wish to acknowledge. What we are witnessing at the moment is the full, ugly furore of white backlash, aimed directly and indirectly at the US’s first black president.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-08-25-the-backlash-against-obamas-blackness
Regardless of the cap he was wearing, it still points to hypocrisy. Here’s a personal story, take it for what its worth. My father, a Rhodes Scholar, then leader of one of Canada’s Provincial provinces’ socialist party, had previously been a major labour lawyer, very large firm. One of his clients owed him a great deal of money from billable hours on a labour issue. The client offered instead his Royal Royce.
Now my dad loved cars and went through many exotics, including an Aston Martin which he left to me. However, it was to his great sorrow, that as a socialist leader, there was no way he could be seen driving or being driven (likely by me) in a Rolls, so with some remorse, and I imagine considerable self reflection, he refused the offer.
Was it principle, or simply having the pride to appear principled. I believe the former.
Ricky: compliments on the post.
Thanks, Sirjay
Maybe Ministers should stay here instead of in the Mount Nelson? http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article630653.ece/US-blacklist-Cape-hotel-over-thefts
Eish!
Zimbabwe’s parastatals are paying executives and senior management monthly salaries of up to US$15 000, despite reports of mismanagement, corruption and crippling debt.
What is wrong with those guys?
They need to take some serious lessons from us.
- an R8-million settlement received by former South African Airways (SAA) chief executive Khaya Ngqula after he was fired for his role in a R1-billion tender-rigging saga in 2009.
- Andre Viljoen R3,6-million on top of a salary of R2,2-million and a performance bonus of almost R1-million.
- In 2001, former SAA CEO Coleman Andrews received a golden handshake of R232-million, even though the airline posted a net loss of more than R700-million for that year.
- In 2009 the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) paid R11-million to its former group CEO, Dali Mpofu.
- Former Denel chief executive Victor Moche, who was fired from his position by then-public enterprises minister Alec Erwin, walked away from the parastatal with a golden handshake of about R3-million in 2005.
- Land Bank CEO Alan Mukoki received R4,5-million after he quit in 2007 amid R2-billion-worth of fraud.
- “The culture of golden handshakes, however, extends far beyond that under the ANC. Recent examples of Lawrence Mushwana [R7-million] and Vusi Pikoli [R7,5-million] illustrate precisely that point.”
- Meanwhile, about R9-million in Eskom shares previously awarded to Maroga will be transferred to him later this year and next year.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-01-26-da-failed-parastatal-ceos-cost-sa-r260m
- Former Transnet boss Maria Ramos, who is now Absa Bank chief executive, earned R5.3 million last year from the freight transport and logistics company.
- Industrial Development Corporation head, Geoffrey Qhena, earned R10.3 million last year.
http://www.citypress.co.za/Business/News/SAs-R43m-a-year-ceos-20100130
Pierre De Vos says:
August 30, 2010 at 20:36 pm
hahahaha.
The Westin Grand says “(o)ur aim is for you to feel not only rested, but also renewed and enriched when you check out.”
The famous handbook beats that hands down.
Being renewed and enriched before checking out has no competitor.
Have you suggested that because the guests there are easy pickings?
Nah, cannot be – everyone knows that our Ministers, current and former, are known to be beyond reproach.
I would suggest that it is no longer possible for anyone within the misAlliance to behave within normal political parameters. It has become a free- for- all and the classic hallmark of all free-for-all’s is a complete and irrevocable collapse of discipline. This applies to members of the cabinet, ANC MPs, deployed cadres and their supporters. Even if this is unsettling for all of us who fear for the future, it must be good for democracy.
I notice that very few misAlliance spokespeople or supporters still try and pretend that all is well. One of the reasons that the ANC is failing as a government is BECAUSE the misAlliance is falling apart in a welter of poor discipline. The various players now spend far more time bad-mouthing each other than they do Helen Zille and the DA.
Could you guys please stop referring to the Prof as PdV, that clown is the national rugby coach.
Talk about Champagne!!!!!!!!!!!!
“The Ministerial Handbook outlines privileges that apply to spouses and life partners,” Kodwa said.
Gloria Bongi Ngema, President Jacob Zuma’s fiancée, turned heads when she accompanied him on the state visit to China this week, but in terms of the government’s spousal policy, she has full wife status.
http://www.citypress.co.za/SouthAfrica/News/Zumas-fiancee-has-wife-status-20100829
pierre,
not to put too fine a point on it, but the the ANC/SACP/Cosatu relationship is that of an ALLIANCE and not that of a COALITION of parties in government formation – and this (not so) subtle difference is exactly what lies at the heart of the dilemma your header describes; the lack of differentiated mandates
Pierre I think your self-loathing at being an Afrikaner reject is showing.
Most attacks are carried out by Sipho, Thoko and Themba … not Bees, Vleis and Klippies. Perhaps you’d care to enlighten us on the actual number of Afrikaners charged with violent armed robbery , rape and/or murder.
Your insinuation that if Blade stayed at a cheaper hotel 3 domestic workers would actually benefit is just a childish comparison.
Perhaps if you sacrificed some of your salary then 3 under-priveleged kids could attend UCT ? I’ll bet you don’t sacrifice a single privelege for anybody or anything.
@Mzo, Vuyo
Pierre de Vos is a hypocritical joke.
I am not saying keep quite when he displays his dishonesty, by all means point to it. His mountebankery is designed to display certain people as more of, Les Damnés de la Terre, than people who look at him seem to think. Such has been done many times in the history of this country.
Khosi is right.
Pierre: we implore you to spend less time on mountebankery and more on transforming the Wretched of the Earth into Riders on the Storm. Bees cannot rule the streets of the capital, while DA officers shoot down innocent children in the field, and Madam Zille lays waste to latrines and churches from Mossel Bay to Malmesbury.
Thanks a lot.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=119609
ANN BERNSTEIN and ANTHONY ALTBEKER: Job creation
Rapid growth the only way to rid SA of stubborn poverty
AT ITS height, the apartheid state spent nine times more on each white person than on each black person; today, the state spends twice as much per capita on blacks as on whites. Social grant beneficiaries are up from 2-million in 1999 to 14-million last year; 3-million RDP houses have been funded, 40% of schools offer free schooling (soon to be 60%), we have introduced subsidies for water, transport, electricity and land reform, to say nothing of our aggressive programmes of affirmative action and billions spent on black economic empowerment.
Despite all this, SA is no less unequal than in the early 1990s, and may even be more so. What should we make of this, and what does it mean for public policy?
Poverty and inequality are not identical. Reducing one may require very different interventions than reducing the other. Experience elsewhere, and SA’s own record of the past 15 years, all point to one overarching conclusion. The country will be better off pursuing a strategy that focuses on much higher economic growth — job- intensive and inclusive — that will lift millions out of poverty through employment.
Why do we argue for this choice? Insights gained from a series of important research papers and a recent workshop of about 50 decision makers include the following:
n The depth of poverty in SA is a major challenge with absolute deprivation blighting the lives of millions of South Africans. We have done far too little to address this over the past 15 years.
n Poverty cannot be reduced without high and sustained rates of economic growth. Faster economic growth is the only sustainable way of generating large numbers of jobs in a relatively short period. It also produces the resources that smart states can use to improve public services and infrastructure.
n A tension exists between steps needed to lift people out of poverty and those that reduce inequality. Rapid economic growth sometimes increases inequality in the short term, even as it lifts large numbers of people out of poverty. By contrast, attempts to address income inequality through public spending often negatively affect rates of growth. If redistributive spending diverts and reduces public and private expenditure on the infrastructure (social and physical) essential for higher growth, the growth rate will be lower than it could be. As a result, mass poverty may be alleviated more slowly.
n The South African state is already highly redistributive, more so than most developing countries. More than a quarter of SA’s residents receive social grants. Combined with high levels of public spending on education, healthcare and housing, SA may well have built the most redistributive state in the developing world. Despite this, we remain one of the world’s most unequal societies.
n One of the reasons for this failure is that public spending is often very inefficient. This mostly affects the poor, who are most dependent on effective public services. Moreover, state-driven redistribution programmes can create a culture of dependency. This is why many governments now introduce time limits to grants.
n Many current policies have actually deepened inequality. SA’s current growth path raises the returns for those with education and skills, and excludes those without them. The effects have been compounded by wage settlements that have widened the gap between the employed and the unemployed. Black economic empowerment has also helped to widen inequality, as has an ineffective skilled migration policy. Many policies help to ensure the incomes of black people in the professional and higher classes have risen faster than those of the poor.
n In order to address poverty and inequality, we need to improve our education and training systems. The dismal performance of the majority of schools traps millions of poorer children in a life of poverty. We also need to improve our training systems, including vocational training for those in school and those who have left school. Further education and training needs to be improved, and private sector training should be expanded.
n However, this will not reduce inequality in the short term. Educational reform will take time to have a meaningful effect on the structure of skills in the labour market, and even longer to affect levels of inequality. While their improved education will prepare younger workers for better-paying jobs, it will do nothing for the millions whose education has already been compromised.
n Faster and more job-intensive growth is SA’s best strategy for dealing with poverty. One of the consequences of long-term unemployment is declining employability, as the unemployed lose the skills and aptitudes needed for work. Given the weaknesses of our school system, many young people whose education was compromised have seen their employability decay further because they have not found employment in which to learn these skills. By contrast, job-intensive growth creates powerful self-reinforcing processes, as people acquire the skills and aptitudes that workplace experience delivers, making them more productive and more employable.
SA faces a difficult choice. We could choose to intensify existing redistributive policies via increased welfare spending, expanded public works programmes and more spending on the “social wage”. Properly implemented, this would make a marginal difference to poverty and inequality. Poorly implemented, the extra money would simply be captured by the non-poor — “tenderpreneurs”, public servants and others.
Increased spending on redistributive policies would also have adverse effects on our growth potential. Every rand spent on transfers is a rand not spent on fixing schools, building telecommunications and ports, and creating more efficient cities and towns. Increased redistributive spending would also deepen costly forms of dependency, and further restrict economic growth.
This approach traps the government in a never-ending spiral to expand redistribution even further — increasing the value of each grant, widening eligibility for grants, increasing the number of no-fee schools, higher subsidies for rising costs of electricity, housing, water, etc. The only way to pay for all this will be to raise taxes, which will further dampen growth prospects.
The current redistributive model is unsustainable. Instead, we should learn from the impressive performance of many countries in the developing world, and focus as single-mindedly as possible on adopting and implementing policies that will promote sustained economic growth.
A vital lesson can be learnt from Brazil, our longtime rival for the title of the world’s most unequal society.
In Brazil, rapid economic growth, combined with a modest increase in welfare expenditure, has dramatically reduced poverty — from nearly 30% of the population in the late 1990s to about 16% today — coupled with a fall in inequality.
The dirty secret about SA’s redistributive state is that more energy has gone into redistributing resources to people who are not poor than has gone into changing life chances for the poor. To reduce poverty, we need rapid economic growth. Only this has the capacity to address large-scale poverty and inequality.
Dramatically increased employment is the essence of broad-based empowerment.
- Bernstein and Altbeker are with the Centre for Development & Enterprise (CDE). This article is based on a new CDE report, Poverty and Inequality: Facts, trends, and hard choices.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=119611
HILARY JOFFE: New ambitious growth path will need tough talk
‘Why 7%? It is a magic number of sorts, because at that rate an economy doubles in size roughly every decade’
Published: 2010/08/31 07:39:37 AM
WE NEVER reached the 6% economic growth rate the government targeted five years ago. But now, suddenly, the finance minister and the President are talking 7%.
This is not a growth rate SA has seen too often. The last time the economy grew at 7% or more was in 1967. We did have a single quarter of 7% growth in 2005. But that was the only time in the past dozen years or more that the economy has come even close.
So why 7%? It is a magic number of sorts, because at that rate an economy doubles in size roughly every decade. It was the high- growth benchmark chosen by the International Commission on Growth and Development, which reported in 2008. It found only 13 “miracle” economies that had grown at an average rate of 7% a year or more for 25 years or longer, and it tried to puzzle out what the ingredients were.
Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan seems to have been reading the commission’s report. And he used the recent launch of the Land Bank’s annual report to pitch the idea of a new growth aspiration — an idea President Jacob Zuma picked up last week, when he told a Beijing audience that “the plans we are now developing are in order for us to achieve a target growth rate of at least 7% per annum in the near future”.
With most economists expecting SA to grow by not much more than 3% a year over the next three years, that is quite a stretch.
Zuma was, presumably, referring to the new economic growth path document originally drafted by Economic Development Minister Ebrahim Patel and that was up for discussion at last month’s Cabinet lekgotla. A final version is due to go to the Cabinet next month. Perhaps it will contain new policy measures that will see us vaulting up the growth league table in that “near” future.
So far, there’s little indication it is going to be radically different from the proposals that are already around — there is surprising consensus, from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, to the Harvard team, to the African National Congress (ANC) in its latest discussion document, on the need to improve SA’s infrastructure and skills base, as well as to stabilise the rand.
But what Gordhan was saying was a little different. He wasn’t suggesting SA was likely to get to 7% any time soon, nor that we necessarily have the tools yet to get us there. What he was saying was that we must “set our ambition for growth at 7% a year over the next 20-30 year period” if we want a more prosperous and sustainable future for all South Africans. He talked about the challenge involved in working out how to generate this level of growth, and the need to have more conversations about it.
And that is why the 7% matters — not because we’re near to it but because we are far; because it is an ambition, not yet a reality. Achieving ambitions requires bold plans and bold action. So if 7% is to be SA’s ambition, we have to ask difficult questions about what we need to get there, and we have to be willing to look at uncomfortable options.
Getting there would, for example, require much higher rates of private sector investment than SA has seen for decades. What would that mean for policy? Opening up power and freight transport markets to private players is one thing that could help to yield those kinds of investment rates. The government and Eskom are just beginning the process in electricity, and Transnet is starting to look at private participation, but it hasn’t come easily to any of them.
Nor, arguably, does the idea of going all out to stimulate private sector investment and create an environment that’s good for business in general come naturally to those in the government and the ANC who are still ambivalent about the private sector and the profit motive.
To get to high growth, we would need to expand exports enormously. And though a cheap rand might help for a while, ultimately that would be possible only if SA were to become more competitive and more productive. It would have to lower the cost of doing business. And that includes lowering the cost of labour by raising productivity and curbing wage growth.
Nobody wants to talk about that, but SA would have to have that conversation if 7% were the ambition. It would have to talk about regulation too, and not just about tinkering with the tax system or improving the mining licence process, but more boldly, for example, about how many environmental strictures the government could impose and how much it could afford to focus on black ownership requirements.
The conversation would have to look at the government too — whether its officials have the skills, integrity and market knowledge to implement the regulations in ways that promote growth rather than undermine it. Those are among the issues that must be open for discussion if SA is to be ambitious about growth. Whether the new growth path proposal is that bold, we will soon see. But don’t hold your breath.
- Joffe is senior associate editor.
Tough talk?
From a President who craps himself when the labour movement talks about recalling him [all kinds of spectres about unemployment and being prosecuted, you know] and tells his Ministers to go cut a deal post haste with a bloated, incompetent, corrupt overpaid (un)civil service?
And so, the inevitable, inexorable march toward land grabs and nationalisation (and a failed state) continue….
Because of the quality of people leading the ANC.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=119610
RHODA KADALIE: Creeping anarchy as the centre fails to hold
NOTHING has cracked my maternal heart as much as the accident in Cape Town’s Blackheath last week
Published: 2010/08/31 07:39:36 AM
NOTHING has cracked my maternal heart as much as the accident in Cape Town’s Blackheath last week, in which 10 children died as a train ploughed into the minibus taxi that illegally crossed a railway line. The taxi driver allegedly overtook a number of cars and tried to slip through the boom — fully aware that a train was on its way.
Western Cape transport MEC Robin Carlisle is rightly angry about the lawlessness of our taxis, but he, and the government generally, are not doing enough to curb the anarchy on our roads. Just travel on Main Road going to Cape Town on any given day. Taxi drivers routinely jump red lights, overtake left, right and centre, defy the rules of the road and threaten others when they show their annoyance. They have no respect for road rules because they know law enforcement seldom applies to them.
Instead, law enforcement energies are concentrating on making easy money by fining drivers in the suburbs for exceeding the speed limit by 10 or 20km/h.
The Financial Mail recently reported some road accident statistics that blew my socks off and which explain much of the anarchy we see on our roads. Of the 9,2-million vehicles on our roads, only 8,2-million are licensed, and up to half of the drivers have obtained their licences fraudulently. Worse, the average annual road accident rate is 850000, of which 350000 account for injuries and/or deaths.
With political will, this carnage can be curtailed, but politicians are too busy securing their power bases to care about the citizens. Citizens, on the other hand, are apathetic and not even the deaths of these children move us to action.
Lawlessness has become a way of life because the government, too, is lawless. It started with the travel scandal in Parliament.
The African National Congress (ANC) knew that, had all those implicated MPs been charged, we would have had a constitutional crisis because so many MPs were involved.
Disrespect for the rule of law is also evident in the current public sector strikes. While the grievances of teachers, social workers, nurses and others are legitimate, trade unions fail us when they disregard emergency health and security services.
Where is the leadership? Instead, school children are beaten up, and babies and the sick are left to die.
On another front, journalists stage a sit-in at Parliament to protest against secret portfolio committee hearings into the embattled South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC). Acting Judge Sven Olivier rules in their favour, and our MPs and the SABC board simply ignore the ruling. The public broadcaster defies transformation and current board members are vain to think they can stand up to the ANC and clean out this sewer.
And as for Defence Minister Lindiwe Sisulu , she is lawlessness personified. Repeatedly showing Parliament “the finger” by refusing to open up her report on defence to Parliament, she is a liability to her brother, Parliamentary Speaker Max Sisulu, and a disgrace to her parents. She runs one of the most disheveled ministries in the country, trading on her political pedigree to get her off the hook.
Lastly, the ArcelorMittal SA-Imperial Crown Trading deal that catapulted the Guptas and President Jacob Zuma ’s children and relatives into the billionaire echelons, is the surest sign Zuma knows he will be a one-term president. Spreading the state’s largesse to his progeny has become a presidential priority. Zuma’s family holds more than 130 directorships or memberships of closed corporations.
The vampire state under Zuma exasperates even Congress of South African Trade Unions general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi, once Zuma’s closest alliance partner. “We are heading rapidly in the direction of a full-blown predator state in which a powerful corrupt and demagogic elite of political hyenas increasingly controls the state as a vehicle of accumulation,” Vavi said.
Whether it is children killed through reckless driving, corrupt MPs, an unruly SABC, Sisulu or irregular mining deals, they all point to one thing — a creeping anarchic state where things fall apart because the centre is out of control.
- Kadalie is a human rights activist.
Prof
Then we have a more serious problem that public officials who are also party leaders cannot make or read statements of their respective parties if these are against cabinet decisions. Blade did not make personal statement and I would assume SACP is free to make statements as and when it wishes.
Your argument would win if Blade was not a leader of a party or he made that statement in his personal capacity. You are creating an impression that he just walked out of cabinet and made a personal statement.
Blade might have been through some cotradictions in the past , BMW, 5 STAR hotel AND others but you are just throwing mud on him and hoping it will stick.
Gwebecimele, my view is that as long as Mr Nzimande is in the cabinet, he cannot put his name to a document or be associated with a document directly that contradicts policy adopted by cabinet. He must either resign as General Secretary of the SACP or he must resign as Minister if he wishes to lead the SACP who may from time to time legitimately criticise the decisions of Cabinet. He cannot at once be in cabinet and collectively responsible for its decision and outside cabinet as leader of the SACP and critical of cabinet decisions.
Prof
This sounds like double speak.
Your previous posting was ” ANC is not the State” which implies that you treat the two as separate and yet at this moment you are refusing to acknowledge that public officials have party responsibilities.
BTW even the ANC do differ with government in some instances, the 7% is the case in point. Should ANC cabinet members resign as well.
Gwebecimele, I cannot take the argument further until you acquiant yourself with the principles of collective cabinet responsibility. As you do not seem to understand what this principle entails its impossible to discuss the matter further. Bear in mind though that political party arrangements or rules cannot trump the provisions of the Constitution as the Constitution is supreme. Your veiw seems to sugegst the opposite.
A fantastically written, well-placed argument which shows up such hollow remarks for what they are – opportunistic.
Should political parties be silent on this one too since it is uncomfortable to cabinet.
http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=429881
Prof
If you walk around with a hammer then everything looks like a nail.
The Constitution does not dictate to parties, SG’s and alliances.
27-29th August 2010
The Central Committee of the SACP met in Johannesburg over the weekend of 27th-29th August. The public service strike and the SACP`s position and responsibilities in this regard were discussed at some length. The CC also engaged with some of the ANC`s discussion papers for its forthcoming National General Council, and the challenge of media transformation.
The public service strike
The CC calls on government and the unions to ensure that there is a very speedy resolution to the strike. It is about to enter its third week now and the longer it is prolonged the more everyone suffers and the danger of unbridgeable positions becoming entrenched increases.
The SACP once more reiterates its conviction that the demands of the public service workers are legitimate and we support them in their struggle for just remuneration. In particular, we note that the wage gap in the public sector between the highest paid echelons and the lowest is 91 to 1. Although the gap in the private sector is even wider, we cannot deny that the public sector wage gap is shameful, and every effort must be made to progressively close this unacceptable gap.
In this regard, the CC calls on government to set an example by ensuring that there is a collective moratorium on salary increases in the upper echelons of government.
The SACP also joins COSATU in condemning acts of indiscipline on the part of some striking workers. Neglect of ICU patients, including new-borns, the turning away of ambulances, threats of physical attacks against students and fellow teachers by teachers – all of these acts punish fellow workers, the children of workers, and the poor in general. These forms of gross indiscipline detract from the legitimacy of the struggle, and divide, rather than unite working class communities.
The public sector is absolutely critical to the developmental state we are seeking to build. We cannot allow relationships within the public sector to be reduced to narrow employer-employee stand-offs. From all sides, government and unions, we need to recognise, foster and affirm the professional vocational responsibilities of those in key sectors like health-care, education and policing.
Indeed, none of us can afford to continue conducting public service negotiations in this way. Whatever the outcomes of the present strike, the ANC-led Alliance partners need to sit down, engage frankly with each other, and analyse the reasons for these destructive and all too frequent stand-offs in which neither the unions nor government necessarily emerge with enhanced popular credibility.
Among the issues that need to be discussed is the vexed issue of public sector bargaining. Unlike a private sector wage strike, where the battle is over how to apportion surplus between profits and wages – in the public sector, the budget is predetermined and adjustments mean reallocating out of other priorities. Whether these other priorities are legitimate priorities or not is a matter for debate, but it does mean that there is a degree of inflexibility built into the process. Public sector wage bargaining should precede the passing of the budget, and we need to find means for doing this, which must also involve measurable commitments to enhanced productivity and public service. Another area that requires urgent attention is the effective definition of and consensus upon what constitutes “essential services”.
The strike and the housing question
It is no accident that in both the current strike, and in the previous parastatal sector strikes, the demand for an improvement in the housing allowance has loomed large. Most categories of formal sector workers, including public service workers in key areas like education, health-care and policing, fall into a housing limbo. They do not qualify for government subsidised RDP housing on the one hand, but they cannot afford private bank mortgages on the other. The problem has been greatly aggravated by South Africa`s housing price inflationary bubble – among the worst in the world. According to this year`s The Economist house-price indicator, SA`s average house prices increased by a massive 389% between 1997 and 2008, making SA the worst performer among the 19 countries surveyed (the next worst were Ireland 193% and Spain 184%).
Increases in the housing allowance paid to public service workers might help alleviate some of their problems at an individual level, but the housing crisis requires a much more comprehensive approach. The housing price bubble is driven considerably by property speculation and very weak urban planning and regulation. The state must exert much more effective land-use management, and the state must drive more equitable human settlement patterns – involving mixed-income and mixed-use development, and the abolition of the physical and social chasm between townships and suburbs. Our development finance institutions, the PIC and the private banks must invest in this effort to transform our towns and cities. The SACP`s long-standing call for a publicly-owned housing bank must be implemented.
We will be re-invigorating our Financial Sector Campaign, with a key focus on these issues. The SACP launched the Financial Sector Campaign ten years ago, and it is time to bring stakeholders back to a national summit, not only to assess and critique progress made, but also to plan how the financial sector should contribute to our national developmental goals in the next ten years.
There are other respects in which the plight of workers, including public sector workers, needs to be addressed beyond just basic wage increases. There are a number of social wage measures apart from housing that must be addressed – including the affordability of health-care and access to higher education for children from the working class. Even for those workers who may befortunate enough to have access to medical aid, typically funds run out long before the end of the year. In this regard, the SACP calls on government to now move rapidly with the implementation of a National Health Insurance scheme. Let implementation of an NHI be one of the key outcomes of the present strike.
The ANC`s National General Council discussion papers
The CC received inputs on and debated some of the ANC`s NGC discussion papers. In the coming weeks the SACP will consolidate its comments and perspectives on these papers with a view to engaging in the broader public debate in the run-up to the NGC and indeed in the NGC itself.
A few preliminary remarks on these papers are, however, required. In the first place there are several issues that the CC welcomed. Some of the papers dealing with challenges of factionalism, ill-discipline, corruption and tender-preneurship within the ANC are to be commended for their candour. Also to be commended and supported are new recommendations on how to tighten up on disciplinary sanctions against those engaged in factionalist activity.
Missing, however, in this particular discussion is the link between these problems and some existing government policies – notably BEE codes. Yet, here again, the CC noted positively that across several NGC discussion papers, the hugely destabilising impact of narrow BEE practices, codes and statutes is picked up – but without really drawing together the obvious consequences. In the course of the run-up to and in the proceedings of the NGC, the SACP intends to engage with what we believe is a very wide consensus that narrow BEE (essentially equity hand-outs), is not only perverse and non-transformational, but also at the root of many of our own movement`s internal problems.
One recent study by Jenny Cargill estimates that some R500-billion has been diverted from both private banks as well as public funds like the PIC and the IDC in order to enrich a small handful of well-connected individuals. Not only is this a tax on growth and development, it is also the very money that then comes back into our organisations in order to support disruptive factional activities. We need to use the NGC to build a wide consensus in favour of genuine broad-based empowerment and affirmative action and against the current perverted narrow BEE practices – much of which is written into law.
In taking up a struggle to abolish narrow BEE, we underline that our stand is a principled one. It should absolutely not be confused with current factional attacks on leading ANC and government comrades, attacks that are paradoxically being led and funded by elements who themselves are the beneficiaries of exactly these kinds of narrow BEE deals.
The CC also noted with some concern that the quality of many of the NGC documents is uneven. For instance, the economic discussion document falls behind the resolutions of the ANC`s 52nd Polokwane National Conference and on significant progress made by government on the basis of these resolutions in developing the pillars of a new growth path – not least the Industrial Policy Action Programme 2.
The SACP will be participating in the ANC`s NGC in order to help strengthen the collective leadership and unity of the ANC and our Alliance. We will vigorously struggle against all attempts to divert the NGC from its critical policy consolidation role, by diverting it into factional power plays and unseemly and premature 2012 electoral battles.
Media Transformation
The CC reaffirmed the Party`s position that we want to work together with our colleagues in the media to help to build an even more vibrant, dynamic and diverse media. This task is integral to the overall struggle to advance, deepen and defend our democracy.
There are many challenges confronting our colleagues in the media. The dominance of the print media by three powerful capitalist corporations (Newss24/Naspers, the Independent Media Group, and Avusa) is one challenge. This often places substantial commercial pressures on journalists. In the case of one of these near monopolies, the Irish-owned Independent Media Group, some 40million Euros have been siphoned out of SA each year in the recent past. There have been resulting retrenchments of senior journalists, the juniorisation of newsrooms, and impossible work-loads placed on reporters. This has had a tangible impact on the quality of reporting.
Our public broadcaster has suffered from years of under-funding and an over-dependence on commercial advertising revenue. It has also been the victim of political manipulation and financial plundering in recent years.
The media also faces threats from a growing anger and intolerance on the part of some in government and the ruling party. There may well be those who want to see the media curtailed in order to suppress information about corruption and incompetence. However, the media needs to ask itself to what extent it is unwittingly playing into such an agenda by often assuming the role of official opposition, and by giving acres of love-hate coverage to the very forces who are running with a demagogic anti-democratic and anti-media agenda. All of this can lead unwittingly into a self-confirming paradigm about a majority party and its government hell-bent on suppressing the media. Together, we need to work to avert this kind of outcome.
Media Appeals Tribunal
The CC discussed the ANC`s Media Appeals Tribunal proposal. The CC expressed its support in principle for the proposal and makes the following specific recommendations about its role and composition:
The proposed tribunal is an appeals tribunal – i.e. it is not about pre-publication censorship.
It needs to be an independent body – independent of party political, governmental, and narrow commercial media interference.
While the current proposals suggest that the tribunal should be appointed by Parliament, the SACP agrees that we need to guard against the danger of political manipulation of the process. (During the last year of Mbeki`s presidency, for instance, a sound multi-party consensus in committee on a new SABC Board was undermined by presidential interference.) For these reasons, the CC proposes that a selection panel for the tribunal should include a range of representative structures from the media itself.
The key role of Parliament should be less in the appointment function, and more in the possibilities Parliament offers for creating a public space in which to have an ongoing national debate about progress in developing and democratising our media and setting standards for reporting. For this reason, the CC proposes that the tribunal should be required to table six-monthly reports to Parliament on appeals submitted to it and on the rulings that it has made.
The CC further noted and commended the recent flurry of attempts from within a number of publications to improve their own self-regulatory standards. An independent media tribunal and self-regulation should not be seen as polar opposites but as complementary endeavours to improve the quality of journalism and therefore the vibrancy of our democracy itself.
The Protection of Information Bill
The CC noted and welcomed the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee`s indication this past week that it will not rush this Bill through Parliament and will seriously consider the many concerns raised about it.
In particular, the SACP agrees with many in the media and elsewhere that we need to ensure that there are effective mechanisms to ensure that the classification of government information is not abused to cover up corruption and incompetence. In noting that the current version of the Bill does seek to criminalise such abuse, we agree that the safe-guards for ensuring that this kind of abuse is detected are not sufficiently entrenched within the Bill in its present form.
In noting all of this, we should now seek to have a calm and considered discussion around how sensitive information should be handled within our democracy. One of the factors undermining the possibility of such a considered discussion has been the media`s deliberate conflation of the appeals tribunal and the Bill.
What often passes for “investigative” journalism is really the whole-sale leaking of sensitive, often unprocessed intelligence and criminal investigation material. We cannot blame the media for using this material – although often there is little attempt to double-check or seek balance. The prime blame must rest with those involved in making these leaks. We accept that there have been occasions in which genuine whistle-blowers in government, frustrated at political interference and the blocking of investigations, have made material available to the media.
However, what has happened in the recent past has had very little to do with genuine whistle-blowing, and rather more the very dangerous political factionalising of our country`s intelligence and wider criminal justice institutions. This holds out enormous dangers for our democracy and needs to be nipped in the bud. Any protection of information legislation needs to be directed primarily at political and corrupt business abuse of sensitive government information – and not at the media. While dealing with these dangerous tendencies might deprive the media of some apparently juicy stories, we call upon our colleagues in the media to recognise that ultimately all of our freedoms, including media freedom, are threatened by rogue elements within the state.
The state moves against corruption
The CC welcomed President Zuma`s announcement of a dedicated investigation of several government departments by the Special Investigations Unit. The CC also saluted the recent arrests of several prominent individuals and the seizure of properties by the Hawks and other organs of the state. The CC believes that there are connections between these events and serious challenges of corruption in Ithala Bank. The CC commended the role played by the SACP`s KZN provincial structures in spearheading the campaign to expose corruption in Ithala Bank, and we trust that the past week`s arrests are just the beginnings of a much wider investigation into corruption.
African Left Network Forum
The CC received a report on the SACP`s successful hosting of the African Left Network Forum on the 19-21 August in Johannesburg. The meeting was attended by some 70 organisations, including 28 left political parties from across the continent. 2010 marks the 50th anniversary of the beginnings of the decolonisation process in our continent. The Forum agreed that some important advances had been made in parts of our continent, but everywhere the hand of external forces supported by their local agents is at play, undermining democracy and development. Many of the parties we were meeting with, from Swaziland to Rwanda and Tunisia and Morocco are forced to operate either in the underground, or in a grey area of semi-legality.
The CC saluted the people of Kenya for the adoption this past week of a progressive new Constitution. This Constitution has been won on the ground in struggle, once more confirming that democracy is not something that can be bestowed from above. It always has to be won and defended by the people themselves.
Hamba Kahle cde Mthuthuzeli Tom
The CC conveys its heartfelt condolences to the family, friends and comrades of cde Mthuthuzeli Tom, the former NUMSA president.
Issued by the SACP.
Prof
Which cabinet decision is contradicted by this statement?
Again this is a SACP Central Committee statement.
Statement by Themba Maseko about Cabinet Meeting:
“Cabinet is disappointed with the public sector unions’ rejection of the state’s offer of a 7% annual increase and the R700.00 a month housing allowance for public servants. The offer is already way above the inflation rate of 4.5 %. The state’s final offer represented a move from the original offer of 5.2 % and a R500.00 a month housing allowance. This is a clear demonstration that Government was negotiating in good faith in an attempt to meet the demands of our employees.
“While Government fully understands and appreciates the plight of all the public servants regarding low wages, it has to be mindful of its responsibilities to all South Africans as the final offer already places a huge burden on the fiscus. We had to make a choice between increasing the salary bill to unaffordable levels by meeting the union demands and cutting other urgently needed services.It’s a choice between improving the wages of state employees and continuing to address the service delivery needs of poor communities and the unemployed.
“Although the R700 a month housing allowance is what is affordable at this stage, Cabinet acknowledges that this amount does not necessarily respond adequately to economic realities experienced by our employees. However, we appeal to the unions to appreciate that this is what is affordable at this stage.Cabinet noted that there is a need to explore other sustainable approaches to assist South African workers in general who cannot access housing loans from the banks due to low wages. Government is willing to discuss this challenge with the unions after the resolution of the current impasse.
“It must be noted that the final offer will have a carry-through effect of a further R2.7 billion in the 2011/2012 financial year. The 8.6 % demand is simply not affordable as every additional cent spent on salaries means less money for other essential services to the public. Increasing personnel expenditure means that there will be less money for education, learning materials, healthcare and health facilities, medicines, roads, economic infrastructure and other essential services that are part of the Government’s electoral mandate. It also means we cannot employ more teachers and nurses.Government is of the view that it would be unwise to borrow money to finance current expenditure, as this would continue to place an untold debt burden on future generations.”
Prof, I hope you read this posting.
I do think you need to read a lot more on the history of the ANC, in particular the Alliance and the National Democratic Revolution. You would do well to read up on the Morogoro and Kabwe Conferences, as well as the autobiographies of Mac Maharaj and Thabo Mbeki. From your debate with Gwebecimele, you do reveal that your understanding of the Alliance and why it exists very limited and in my interpretation incorrect. It is a revolutionary and principled Alliance, and not one of circumstance or just a strategic approach. The Alliance also is illustrative of the broad church nature of the ANC, whereas there is a conscious and political decisions that the ANC is biased towards the working class. Thus communists, capitalists, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, worker, professional, industrialist, etc all remain in the ANC bound. The organisations are allies with each other since they recognise that their agenda would be better served as allies and that the independent achievement of each other’s agenda will not deduct from their own agenda. This allows dual membership and leadership, and therefore different views. It would not matter that Blade Ndzimande is a a member of Cabinet or an NEC member of the ANC, the SACP as an organisation can differ with the ANC or government, and Blade can hold that view as an SACP central committee member.
Revolutionary alliances are born in struggle, and operate on a sense of trust and not a written pact or constitution, etc. This is the part, Prof, that one thinks that you would need to wrap your mind around.
Donovan, thanks for your post. I am well versed with the history you mention and the nature of the Alliance. But I am also well versed in the Constitution. The Constitution is supreme and arrangements and historical precedent in the Alliance cannot trump the clear provisions of the Constitution – if that were the case the Constitution would not be supreme. The way tod eal with the tension between the provisions of collective cabinet responsibility on the one hand and Alliance politics on the other is to prevent the leader of the SACP (or Cosatu, for that matter) simultaneously sitting in Cabinet as this would make his or her position constitutionally untenable. On the one hand he or she would be the leader of one of the Alliance partners who would from time to time wish to criticise the ANC-led government while being party to cabinet decisions which he or she would have a constituytional duty to respect and uphold. Faced with such a choice, he or she will either have to resign as Minister or as leader of an Alliance partner or will have to get the Constitution changed. The fact that the Secretary general of the SACP has done none of these, suggest that he views his personal ambition and/or the informal arrangements in the Alliance as trumping the Constitution. This is, sadly, not tenable in a Constitutional democracy.
Thanks Donovan, well put.
Pdv is hiding behind the Constitutional template.
Prof
If 7% is a cabinet decision, does the negotiating team for govt have powers to change/improve on it? Which cabinet sitting recommended the 7.5%?
pierre,
it might be insightful to this debate if the background and history of section 92(2) is better understood
do you perhaps have access to some research regarding the initial discussions/debates/negotiations of the clause at the time it was penned ?
sorry pierre, i just need to further qualify my comment above…
perhaps for purposes of this debate it is not sufficient only to say, “well, the constitution says so, so therefore it is so” (not your words, admittedly);
but rather to focus on outlining and motivating the origin and rationale for the necessity of the clause in the first instance
i (for one) am interested to understand that
From: Christina Murray and Richard Stacey “The President and the National Executive” in Constitutional Law of South Africa edited by Stu Woolman et al on the reasons for this rule:
“Now, government usually rely on it [collectice cabinet responsibility] to present a united front against the Opposition. But it also contributes to effective and democratic government. In this regard collective cabinet responsibility or cabinet solidarity (as it is called) performs two broad functions. First, the practice ensures government cohesion, and enables the government to administer public affairs in a coherent way and to implement policies relatively consistently over a reasonable period. Second, together with its counterpart, individual accountability, the convention strenghtens Parliament’s ability to hold the government to account… As noted above, a collective responsibility is usually assumed to mean that Cabinet members may not vote or speak out against government policy. If a cabinet member is unable to support a policy, he or she should resign. Secondly, descisions of an individual member of Cabinet are considered to be decisions of the whole government whether or not other members are party to them. Thirdly…. this requires confidentiality. This means Ministers should not reveal the content of discussions in Cabinet nor should former Cabinet Ministers reveal Cabinet secrets.”
and more yet…
i presume the rationale for the clause is about accountability
(much in the same way that a corporate board’s decisions are seen as holding the entire board, i.e. every individual, accountable and responsible for decisions of the board)
if this is the rationale then it does make sense (superficially, at least)
but again, in this sense, why would the opposite situation (absence od the clause) be bad necessarily
perhaps a hypothetical example (in the absence of section 92[2]) of things going wrong, might be instructive
sorry pierre, did not see your 12h07 post
but still, is it possible to illustrate a situation where (in the absence of section 92[2]) a particular cabinet minister’s dissent on a cabinet decision might cause a constitutional or governance crisis ?
Etienne, if the cabinet decides that it will endorse a decision by the President to join the invasion of Iraq by the USA, say (as happend in the UK with prime Minister Tony Bliar), a decision that was rather controversial and highly unpopular with voters and has brought more than one million people out in a protest on the streets of London. Now, if a cabinet Minister had argued against the invasion and had forcefully put his position to Cabinet before it was rejected, imagine that cabinet member now being part of a government who is doing something he things is evil and disasterous. That cabinet member can either resign or he can keep quiet. If he fails to do so, the coherence and legitimacy of the cabinet decision would be undermined and will provide sustenance to opponents of the government and especially to those who oppose the decision. Once some cabinet members argue against a government policy, when they are part of that government it sends a signal that there is no unified government at all and emboldens the opposition. The strike is a case in point. If strikers know that the cabinet is divided on their view that 7% is the maximum they should be offered, it will embolden them to contionue with the strike in the hope of exploiting divisions in the cabinet. This will make the original cabinet decision far less easy to implement or defend and may lead to chaos and a complete breakdown in the parliamentary government as individual ministers, jockeying for positions or an advantage (you never know when the President will be recalled) contradict cabinet decisions and argue actively against those decisions. No President or Prime Minister will be able to rule effectively for long in such a situation.
thank you pierre,
i think that makes the matter perfectly clear then: if one aspires to sustaining a perpetual revolutionary state (as in condition)(NDR perhaps?), then section 92[2] is/becomes obsolete/redundant
if, however, one desires an effective government that is focused on delivering on its electoral mandate, then section 92[2] is an absolutely necessary enabler
(particularly in a situation where the government consists of an alliance, not coalition, representing a very broad “church”)
@ Pierre:
“[Blair's decision to invade Iraq was] rather controversial and highly unpopular with voters and has brought more than one million people out in a protest on the streets of London”
Not to change the subject or anything, but what a pity the same well-fed million did not fill the streets of London when Saddam was poison-gassing villages all over Kurdistan!
I suppose the Western masses can be counted on to care more when their own boys’ lives are on the line than when the victims are faceless dark-skinned people far away . . .
Gwebecimele says:
August 31, 2010 at 11:53 am
Pierre reduced the basis for the conclusion here :
Pierre De Vos says:August 30, 2010 at 16:18 pm
Maggs, see the part where the newspaper report said that Nzimande “yesterday expressed his support for striking public servant workers”
So it’s not the quantum that is at issue, it’s Min Nzimande supporting striking workers.
I get the sense that the entire cabinet has sympathy for the workers – the position by government is that they do not have the extra R5 billion to make the pay difference (which I don’t believe, but that’s another matter).
Government’s position was not that the 8.6% + R1000 was unreasonable, nor was it that 7% + R700 is fair but it is all that they can afford in current circumstances.
So if expressing support for the workers is the basis for the conclusion, then it’s wrong because it seems that everyone is sympathetic.
Michael Osborne says:
August 31, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Hey Michael,
Saddam (and those who assisted him in doing atrocious things) was a bad person, a horrible person, an evil person who in my view deserved the most awful punishment that could be meted out.
Blair’s actions was not dissimilar to the vigilante mobs who stone suspected rapists or murderers.
If people allow their governments to get away with such actions, where does it stop?
What happens to the rule of law or does that get thrown out the window when states are intent on overthrowing the bad guys?
@ Maggs
Precisely my point, hence I am even asking questions about the decision which is not clearly mentioned in Maseko’s statement which merely justifies govt’s position and condemning badf behaviour amongst strikers.
Pierre will not get away with taking a SACP statement and make it a Nzimande statement.
I suspect that the 7% is not even a cabinet decision needless to say the SACP statement does not even mention 7%.
Maggs, where do you see me defending Blair’s actions?
I was simply (for these purposes) attacking the myopia of the demonstrators professed humanitarian concerns; why could the good citizens of London not have turned out en masse to protest BOTH the gassings AND the invasion?
Michael Osborne says:
August 31, 2010 at 13:30 pm
Hey Michael,
Would it be better if good citizens of London did not show their displeasure of their government’s role in the war because they did not protest about what Saddam (supported by the Bush senior administration) did to his people in his country?
It’s rather like saying that because we did not complain much at the time about the draconian media laws in Zimbabwe, South Africans should readily accept the PoIB and the MAT.
Prof., you are comparing a First-Past-the-Post majoritarian system with a proportional representation party system. Unfortunately it is incorrect to use the United Kingdom or Great Britain to bring out your point. You would need to compare the South African system with a proportional one, and also it should be a quasi-federal or quasi-unitary one. If you have difficulty finding one, then case law and discussion would be more appropriate as opposed to making yourself the final arbiter.
Further, is the matter that members of Cabinet remain members of Parliament. The President is no more a member of Parliament, but Ministers (and Deputy Ministers) remain members of Parliament. The President is even allowed to appoint a certain number of people outside of Parliament into the her/his cabinet. You would note that the President himself as the Chair and Convenor of Cabinet, has instructed the Minister concerned to reach an agreement which could be different to the final offer, could it be said that the President was differing with Cabinet.
It does seem that you have chosen a weird way of raising an issue of whether the ANC is in government, or it is the Alliance in government. But, my personal opinion, despite your protestation, is that your understanding of the ANC and the Alliance is quite post 1994, and even your response seems to suggest that. If it is not, then quite clearly Gwebs (I hope its okay to shorten your nom de plume)could be correct that you are hiding behind the constitutional template.
Prof, please note that the ANC, even post 94 is not just a political party but also a liberation movement. It remains both. The struggle against apartheid was not just a struggle for the vote and democracy, but the for the changing and overall transformation of society as contained in the Freedom Charter. By virtue of the ANC being a liberation movement means that it is not only or solely focused on acquiring political power, but rather it acts in the interest of society as a whole so that society can reflect the tenets of the Freedom Charter. Sometimes that can be not in the interest of the ANC itself. Therefore any member or leader of the ANC can join organisations which may not be anti-thetical to the principles, objectives and values of the ANC, but can differ. An example is like Ronnie Kasrils can join a pro-Palestine grouping and publicly differ with the government policy on Israel and Palestine. Indeed, sometimes even government policy is not necessarily the same as ANC policy.
In a nutshell, Prof, Blade Ndzimande did not break either his oath as a Parliamentarian, or his responsibility as a member of Cabinet, or presented himself as a loose cannon. Collective responsibility was not broken, rather the South African progressive tradition of not giving up that a solution can be found, just like we did in the World Trade Centre negotiations, was entrenched and observed.
Today the govt has thrown in 0,5 and an additional R100 bone for the unions to go and chew.I don’t think members should accept it!Aluta continua!
@ Donovan
Even his attempt to flex his opportunistic expert muscles could not help. Here we are dealing with a simple straight forward matter and even all the media houses got it right and did not make all these accusations except to print a misleading headline that says “Nzimande says…………….”
May be as a host of this blog it is difficult for him to admit that he got this one wrong.
I see Michael is throwing in a detour/white flag.
@ Maggs
“Would it be better if good citizens of London did not show their displeasure of their government’s role in the war because they did not protest about what Saddam”
No, it wouid have been better if they did both; the protesters’ claim to care about the people of Iraq in 2003 would be more credible if they had showed as much concern about Saddam’s massacres – about which earlier US and UK governments had said little, or even tacitly supported.
(But then again, if similiarly inclined protesters has succeeded in stopping NATO’s interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, many more Muslims would have died at the hands of Balkan fascists in the 1990′s.)
Don’t talk to me about the gap between the highest-and-lowest paid civil servants!
If the minimum salary for a domestic is R1400 per month: What is the wage of an entry-level, unskilled civil servant?
Cosatu is an advocacy-front for a small, employed elite. Their interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of the vast mass of unemployed.
@ Brett
Since when are you the champion of the poor and unemployed?
OK, now who cannot read?
Chapter 1
Founding provisions (ss 1-6)
2. Supremacy of Constitution
This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic;
law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid, and the obligations imposed by it must be fulfilled.
Read with
Chapter 5
The president and national executive (ss 83-102)
96. Conduct of Cabinet members and Deputy Ministers
(1) Members of the Cabinet and Deputy Ministers must act in accordance with a code of ethics prescribed by national legislation.
(2) Members of the Cabinet and Deputy Ministers may not-
(a) undertake any other paid work;
(b) act in any way that is inconsistent with their office, or expose themselves to any situation involving the risk of a conflict between their official responsibilities and private interests; or
(c) use their position or any information entrusted to them, to enrich themselves or improperly benefit any other person.
(3) Ministers are accountable individually to the President and to the National Assembly for the administration of their portfolios, and all members of the Cabinet are correspondingly accountable collectively for the performance of the functions of the national government and for its policies.
[Sub-s. (3) added by Annexure B to Schedule 6 to Act 108 of 1996.]
(4) Ministers must administer their portfolios in accordance with the policy determined by the Cabinet.
Gwebecimele, I am consistent.
Delivery of a better life for all is too important to be left to the ANusClowns, who have made a sorry mess of it so far.
No-one likes to see God’s children lead desperate lives. Despair is sinful; then what is driving people to despair?
@ Gwebe
“Since when are you [Brett] the champion of the poor and unemployed?”
To be fair, Brett has consistently argued that poor should be given guns, at state expense.
I suppose this makes him their “champion.”
Once again, how is it possible to believe that growth is a finite thing, believe that there is a zero sum total, believe that if you are to get I have to lose; but, at the same time, be unable to see that the budget is a finite pie?
Dworky, stop being an idiot – the adults are talking.
If you have a point make it.
Brett may have a point here; see Moeletsi Mbeki on South Africa’s labour aristocracy. (Although I might mention, Brett, that your very witty references the “ANusClowns” etc, sometime make it a little difficult to take your arguments seriously.)
@ Brett
“Dworky, stop being an idiot – the adults are talking.”
Sorry to interrupt your urbane adult discourse, Mr “ANusClowns.”
Well, don’t do it again!
So, I am expected to make nice with the crowd constantly ‘othering’ me, treating me as an enemy, trying to disarm me – who has never consciously harmed an innocent hair on anyone, directing a constant stream of propaganda and hostility my way?
I cannot say what I think of them?
Gwebecimele says:
August 31, 2010 at 13:24 pm
Gwebs,
Perhaps Pierre should relook at why he thinks Min Nzimande was wrong.
But the essence, this issue aside, is sound – Ministers cannot play both sides of the filed.
Consider for example the former Minister of Education, Prof Asmal, blaming everyone else for OBE and for getting rid of teacher training colleges (they did it, he did it, she did it, it was not me blah blah blah).
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
August 31, 2010 at 16:59 pm
hehehehehe
So you got some scoldings.
Brett’s strategy is wise – in order to stop the supporters of the “ANusClowns” from committing GENOCIDE against Whites, Brett has offered himself as a sacrificial lamb and is sucking up to the genocidists (or is it genociders), all for the greater good of God’s children of course.
Btw, have you stopped being and idiot or is that still on cruise control?
Hold on, Maggs!
Before this issue degenerates into childishness again I want a show of hands to see that everyone has googled the American expression ‘assclown’.
Then tell me how it does not apply to the ANC!
Brett Nortje says:
August 31, 2010 at 17:55 pm
Hey Brett,
Before we get to the “ANusClowns” aka ‘assclowns’ I am interested in hearing from the idiot Dworky whether or not he has resolved to stop being an idiot.
One would hate to think some people cannot see the logic in an argument because they think the tone in which it is presented is rude.
Go read Rhoda Khadalie again: So many ANC MP’s were involved in the Tavelgate scam it would have precipitated a constitutional crisis had they all been charged with fraud.
Sies! Godless, shameless ANC! And, look who they elect as their leaders!
The economics of my argument is simple:
Every Rand spent on a civil servant’s salary is a budgeted Rand diverted away from poverty relief which in its purest form would be taxpayers taking wheelbarrows full of Rands and sharing them among the needy. [Always keeping in mind civil servants are taxpayers too....]
Do you, Michael, taxpayer, get fair value for your taxes (half your earnings diverted away from you)?
Here’s a hint – the gap between what a domestic is required to be paid and an entry-level wage for a civil servant?
Now, let rationalise:
o Rents on the service civil servants provide
o That civil servant would otherwise depend on state grants for survival
o Blah blah blah blah blah blah
Maggs, I’m sure Dworky will retort that he’ll stop being an idiot when you stop being an idiot and that is the next 40 posts on this blog taken care of…
The argument that the Nzimande statement was merely a confirmation or repetition of the SACP position holds no water. Whether Nzimande said this mandated by SACP or on his own bat is irrelevant, because he is general secretary of SACP he is wearing two hats (one has MInister, one has leader of SACP). This brings him potentially in conflict with cabinet decisions when he acts as head of SACP – as was the case here. This is in conflict with sections 92 and 96 of the Constitution. I am suggesting that it might be untenable – from a constitutional perspective – for a person to be both leader of SACP or COSATO and Minister in the government. The reasons were set out above and I wont rehearse them here. Either one must argue that the provisions of the Constitution must be amended because they do not allow for an alliance leader also to be a minister, or that the Constitution may be ignored because of the NDR or some other reason (which would be quite shocking) – or one must concede my point.
Brett Nortje says:
August 31, 2010 at 18:10 pm
Hey Brett,
Ok – let’s hear that from one idiot to another (Dworky to me that is).
In the meanwhile I am reminded of a very profound sonnet (not Shakespeare, but I may be wrong) which goes so :
Tweedle-Dum (aka Dworky) and Tweedle-Dee (aka Brett),
Resolved to have a battle,
For Tweedle-Dum said Tweedle-Dee,
Had spoiled his nice new rattle (August 31, 2010 at 16:50 pm)
Just then flew by a monstrous crow ( Michael Osborne says:August 31, 2010 at 16:56 pm),
As big as a tar barrel,
Which frightened both the heroes so,
They quite forgot the battle.
Missing lines to follow.
Different hemisphere, continent, country – same debate!
All ministers are required to publicly affirm the policies of the government regardless of any private misgiving about a particular policy. No minister could say that though he approved a government policy but it is not his private view.
Neither can the Government say that a statement uttered by a minister was not the view of the government and the remark is attributed as a personal view of the Minister concerned. What would be the position of a Coalition Government where the government is formed with the help of many political parties? What would be position of a government where candidates are fielded directly under one political party (UPFA) but the candidates have their political affiliation to other political parties with different policies (NFF).
Should a minister recuse himself from such political affiliation?. When a Minister publicly calls for people to surround a particular diplomatic mission and take hostage of the mission until the country / organization concerned backs down or deviates from that particular action. How could this be a personal view of a Minister?. If he were the Minister of Foreign Affairs, could he make such a statement?. Could the government says that it is the personal view of the Minister of Foreign Affairs under whose purview the diplomatic missions come under?
http://transcurrents.com/tc/2010/07/code_of_conduct_for_cabinet_mi.html
Nzimande is a Louis xvi pretending to be a Robin Hood. He doesn’t care about the poor.If he were serious about the plight of the poor he would’nt have become a minister. Shows he’s more interested in the cookie jar!
Our MP’s, President, Deputy-President and upper echelons of the political sphere earn better in some instances compared to Developed Republics.
Jacob Zuma earns more than the Prime Minister of Canada. I would love to know where the R65 million+ for the Nkandla homestead comes from, not to mention the renovation of Kings House in Durban to the tune of R150 million+.
The question is does the ANC and the SACP have the political will to do the right thing and take a radical re-look at the 33 odd Ministerial Departments, and seek to adjust their salaries by 50%.
The poor and middle class must battle with the increases for energy, food, fuel, and the rest. These top heavy big governments are a burden on the poor and middle class.
to put in in perspective: the additional 1.1%, that is keeping the warring parties apart, equates roughly to what was spent by government and parastatals on SWC attendance (match tickets, hospitality, travel and accomodation) for the “officialdom” – it is way too late in the game for the government to pretend that they have “spending priorities” with a supposed focus on the poor and the working classes
for the government to say that they cannot afford it (whilst probably true), is the same as for me to tell my bank manager that i cannot afford to pay my credit card for the rest of the year (right after returning from my around-the-world jet-setting honeymoon, sponsored by that very credit card)
the chaos on our streets is the sheriff knocking on the door
etienne marais says:
August 31, 2010 at 21:18 pm
Hey Etienne,
“whilst probably true”
Why do you say that?
Meanwhile, back in the old Transkei -
SEVEN mud schools in Transkei are suing the government in the Bhisho High Court to provide them with sufficient infrastructure.
They have challenged governments’ plans for mud schools .
http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=429881
Now there an issue that the SACP SG should be taking up, with either cap!
ok maggs, by way of analogy:
on the day that i return from my profligate honey moon, i discover that my geyser’s heater element has burned out and that my fridge compressor is blown: now, with my credit card maxed out and my savings account depleted, the reality is that i cannot afford the R5,536 repair bill…at least, until the end of the month (which, say, is three weeks away)
so, i’ll just shower at the gym and use my woolies card for sustenance (and wine) in the meantime
but on a serious note: “…that they cannot afford it (whilst probably true)…”, means exactly that; the budget does not provide for it…and neither did it provide directly for the additional hospitality binge associated with the SWC, but yet it happened…ah, the joys of “political will”
etienne marais says:
August 31, 2010 at 22:26 pm
Hey Etienne,
Analogies aside, government can do many things to “find” the money.
It seems to me that the workers are being asked to make sacrifices to accommodate the looting of the states resources, the misspending, the wasteful expenditure, the rather generous handbook guidelines and the like.
Government, being government, can do many things raise the money.
What’s lacking is the political will in the right direction.
Any idea what the amount required is to meet the additional 1,1% + R200 for housing?
you are right maggs,
give the workers what they deserve…ummm, but what about the mud schools then ?
(see what i mean ?)
it’s a difficult one: all about spending priorities as they relate to electoral mandates…let’s pass the next budget by referendum, rather ?
["additional 1,1% + R200 for housing": my understanding is that it is somewhere between 366 million and 382 million, depending on the number of workers that it applies to (after dismissals...hahaha) and quantum of docked pay]
etienne marais says:
August 31, 2010 at 22:58 pm
The issue as I see it is that workers are expected to be activists while they protect ones flaunt as Pierre calls it, Champagne socialism.
The mud schools are probably as a result of the same tardiness around the management of government resources.
Case in point is the R750 million spent or to be spent on “workbooks” for young learners despite there being no proper research done to support this. The cost efficient textbooks which are well researched, developed by the fiercely competitive publishing sector, goes out the window even though the R&D costs are borne by publishers. This kind of money spent unwisely could well have been applied to building proper schools rather than mud schools.
We could set up rapid response court systems to deal with corruption in the state. After all we did well with that during the world cup. A zero tolerance approach (not lip service or political targeting) will free up large sums of money for paying workers their equitable share.
But here’s the thing (and I can understand the frustration and anger of workers because of this and similar) – even if the added amount needed is R400 million for all the hundreds of thousands of workers in the public sector, it is half the cash amount that some sons and lovers have made by some shady, government assisted deal in a matter of weeks if not days.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=119741
ALLISTER SPARKS: An economy stifled by chaotic contradictions
Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan’s warning last week that we need to achieve a sustained 7% growth rate for the next 20 to 30 years if we are to meet the social and economic needs of this county should come as a reality shock to all South Africans.
Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan’s warning last week that we need to achieve a sustained 7% growth rate for the next 20 to 30 years if we are to meet the social and economic needs of this county should come as a reality shock to all South Africans.
What is even more shocking is that we show no prospect of meeting even the most basic requirements needed to reach such a target figure. What is required, says Gordhan, is a “humongous national effort” achieved through a “social compact” between labour, business, the social sector and government. It’s hard to know whether to laugh or cry, because as the whole country can see, even as Gordhan was saying this labour was locked in a deadly war with both government and business, while business and government themselves have a relationship that can best be described as mutual incognizance, while the social sector is out in the cold.
Gordhan says we need a new “national intent” with everyone pursuing an agreed economic path to reach his 7% growth target. But there is no economic agreement anywhere. Business is capitalist, labour Marxist and the government is split between. While the burgeoning poor, now nearly 40% of our total population, are nowhere at all.
Some in the ANC are so-called nationalists, mostly people doing very nicely in business thanks to black economic empowerment (BEE) and too often involvement in endemic corruption. Others are so-called left-wingers, outspokenly critical of BEE and the rampant corruption that goes with it and calling for more government intervention in the economy to direct the private sector towards the still undefined “developmental state.” Yet others, such as Julius Malema, are crossover artists, clinging to the coattails of BEE fat-cats while at the same time trying to outflank the SA Communist Party on the left by calling for the nationalisation of the mines, which the SACC seems reluctant to do.
The contradictions are endless. President Zuma is travelling the world almost non-stop, visiting all the major emerging economies, the so-called Bric countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China), as well as the older developed countries, trying to drum up foreign investment. But even as he does so his government is going out of its way to undermine confidence in South Africa as an investment venue by sowing doubt about the security of mining rights and threatening to stifle the flow of information through media control mechanisms.
The public service strike has highlighted the lack of any kind of “national intent.” The spirit of the new South Africa is everyone for himself and the devil take the hindmost. The public service unions are demanding an 8.6% pay increase, which is nearly three times the 3% growth rate the Treasury projects for this year. As government spokesman Themba Maseko has said, to grant that in the current economic climate would make South Africa “the laughing stock of the world.”
Even the government’s rejected offer of 7% is more than double the inflation rate. As Gordhan has noted, in a situation where the recession has depleted revenues, any increase beyond that will mean cutting back on other services. Which will those be?
Most likely welfare services, since they are the softest option with the recipients in no position to strike.
So don’t expect a concomitant increase in welfare payments in the next budget. As it is we have 13,8-million people receiving welfare payments from the proceeds of 5-million taxpayers — one of the highest ratios in the world, and clearly not stretchable. Social grants are running at a whopping R89-billion for the current fiscal year.
The old-age pensioner is likely to have to continue making out on a maximum pension of R1,080 a month — provided he or she meets the means test of not earning more than a measly R31,296 a year. Because of extended family responsibilities the Department of Welfare estimates that princely sum is currently supporting 1,9 individuals. So sorry, old folks, you can’t have more because those people who already have “decent jobs” want another big raise on top of what they got last year.
Imagine living on R1,080 a month and having to give nearly half of it away!
At the other end of the social scale are the youth, about whom Gordhan expressed particular concern in an interview with Engineering News the other day. He pointed out that between four to 6-million youths are currently unemployed, and that 4-million between the ages of 15 and 24 have no immediate work prospects.
The trouble is if you can’t get a first-time job — and 70 percent of our unemployed youth are in that situation — you won’t be able to build a work record. No-one is going to hire an unqualified young person with no work record if that person has to be paid the full “decent wage” plus benefits and because of our labour laws you can’t fire him or her without a big hassle if the worker turns out to be unsatisfactory. So millions of young people become unemployable.
It’s hard to imagine what it must be like to be in your mid-twenties and realise you are probably unemployable for the rest of your life. This must surely be our most serious social problem. Several solutions have been suggested, but the unions have blocked them all.
Three years ago, the then Deputy Minister of Finance, Jabu Moleketi, suggested at an ANC National General Council meeting that the Labour Relations Act be adjusted to include lower scales in the salary ladder for under-25s to help them get started. The unions went ballistic at the very suggestion and Moleketi’s proposal never even made it to the agenda. More recently the government has talked of promoting youth employment through a wage subsidy, but the unions have opposed that, too, on the grounds that it would create a two-tier labour market.
This column has repeatedly advocated a broad apprenticeship system covering all manner of artisan and service industry skills, which has also failed to be considered — presumably because it, too, would be seen as creating a two-tier labour market. So the unemployed youth must stay unemployed, just as the old-age and other pensioners must remain in poverty, so that those who already have jobs can have more for what they do.
One thing is clear in all this: despite its claims of being pro-poor, Cosatu is no friend of the poor and the unemployed. It is their deadliest enemy.
In fact the poor and the unemployed have no friends. They are our forgotten people. Everyone talks about them to burnish their own images, but in this greedy, gimme, post-liberation age no-one does a damn thing to help them. Until we do, until we acquire Gordhan’s “national intent” to draw the young unemployed into the economy by enabling them to acquire on-the-job skills in a country desperately short of skills, there is no chance of ever attaining a 7% growth rate and no increase in the tax base to help sustain the pensioners and the disabled. We shall continue to languish with the world’s widest wealth gap.
@ Maggs
As if that is not enough, we are planning to provide all teachers with laptops and that runs into millions of rands. There is no prize for guessing who will get the tenders to supply these computers. Is it not better to provide each school with a computer lab with about 50 computers and link them with Telkom broadband and achieve much more than giving teachers laptops that might be stolen, unaffordable and abused. Who will pay for the connections? With the low salaries bandied around and teachers renting backrooms, I doubt if this could deliver better results than computer labs.
The fact that we still have mud schools says a lot about our priorities.
ADAM HABIB: Public sector strike
Ministers who want frugality should set a good example
ADAM HABIB
Published: 2010/09/01 07:42:08 AM
HOW did we get here? A mere two months ago we were basking in the social cohesion sparked by the Fifa World Cup. South Africans had begun to speak as one about the nation we were constructing. Flags were everywhere, idealised public expressions of our desire to be seen as one. Granted, some of us warned that this social cohesion was likely to dissipate in this environment of inequality and polarisation. But did any of us expect it this soon, and in this form?
Now the government and the public sector unions have been at loggerheads for more than two weeks, with a 1,6% wage differential dividing them. As the strike entered its third week that differential reduced to 0,9%. Government officials call unionists irresponsible populists, while union officials have responded by accusing their African National Congress comrades in the Cabinet and state of being political hyenas.
Strikers say they don’t care if patients die in hospitals and children don’t learn. Babies in public hospitals had to be rushed to private hospitals, with reports suggesting some had to be revived in the corridors.
Business commentators, in their usual “labour gevaar” chorus, scream that investors will be turned off SA. This is now a nation that has forgotten its immediate past, and has become extremely divided.
In this polarised milieu, three questions arise. Is the demand for an 8,6% increase legitimate? Is it affordable given the state of public finances? And, where do we go from here and how do we resolve this impasse?
In responding to the first question, one has to conclude that the wage demand is legitimate. Public sector salary increases have lagged inflation for a number of years, with the result that it has become impossible to attract adequately qualified and trained staff to crucial professions in the public sector, including, among others, teachers, nurses and doctors. The R100b n added to the pay packets of public sector workers in the past three years has helped, but has not resolved this intractable problem, especially considering that employees in the same professions in the private sector earn a lot more.
Public sector unions, whose responsibility it is to look after the interests of their members, therefore have a legitimate case. The response that it is not affordable is not an answer to the legitimacy of the request. Neither is the concern, expressed by government spokesman Themba Maseko, that SA will be “the laughing stock of the world” if “it agrees to public sector salaries double the inflation rate”, a reasonable answer. In fact, it is a silly response — it suggests that pride and international perceptions, rather than the reality on the ground, are driving the government’s decisions.
But affordability is an issue that has to be considered, not as an answer to the legitimacy of the request for the pay increase, but rather in the decision to be made. After all, the more money that goes into salaries, the less there is available for spending on services. This should be of concern to all of us, given the lack and quality of services dispensed to citizens. The difference between the government’s and the union’s minimum position amounts to billions of rand. Many poor and marginalised citizens could be helped with these resources. Moreover, there need be no contradiction in recognising both the legitimacy of the demand for better wages and the fact that they may not be affordable.
How do we find a solution to this dilemma? The answer is, of course, time.
The government has to recognise the legitimacy of the request and then commit to addressing the differential over a period of time. This would entail above-inflation increases over a number of years. But it would also require increases in public sector productivity. Moreover, an acceptable timeline for addressing the problem of public sector salaries has to be agreed between the government and the unions.
Obviously this timeline may have to be negotiable if there are sudden shifts in the global and national environment. But a plan for addressing this problem in the medium term would go a long way to reducing the heat being generated on the issue.
Such a plan is dependent on a public perception that it is not only workers and the poor that have to make sacrifices.
The political (and economic) elite must also be seen to be limiting their immediate aspirations and needs. This, of course, has not happened. Government ministers never spoke of affordability when they had to buy Mercedes-Benzes and BMWs as ministerial cars. Instead, they responded crassly that it is allowed by the Ministerial Handbook and that it represents their tools of trade.
Maseko never spoke of international embarrassment when government ministers ran up hotel bills worth hundreds of thousands of rands. Affordability was also never remembered when state officials bought millions of rands’ worth of World Cup tickets for themselves, some of which had to be given away to all and sundry at the last minute.
This list of profligate consumption can go on and include the dubious cosy relationships that have developed between the President, ministers and senior state officials, on the one hand, and companies and individual businessmen on the other. Is it surprising that workers and citizens believe that the political (and economic) elite are hypocritical, when they demand responsibility from workers, yet they indulge in crass consumption, often at a cost to the public purse?
It has been said before and it needs to be said again: the expectations of workers will be moderated only when the political (and economic) elite, in turn, moderate their own aspirations and needs.
Where do we go from here? The immediate priority is to break the logjam between the state and the unions — no medium-term plan is possible without this. The problem is that the state and the unions have painted themselves into a corner, and neither can step back without significant loss of face.
The only option is for both to move a little (the state already has) — perhaps somewhere in between their current respective positions. This will add to the current budget deficit. But this is affordable given that our deficit is now projected at 6,7%, slightly below the 7,6% originally announced by Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan. Obviously, the Treasury would have liked to bank the extra money raised by the South African Revenue Service, and bring our deficit down quicker than expected. But there is no doubt that a long- term strike runs bigger risks than does keeping the deficit at our original expectation. Politics is, after all, the art not only of the possible, but also of making the choices with the least adverse consequences.
Even if a breakthrough were realised, no lessons would have been learned if we do not hasten to establish a medium-term plan to address the problem of public sector wages. SA will be back where it is today if such a plan is not developed and implemented. But, as indicated earlier, such a plan requires the moderation of all our expectations, not only of workers and the poor, but also of the political (and economic) elite.
The public sector wage demands today, and therefore the current strike, represent a backlash against the crass consumption and consumerism of the political (and economic) elite. If we are to fix the problem, the political elite has to provide leadership by beginning to practis e the frugality it demands of workers and other citizens.
- Habib is Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Research, Innovation and Advancement at the University of Johannesburg.
Prof
Since you have opted to avoid answer my questions I have no option but to withdraw from this debate.
The facts and the statement are there for all to see and make their own judgements.
Credibilty at the negotiation table.
http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=429907
Michael
I think you’ll find the reason the Brits didn’t protest over Saddam’s gassing of the Kurds is because the British have a healthy history of gassing those exact same Kurds.
Maybe they felt for Saddam’s travails?
On Nzimande
Its amazing that he and his ilk can mention the word “democracy” without spontaneously self-combusting.
The SACP has never, ever fought an election and all their candidates in office have no mandate from the voters and are illegitimate. No amount of sophistry about alliances will make that little nugget go away.
In any event, communism is ideologically opposed to the very idea of democracy in the first place.
I suppose we’ll have to find a way to enjoy this irony for while – Dworky, do you have any ideas on interim entertainment?
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-08-31-anc-is-the-party-of-black-middle-class
Gwebe
Teachers will get laptops because it will keep them quiet.
Students need computer labs.
Pity this has nothing to do with increasing the quality of education. But then the ANC has always been against education, we shouldn’t confuse BCM with ANC.
Gwebecimele says:
September 1, 2010 at 9:25 am
Hey Gwebs,
Getting our teachers up to speed with the world of information is a good start – but like our very many other grandiose plans, it’s likely to end up another fiasco.
As far as I recall the plan was to give each teacher R150 or less per month for the laptop, the software and connectivity.
Somebody somewhere connected to a computer enterprise has planted the seeds of a really dull plan.
On another note I read that the Sahara people are connected to our President and to our President’s children, maybe someone is already on Sahara’s board.
It’s entirely unconnected, but doesn’t Sahara sell computers in SA?
Maggs
Your take on it could just be a lot more accurate than mine!
In the end though, the students will not see much benefit.
zoo keeper says:
September 1, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Hey ZooK,
Please don’t connect the dots from Sahara to Duduzile Zuma to President Zuma to the “free laptops” for teachers.
It was not intended as a straight line (no smart Alex comments about a crooked line, please) – cross my heart and hope Brett gets his property.
For your information (unrelated to the above) :
Sahara is the largest supplier of computers in South Africa.
Six months after her father was elected ANC president in December 2007 Duduzile Zuma, then 26, was asked to join the board of technology giant Sahara Computers.
There’s a lot of interesting stuff on the link below – but who believes Facebook or the Simpsons.
http://zh-hk.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=112874848725117&topic=152
etienne marais says:
August 31, 2010 at 22:58 pm
Hey Etienne,
If our government is uninterested in the R200 billion stolen during the apartheid era, why should striking civil servants listen the the lament that government does not have the R382 million to pay them what is reasonable and fair??????
The link was posted by Gwebe elsewhere, but here it is again.
http://www.noseweek.co.za/
@ ZK
“I think you’ll find the reason the Brits didn’t protest over Saddam’s gassing of the Kurds is because the British have a healthy history of gassing those exact same Kurds.”
Maybe — but I would have thought that the English liberal-types who protested Blair’s war would/should have been about the same demographic that would have protested Britain’s use of gas in Iraq. But my point remains — like “peace” protesters everywhere, the Englsih bien-pensant tend to be more energised when British/US lives are at stake when it is just a matter of some local dictator mass-murdering his own people.
Speaking of that, I had heard that both Lawrence of Arabia and Churchill recommended use of gas against the “uncivilised tribes” of Mesopotania in the 1920′s. But do you know of any reliable source, ZK, of Britain actually having used poison gas at the time against civilians?
@ Maggs
“Government, being government, can do many things raise the money.What’s lacking is the political will in the right direction.”
Maggs, I agree that corruption, mismanagement etc is draining a lot of money. But, even if that was fixed next week, SA would remains, overall, quite a poor country per capita. (The potential for term mineral extraction is a different matter.)
A smaller and smaller tax base is supporting a steadily larger number of people. That is unsustainable. Yes, taxes should be raised, but sooner or later one will hits diminishing returns, because of capital flight.
Michael
I cannot recall the source but it apparently went down in 1919/1920. Churchill remarked in the Commons how he couldn’t understand the squeamishness around gassing civilians.
An incident like that would readily be covered up by the British.
However, whilst not using poison gas, the bombing tactics over Germany in WW2 were all about killing as many civilians as possible. Gas or no gas I don’t see the difference as the intended outcome was the same. So much for waxing lyrical about the German destruction of Guernica! Britain has no real record of protecting civilian life if its “in the way”.
But you are right about the peaceniks, although its always more immediate when its close to home. Just like almost anybody else, they only actually do anything when they have something to lose.
Maggs
I can’t see any link there
…
ZooK,
http://zh-hk.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=112874848725117&topic=152
it’s showing up this side.
Michael Osborne says:
September 1, 2010 at 13:13 pm
Hey Michael,
“Lawrence of Arabia and Churchill recommended use of gas against the “uncivilised tribes” of Mesopotania in the 1920’s.”
The British certainly have a way.
Charles Dickens certainly dreamed of being Commander in Chief of the British army of occupation. In this role, he assured his dear friend Baroness Angela Georgina Burdett-Coutts, he would :
“I wish I were the Commander in Chief of India. The first thing I would do to strike that Oriental race with amazement (not in the least regarding them as if they lived in the Strand, London, or at Camden Town), should be to proclaim to them in their language, that I consider my Holding that appointment by leave of God, to mean that I should do my utmost to exterminate the Race upon whom the stain of the late cruelties rested; and that I begged them to do me the favour to observe that I was there for that purpose and no other, and was now proceeding, with all convenient dispatch and merciful swiftness of execution, to blot it out of mankind and raze it off the face of the earth.”
I don’t have the link on hand but there’s enough references on the net.
Oops (not meant to be in the quote)!
I don’t have the link on hand but there’s enough references on the net.
michael,
if i remember correctly, the UK public outcry was more about “not in our name”
in other words it was aimed against a government that, despite its citizen’s opposition to the war, still persisted in entering an illegal war
contrast that against your assertion regarding a lack of an outcry against sadam gassing sections of his own citizenry, and i’m sure you will understand the difference in core motivation
(this is not to say that the brits should not have protested against sadam at the time)
Thanks Maggs
I was actually referring to a link between providing laptops and Sahara connections in an ironic kinda way
zoo keeper says:
September 1, 2010 at 16:16 pm
hahahaha!
There’s that nice term that Pierre used in the post today “parses words” – applies here too. The link I posted shows up the links quite clearly (even though that was not, as you know, what I meant)
But now that you pointed it out so clearly, maybe you’re onto something between Sahara (who are also behind some other developmental state activism like free media and mining beneficiation and more) and “free laptops” to teachers.
I have no reason to believe that this laptop thing is not entirely altruistic and has the best interests of educators and learners at its very core even though the cynical among us may infer that our president’s daughter may benefit materially if the state buys many, many computers from a company that she is a director of.
After all, we are safeguarded from any skulduggery through our tamper proof public procurement processes, our AG and SCOPA .
Most importantly we have ultimate oversight by parliament which as Ishmael pointed out elsewhere, has real teeth and very sharp ones at that.
I’ll never buy from Sahara again. I’ve unsubscribed from their pricelists and daily updates and blocked their emails.
@ etienne marais
Indeed, but the “not in our name” message included: You may not “in our name” engage in aggressive and illegal war on a sovereign state, in which tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis will die!
@ ZK
Yes, I know Churchill, to his eternal discredit, said that one should not be too fastidious about using poison gas on barbarians. But as far as I know, there is no actual evidence that the British did in fact use poison gas in Iraq. I would be curious to see any evidence you may be able to point out.
Brett Nortje says:
September 1, 2010 at 20:21 pm
Hey Brett,
“I’ll never buy from Sahara again. I’ve unsubscribed from their pricelists and daily updates and blocked their emails”.
All that just because ZooK has completely unfounded suspicions?
That’s good of you to stand by principles, Brett – you show them.
“Most importantly we have ultimate oversight by parliament which as Ishmael pointed out elsewhere, has real teeth and very sharp ones at that”
Isn’t that Dworky’s line?
The liberal media has only itself to blame.
There has been no real TRANSFORMATION in the press.
Black journalists are coconuts and native assistants.
The ANC died for press freedom. But freedom must always be balanced with respek for the dignity, privacy and property of our leaders!
Thanks.
And counting says:
September 1, 2010 at 21:39 pm
“Isn’t that Dworky’s line?”
It’s kinda catching.
As Brett would say, idiocy is contagious.
Actually, Maggs, I did that after Arcelor showered largesse on CRT.
@ MDF
“respek”
does your particular spelling of the word count as a freudian slip ?
michael,
“Indeed, but the “not in our name” message included: You may not “in our name” engage in aggressive and illegal war on a sovereign state, in which tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis will die!”
i think you are alluding here to the merits of an interventionist vs non-interventionist foreign policy; the USA is, of course, the prototype of the former stance, perpetually involved in some war, somewhere, mostly illegal (in terms of international law) and for the most part motivated by “strategic interest” calculus, not, as they would have the world believe, because of solidarity for the weak
the alternative to allowing whoever is the stronger super-state the right to police the world, is to fully commit to international structures of law and the relevant global bodies…anything else just amounts to a sophisticated form of international vigilantism
to extort and manipulate a number of northern hemisphere countries behind one’s cause (the purpose of which is to invade a sovereign nation) and to attach a banner to this initiative called “the alliance of the willing” which is, by definition, an oxymoron, works nice for marketing purposes (read: mass deception), but is nevertheless just a patent lie as a precursor to the slaughter
the only manner in which to solve international disputes and bring relief to the weak and downtrodden is through truly international arbitration and enforcement; short of that, unilateral hubris and self-interest simply lead to wild west styled justice; the choice is between evolving civilisation or veneered vigilantism
this is what history has taught us through millennia
(and francis fukuyama was wrong: history has not ended…yet)
@ Etienne
Do you think the currant Afghan war is illegal?
@ “US intervention is] for the most part motivated by “strategic interest” calculus”
The phenomenon of interventionism quite ideologically complicated. To take one example: many of the “Realist” school of the US foreign policy establishment (e.g. Brent Scowcroft) were opposed to the invasion of Iraq; and ultra conservatives America-firsters (e.g. Pat Buchanan) were adamantly opposed to the Iraq war. On the other side were liberal internationalists (H Clinton and Biden among them), who genuinely (but perhaps naively), thought that the war could be justified by commitment to democratic ideals. (But let me emphasise : I do not deny that the war was driven primarily by old-fashioned US imperialists.)
And yes, an international-law world order would be optimal, I agree. It is quite difficult to stick consistently to that, though when there a SC members will veto effective action – acting of course n their own (perceived) national interest. Thus, many man Muslims would probably have been murdered the Balkans, which would now be ruled by a neo-Fascist Serbian state, had the US not acted while Europe dithered . And if the US or France has acted decisively in Rwanda, countless lives could have been spared.
@ Etienne
“After daybreak, the assembling protesters fill the streets, and the police begin to play their part in the stylised drama — mostly diverting traffic with wry expressions on their faces. Perowne reads the banners as they go by and notes the cloying self-importance of: Not in My Name. … He prefers the more languid: Down With this Sort of Thing.”
Ian McEwan, ‘Saturday’
etienne marais says:
August 31, 2010 at 22:58 pm
Hey EM,
Here’s another R147 m for the kitty to pay workers.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article636019.ece/Council-clueless-as-R147m-disappears
So let’s see : R382 million – R147 million = R235 that we still need.; we should find that by the end of today lurking in some dark corner somewhere.
Michael
I have just read my post again – I wrote it and amended it too quickly and left out the word “allegedly”.
My sincere apologies.
However, I do have my suspicions that it may well have occurred and should be investigated by historians – as we know history is always changing as we discover more evidence buried by the victors and mythology.
Our own recent history will make a fascinating read when fully exposed, and a very uncomfortable one for those in power right now. I don’t foresee a glorious righteous revolution being remembered. Much like the Bolshevik Revolution is being exposed as the true horror of the 20th century now that communist propaganda is being seen through.
Churchill did have a few clangers which condemn him in modern eyes – particularly his take on Nehru. My uncle arranged Churchill and Nehru for the official photograph whilst an FO functionary – said Churchill was fairly grumpy about it
Gwebe
I went and bought Noseweek after your post.
Eish.
The ANC will have a lot of explaining to do. Perhaps that is why they embraced the likes of Magnus Malan and Pik Botha who are now “loyal cadres” of the movement?
I wonder what kind of power-sharing agreement the ANC will try and get when they eventually lose the general elections?
Then tell the strikers that we do not have money.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article636019.ece/Council-clueless-as-R147m-disappears
Brett and others
Lets tell these guys that we need to “grow the cake first” and they need to be patient.
http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2010/09/02/jobless-plan-to-turn-their-backs-on-anc
@ ZooK
That story is scary and I doubt if we will ever find out the true story.
More money for striking Public servants.
http://www.racingweb.co.za/2010/09/how-brian-roux-stole-my-twelve-grand/
@ Brett
“Lets tell these guys that we need to “grow the cake first” and they need to be patient.”
I say we gobble all available cake. Then we rest. When we get hungry again, our hunger, and our fading memories of yesterday’s cake, will incentivise us all to work hard to bake even better, bigger cakes for the future!
Thanks.
http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page501877?oid=503812&sn=2009+Detail&pid=287226
Here are they:
Gwen Nkabinde
Hlengiwe Mkhize
Zou Kota
Hendrietta Zulu
Thokozile Xhasa
Thandi Tobias
Maria Ntuli
Rejoice Mabhudafasi
Brett, how many do you know in this list?
More money for strikimng Public Servants.
http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/columnists/2010/09/02/parliament_s-bleak-picture
These two Municipalities are cursed.
http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=430537
http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=430533
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
September 2, 2010 at 11:17 am
Hey Mossad Guy,
“I say we gobble all available cake”.
Now that’s a very bad suggestion. We should encourage poor people to sacrifice some more and then some more. if they die from hunger in the process it’s all for the greater good. And they will be remembered for their valiant contributions towards creating a better life for all.
There are excellent examples of people who sacrificed which poor people and ordinary people should be emulating. Here for example http://www.noseweek.co.za/index.php
Just don’t believe Tim Bending who writes :
Productivity does not explain wage differentials
In the case of pay inequality, the hypothesis outlined above allows us to envisage a scenario in which the minimum wage is much higher than today, and pay inequality consequently much reduced, but in which the same people would still be in the same jobs, creating the same wealth. The same effect is predicted for higher employment implying a higher marginal disutility of labour. Such a flattening of the pay hierarchy would, as Abba Lerner indicated , imply a huge efficiency gain in using available resources to meet needs. If it were excepted that income inequalities are overwhelmingly the result of rent capture, not relative productivity, such a scenario would also surely be seen as more fair.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/openeconomy/tim-bending/fairness-and-post-keynesian-foundations
Everyone knows that when rich people get richer, they have more money to create more jobs for poor people.
So poor people should really sacrifice so that rich people can get richer and reduce poverty by creating more jobs.
Here is one champagne socialist whose days are numbered:
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=119995
hehehehehe.
But Zuma said it was wrong to assume that they had acquired the stake because of their proximity to him.
“It is unfair, totally unfair. Why should you not do business when you are closer (to the president)? Some of the people you are talking about were in business long before Jacob Zuma was the president …
http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article641583.ece/Zuma–Back-off-from-my-family-
Right, the Zuma’s just happened to land the lucrative deals that translate to mega billions because of recognised business prominence.
In any event our President now wants business people involved in humungous business dealings with national and international ramifactions to be kept from the public eye just because they are Zumas – our president’s family are no different in the commercial world from anyone else.
If the kitchen is too hot …..
Whilst criticising Mr Nzimande’s hypocrisy is clearly merited i am not sure i agree with supporting stringent adherence to the doctrine of collective responsibility. This doctrine has often had negative effects in South Africa. The prime example would be with regards to AIDS denialism. Would other cabinet members have spoken out if their jobs were not on the line? A democracy should encourage some sort of disagreement even at the top level of decision making. Even though there is good reason to insure that cabinet sings with one voice, there must be exceptions to this. This i would suggest is when a cabinet members constitutionally informed moral conscience demands such public disagreement. How many of us think that Barbara Hogan should have been chastised as she was for speaking out against the barring of the Dalai Lama from visiting South Africa.
How democratic and transparent is any leadership system that prevents to an extremely large extent, differences of opinion within the leadership to be voiced?
Today, while I was at work, my cousin stole my apple ipad and tested to see if it can survive a twenty five foot drop, just so she can be a youtube sensation. My apple ipad is now destroyed and she has 83 views. I know this is totally off topic but I had to share it with someone!