When Minister Blade Nzimande was appointed to the Cabinet by President Jacob Zuma, some voices in the South African Communist Party (SACP) questioned the wisdom of him continuing to serve as the general secretary of the SACP. Given the experience of the SACP with some of its members who served in Thabo Mbeki’s cabinet and who often seemed to follow cabinet decisions instead of SACP policy (Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi being the most obvious example), some SACP members were worried that Nzimande’s membership of the cabinet would make his position as leader of SACP untenable.
They warned that he would be required to serve two masters at the same time. Although both masters were members of an alliance, these masters did not always take the same position on a particular issue. Nzimande would then be forced either to defy the cabinet in breach of the Constitution when, as its leader, he would be required to put forward the official SACP position, or he would be forced to abide by cabinet decisions and thus would become incapable of diligently performing his function as leader of the SACP.
As I pointed out earlier this week, South Africa has adopted a system of political party government in which strict party discipline is enforced in the legislature and individual and collective cabinet responsibility for the executive is mandated by sections 92 and 96 of the Constitution.
This means that ordinary MPs may debate an issue vigorously within the ANC until the caucus has made a decision on it, after which they were obliged to toe the party line or face the consequences (the most severe of which would be to be redeployed out of a job, as happened with Andrew Feinstein when he refused to follow instructions from the ANC - and especially Essop Pahad a.k.a Essops Fables – to stop his vigorous pursuit of arms deal corruption as a member of SCOPA).
If ANC MP’s in Parliament also happened to be SACP leaders or COSATU leaders they would find themselves in a difficult position as they would be required to vote in favour of measures which their parties did not support. Other MP’s would also face such difficulties – as was the case with the adoption of the Termination of Pregnancy Act and the Civil Union Act.
Similarly, a cabinet minister could forcefully argue his or her position inside and outside cabinet until the cabinet had taken a position on that issue, after which the cabinet minister had to abide by that decision or had to resign. What the cabinet minister cannot do is stay in the cabinet but criticise a decision of that cabinet in his or her capacity as leader of Cosatu or the SACP because this would undermine cohesive government and collective cabinet responsibility.
It also undertmines the authority of the President, who is the leader of the cabinet. In some jurisdictions the Prime Minister or the President fires Ministers who show too much dissent – often when the President or the Prime Minister is insecure and paranoid about his or her future or has a vindictive streak beyond that which politicians are known for.
This suggests that those in the SACP who expresssed disquiet with Nzimande’s duel role might have had a point: being the leader of the SACP or COSATU is probably incompatible with membership of the Cabinet or the National Assembly. Blade Nzimande sees things differently, of course. If all cabinet Ministers followed his example the cabinet would become even more dysfunctional and cabinet government would run the risk of breaking down completely, in which case service delivery would suffer a further blow. Policy would be made and amended on the trot (something former cabinet Minister Kader Asmal warned against earlier this year) and the system of individual and collective accountability of cabinet ministers provided for in the Constitution would break down.
Are there ways to deal with this and to save Minister Nzimande from having to choose which master he is serving? Could he hold on to his R1.1 million BMW and the perks associated with being a Minister (including occasional two week stays at the Mount Nelson Hotel) while also holding on to his job as general secretary of the SACP?
Murray and Stacey, in their Chapter in Constitutional Law of South Africa, suggest a few options. One would be for a Minister to use the “unattributable leak”. A Minister could leak his opposition to a specific cabinet decision to the media on condition that he or she not be named. Cabinet Ministers in the United Kingdom are masters of this ploy. It allows one to have one’s views known to those sections of the public whose support one wishes to retain (always a good thing when one has to stand for a leadership position), without officially breaking the rules of collective cabinet responsibility. Given the fact that such unattributable leaks are one of the reasons advanced by Nzimande and others for the establishment of a Media Appeals Tribunal, Minister Nzimande might not find this option appealing.
Another option would be to release carefully crafted statements that hint at dissent without actually defying the President and cabinet colleagues. Those who support Nzimande’s statement on behalf of the SACP about the strike argue that this is exactly what he did. I am far from convinced that they are correct, but judge for yourself. According to its spokesperson, Themba Maseko, cabinet had agreed as follows on the strike:
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.
Nzimande’s statement on behalf of the SACP reads partly as follows:
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.
I guess if one parses words one could argue that the two underlined sections are not in direct opposition to one another, but it would take some nifty verbal gymnastics and would stretch the meaning of words a bit further than any ordinary person would be able to do – at least while keeping a straight face. Can one at the same time be disappointed with the actions of strikers who rejected an offer of government and decided to strike and support their strike? I guess its a matter of interpretation (as is almost everything else in life) but my head feels like bursting just trying to reconcile those two statements.
And what about the poor ordinary MP’s who are far more vulnerable as they are not in leadership positions and have not been directly elected so can lose their seats in parliament at the whim of the leadership? What must they do when their party takes a position with which they vehemently disagrees, but which they cannot defy by voting against it for fear of losing their seats in Parliament?
One option would be to take a leaf out of the book of Schabir Shaik and to develop a serious illness on the day that a vote is to take place. But this will not signal to one’s constituents that one really did not like what the party did. Another would be to leak news of one’s opposition to a specific decision to the media on condition that one’s name is not mentioned and then to vote for the bloody measure (or against it – if that is what one’s party had decreed) in any case. Political party leaders and whips hate this kind of thing, but it does happen all the time. Andrew Feinstein did it in protest against President Thabo Mbeki’s speech to the caucus in which he argued that HIV and Aids was part of a CIA plot. It builds some flexibility into the system while retaining a semblance of discipline.
Where a political party leader is at the top of his or her game and wields power confidently or, in some cases, ruthlessly, there is less of this kind of ill discipline. With the exception of Pregs Govender and Andrew Feinstein, for example, few ANC MP’s ever dared to go against the party line once Thabo Mbeki had spoken and had indicated what the official line was going to be (sometime after vigorous “debate”). Of course, because of this in the end the seething resentment against King Thabo built up to such a degree that he was thrown out of office at Polokwane.
The fact that Ministers are leaking stuff left right and centre, that Blade Nzimande issues statements that seem to contradict the official cabinet position and that ordinary ANC MP’s are gossiping and leaking to the media like over-excited school boys and girls, suggests that President Jacob Zuma does not nearly have the same stranglehold on his Parliamentary party as Thabo Mbeki did.
But ironically, it might save Zuma’s bacon – at least for now – because all the factions in the party feel that they have a chance to have their side of the story heard and even to have their view prevail because the King is so weak and not nearly as ruthless – at least not on the surface – as that other guy whats-is-name who used to strike terror into the hearts of MPs and cabinet ministers to such a degree that they were all too scared even to admit to journalists that they believed that HIV was a virus that caused Aids.
Time to switch to a constituency based first past the post system!
Proportional representation is a huge failure in South Africa. Currently in South Africa we need more dissent and debate, whether that be from the DA, IFP, AZAPO or even the ANC back benchers, we need more dissent!
President Zuma calls for debate on almost every contentious issue, with a first past the post system we would have a hell of a lot of debate, as each MP is secured in his seat and directly accountable to the voters and not the party bosses…
The only drawback of first past the post is that small parties’ and opposition parties’ votes get wasted. Maybe a hybrid system then… or a proportionally elected second chamber, not like the NCOP is really doing anything meaningful…
This is taking a Hlope, Radebe, Simelane, Ngobeni angle or drift ( as Maggs would say)
George, pity the National Party was so intellectually impoverished by the 90′s its Codesa negotiators (bunch of sissies!) in all possibility never even looked at an electoral system like New Zealand’s.
Hey Pierre,
Cabinet Ministers are really between a rock and a hard place.
Damned if they do, fired if they don’t.
Anyway “some amongst them” may envy the CC and SCA judges.
Write a minority judgment, contradict everyone, agree with everyone but differ anyway and keep your job too + get some praises and maybe get to be a J K Rowling Lite. Maybe even get to say “I told them so”.
Gwebs – I think you misunderestimate me
Anyone who thinks that our’s is a is a lame-duck President must think again.
President Jacob Zuma has “reprimanded” Communications Minister Siphiwe Nyanda for his statement backing former Transnet Freight Rail CEO Siyabonga Gama. …
“I have reprimanded… Nyanda, regarding the media statement he made in support of Mr Gama, which according to the Public Protector violates section 2.3(d) of the Executive Ethics Code,” Zuma said in reply.
Now that ought to be a lesson to Min Nyanda.
Pres Zuma was not even recalled as a result of the uncomradely act – but it’s still early days and the knives are being sharpened according to reports.
Brett,
I think it is exactly the opposite. The NP at CODESA did look at different electoral systems and the one that they realised would suite them the most is a purely proportional one with closed lists.
It was never what was best for the country’s future; it was what was best for themselves the selfish and greedy lot.
Obviously the ANC are just as selfish and greedy as the NP (maybe that is why they merged), so they went along with it, knowing internal dissent would be non-existent after ’94.
@ Maggs
“I catch your drift”
Good point, George!
Black nationalists, white nationalists – opposite sides of the same coin and control-obsessive to boot.
I read the summarised version of this post in The Times and I must say I’ve enjoyed the full post even more. But it just reinforces my view that the politicians HATE the poor and will do everything they can to screw them.
THEY don’t care how many nurses and teachers get beaten up or lose their income during the strike, and they sure as hell don’t care to make sure the state departments do anything other than pay their expense accounts.
I think that ALL those “leaders” involved in the wage negotiations, both the state and the unions, should take a pay cut of at least 10% for creating this mess by their sheer intransigence and/or incompetence.
@ Maggs,
LOL!! Nyanda must still be reeling from this unbearable punishment.
And yet, it appears that he still holds office. I guess my money’s safe!!!
I think the day the owner (he who masquerades as an “intellectual/analyst”), of this blog, honestly, finishes just 5 postings without mentioning or referring to former president Mbeki, in any manner; someone will produce evidence that retroviruses were found to be cytocidal before 4 May 1984.
Samantha says:
September 1, 2010 at 18:15 pm
Hey Sam,
I am sure the oke is having sleepless nights. Not having a bed is one thing, but to be reprimanded by our President just adds to the frustration and anxiety.
But you’re still on to lose your bet :
SACP: Zuma surrounded by ‘wrong people’
DURBAN, SOUTH AFRICA Sep 01 2010 17:48
The public sector strike turned ugly because President Jacob Zuma was surrounded by people who failed to advise him correctly, the South African Communist Party (SACP) in KwaZulu-Natal said on Wednesday.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-09-01-sacp-zuma-surrounded-by-wrong-people
“This suggests that those in the SACP who expresssed disquiet with Nzimande’s duel role might have had a point” – first line of your paragraph 8, Prof. This Freudian slip of a sentence is quite revealing on why you may have both the wrong analysis and incorrect impression based on a mythical set of ‘facts’.
Its not ‘duel’ but ‘dual’.
The one duel indicates a fight and the other is two roles. Its possible to have a dual role in the ANC and the Alliance, but a duel role is against the ethos of the National Democratic Revolution.
@ Maggs,
You must be one of the most hopeful people in this country – in fact, possibly the only one who believes in the fairytale that the ANC will actually listen to good advice or act like people who have some semblance of moral fibre.
The article to which you refer, only references Baloyi. No mention of our high living communications General!! Furthermore, it doesn’t matter how people criticise the government, they just won’t listen.
I wonder what I am going to buy when I win that bet?
Samantha says:
September 1, 2010 at 21:57 pm
Aw Sam, you’re just being a sore loser in advance.
“Furthermore, it doesn’t matter how people criticise the government, they just won’t listen”.
Huh???
Which planet are you on???
The government does listen when criticised strongly – what do you think the PoIB and the MAT is all about?
Sam,
And then there’s the Donen Commission.
I will have you know that if the law was in place then people who paid bribes to the regime of Saddam Hussein to secure contracts under the United Nations Food-for-Oil Programme would have been prosecuted and would today be pleading for medical parole!
http://www.capeargus.co.za/?fSectionId=3571&fArticleId=nw20100901161514140C797475&fFeed=breakingnews
Maggs, the DA are a bunch of drama queens. Why do they not use the courts and PAIA to make the Donen Commission’s report public?
Anybody read the statement of the Congress of Traditional Leaders’ national executive committee last week on, among other things, the proposed Protection of Information Bill and the Media Appeals Tribunal? Apparently we need “an African approach to newsworthy items” because “just too much emphasis on negative stories as though nothing good is being done in the country” and “no reporting at all about good initiatives and programmes led by the royals and traditional leaders”. The media should be a “progressive mirror of the nation” and is not “a super-sector that can do as they please”.
Now, it is not clear to me how the Protection of Information Bill and the Media Appeals Tribunal will lead to more reporting about the good initiatives of royals or make the media a progressive mirror of the nation. But there is more, the Congress of Traditional Leaders “also supports the Bill because it begins to address the issue of ownership. The previously oppressed majority of this country have no meaningful ownership of the media sector. This needs to be corrected and this Bill is a remedy”. Can anyone tell me how the Bill is a remedy to change the ownership of the media?
We are also reassured about the constitutionality because “The suggestion that the Bill will be going against the Constitution is a total fabrication. There is no way that our Parliament can pass a Bill that is unconstitutional. There are procedural matters that we all know are followed before a Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.” What a relief! If just these pesky Constitutional Court Judges who have in the past had the the temerity to find acts of parliament unconstitutional coulc be told. Or rather, why not save the money and abolish the ConCourt since “There is no way that our Parliament can pass a Bill that is unconstitutional”.
Reading this, one must realise that it is really a pity that SA has a system of parliamentary democracy and a division of power – we should just lead the traditional leaders rule the country!
“Nzimande’s duel role” …..deliberate play on words or the ultimate Freudian slip?
This makes for heartwarming reading. Anything that undermines the alliance has to be good news for our democracy
Now here’s a somewhat confused Mr Ainslie answering and asking a question.
“We have 5906 abandoned mines. Two into 5906 goes 2953 years.”
My question is by when do you plan to have rehabilitated these 5906 abandoned mines?”
Er, hm, 2010 + 2953 = 4963.
So Hon Ainslie – by the year 4963 the mines will be rehabilitated assuming of course that those 5906 mines are not “nationalised” before then.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/business/article636443.ece/Scopa-slams-slow-mine-cleanup
Donovan says:
September 1, 2010 at 21:33 pm
LOL!
Well spotted and apt too on the dual duel.
@ Samantha
“[Maggs] must be one of the most hopeful people in this country”
Yes, Maggs always looks on the bright side. Thank the Lord that our dear Maggs will never be a “whinger.” He understands that there is no alternative to the ANC. Fortunately, the party will regain its integrity quite soon.
Can the 10 Guys who own this 18% come forward.
Watch the space this figure will backfire.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/business/article635068.ece/Black-investors-own-18–of-JSE-top-100
@MDF…..”the party will regain its integrity quite soon”.
Are you suggesting that the party has lost it’s integrity. Shock and horror.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
September 2, 2010 at 10:14 am
Hey Dworky,
“Yes, Maggs always looks on the bright side.”
That’s so kind of you.
But not always so.
Sometimes I look to the dull side, but nevertheless it’s entertaining engaging with you.
Donovan thanks for the spelling lesson. Always good to sharpen those skills. We come from different ideological positions. I am a constitutional (social) democrat at heart and you seem to believe in democratic centralism. The latter is not compatible with the present governance structures and the supreme Constitution of South Africa. I would be happy to have a debate on which best serves the interests of the masses of our people.
Prof thanks and you are correct. Democratic centralism may not be compatible only because of the weight of numbers in agreement with liberal democratic principles. Equally though it does also make social democracy incompatible, that is why we work together in a broad alliance and church. And also may I add, that is why your lawyer at heart ‘ideological’ disposition hurts your very own social ideology, since you end up applying the constitution in a manner that limits, rolls back, and frustrates the very social transformation you claim to support and agitate for. Sadly, many heart on their sleeves social democrats (in the eighties we called them liberals), end up doing the work for reactionaries and the unreconstructed racists,chauvinistic,homophobic out there. Like many in the media, your intentions are good so you tell yourself that your actions are justified. At any rate one thinks we have made a lot of progress in understanding where we are coming from.
Gwebecimele says:
September 2, 2010 at 11:34 am
Have you ever invested in the top 100 companies listed on the JSE? If not, does anything prevent you from making such an investment?
So black investors own 18% of the JSE?
Why is this news?
Nobody is precluded from buying any shares so what’s the fuss?
@ Donovan
“many heart on their sleeves social democrats (in the eighties we called them liberals), end up doing the work for reactionaries and the unreconstructed racists,chauvinistic,homophobic”
Donovan is right. I have also observed social democrats helping racists and homophobes, not directly, but by obstructing the radical TRANSFORMATION that we need to vanquish racism and homophobia forever.
@ Chris
“Have you ever invested in the top 100 companies listed on the JSE?”
With respek, Chris, this is a naive question. Blacks cannot invest in stock because whites stole all their land. It is difficult to raise cash to buy stock if you have no property to offer as collateral!
Thanks.
@ Chris
Low wages and poverty
@ Maggs,
Finding ways of preventing people from getting information in order to engage constructively on matters of relevance (MAT and PoIB) hardly constitutes listening. In my mind, it has more to do with muzzling!!
And, writing myriad documents detailing the issues raised does not necessarily mean that you are going to do anything about it. The ANC are very good at obfuscating issues with documents and policies that appear to show they are in touch with what the people are saying and thinking, yet they fail to actually implement these things.
In fact, just last night I was looking through the Policy documents on the E. Cape Department of Housing’s website. There is a document entitled: Policy document on policies. Go figure!!
@ Gwebecimile
Nowhere in the world are equity markets seen as the preferred investment gateway for low wage earners and the poor. That may be harsh but it is a fact of life
I am totally against wasteful expenditure by politicians but how petty can the DA be really – even measuring the size of the photo in a billboard!!
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=196335&sn=Detail&pid=71616
@ MDF
The question of collateral is not particularly relevant. As a general rule it is a very bad idea to borrow to buy equities. In fact banks will very seldom grant loans for this purpose. Of course this rule does not really apply to fat cat BEE “investors”.
@ Mzo,
Umm, referencing the size of the photo as taking up nearly a quarter of the billboard, is a little different to actually measuring the photo. Most people with a basic education could make the same estimate by looking at the photo.
Samantha says:
September 2, 2010 at 14:43 pm
LOL!
Samantha says:
September 2, 2010 at 15:06 pm
Whether it’s measured exactly or is a guesstimate is neither here nor there.
Mzo’s point is valid – these petty, nagging issues amount to trivia.
If that is the of serious concern of the official opposition then Dworky as Dworky always says, there’s really no alternative to the ANC.
Samantha
I didn’t mean measuring literally but jus the idea that you would even complain that the picture takes so much size (accurate or not) is, for me, very petty. What’s next? Complain about the size of the billboard and argue that a smaller billboard wouldhave done the job?? PLEEASSSEE!!
@ Maggs and Mzo,
I think the point being made has little to do with the size of the picture, but actually relates to the point of the exercise and the money spent in the self-aggrandizement of Government Ministers.
Sbu Ndebele spent R 1.5million on a brochure with 27 photos of himself. Why?
Why are government departments wasting money on advertising? Why are they paying the SABC for positive advertorials/insets into supposedly “hard news” stories? Surely these monies could be put to better use.
I hardly think that drawing attention to this wasteful spending is petty, unless you think we should only know about amounts above a certain level.
Samantha says:
September 2, 2010 at 15:25 pm
Hey Sam,
Does this make actual sense “public money should be spent on doing a job, not assuring them that you are doing it” ???
@ Anton
“Nowhere in the world are equity markets seen as the preferred investment gateway for low wage earners and the poor. That may be harsh but it is a fact of life”
Agreed. It makes Chris’s question look stupid since majority of black people fall into this category.
Samantha
I think you’ve missed my point.
I have no issues with them bringing these issues to our attention – they should, who knows they might even gain a few more votes!!. I just feel that the way they do it (extending their complaints to petty issues) shifts the attention from the genuine issue being raised.
@ Samantha
We need billboards and camaigns to popularise our politicians just like the ones below nobody knows and nothing is ever written about them. Even media ignores them.
Gwen Nkabinde
Hlengiwe Mkhize
Zou Kota
Hendrietta Zulu
Thokozile Xhasa
Thandi Tobias
Maria Ntuli
Rejoice Mabhudafasi
@ Maggs,
Absolutely my point – you just said it better than me!!
@ Mzo,
Point taken!! The DA are inclined to come across as being petty and whiny.
@ Gwebecimele,
You are correct. I have absolutely no idea who any of those people are. However, being a Government Minister is not about popularity and celebrity. If they are doing their work, then that should be sufficient. Why should taxpayers’ money be used to promote people in government? They get paid to do a job, not be Idols.
Mzo is right.
The liberal DA should not have mentioned the size of the billboards.
Anyway, in the Democratic Republic of Korea there are billboards in many public places, both of the Great Leader and of the Dear Leader.
No one whinges about that!
Thanks
The 18% ownership is what could be directly traced. This does not include ownership via private companies through which most BEE holdings are held. A further 34% is held by pension funds, provident funds and collective investment schemes. Individual membership and participation respectively can not be traced. Collective investment schemes are also held by pension and provident funds. We know that substantial numbers of employees and union members belong to pension and provident funds. The government pension fund managed by the PIC is the largest retirement fund in the country.
The fact is that your average citizen is not a direct investor on the JSE but participates significantly via retirement funds and collective investment schemes.
Samantha says:
September 2, 2010 at 15:49 pm
Hey Sam,
This particular issue seems to have no serious basis other than some serious envy and dissatisfaction that the ANC government managed to pull off a superb SWC.
Speaking out of the both sides of their mouths seems to have become a fine art.
DA: Statement by Helen Zille, Democratic Alliance leader, on the FIFA World Cup (11/06/2010)
Many people will ask at the end of the tournament whether it was all worth it. This is an important question that will deserve considered analysis. The research I have seen so far is very encouraging. According to research by auditing firm Grant Thornton, the World Cup will contribute R55.7 billion to the South African economy and generate 415,400 jobs. Some 480,000 tourists will spend around R8 billion during their stay in South Africa. The World Cup preparations and infrastructure construction did a great deal to soften the blow of the international financial meltdown in South Africa.
Of course, it remains to be seen whether the prognosis of future benefits is proved correct. What is certain is that the new infrastructure will leave a lasting economic legacy and platform for growth that will benefit everyone. Above all, the World Cup is an unrivalled opportunity to present the real South Africa to the world, not the caricatured version we read about in foreign newspapers. This has the potential to boost tourism and foreign investment for years to come.
We have seen that South Africans of all races can unite behind our country. We have shown we have what it takes to pull off a world class mega-event such as this. Now all we have to do is beat the likes of Brazil, Germany, Spain and England to be the first African team to win the World Cup. That would really prove the naysayers wrong.
http://www.polity.org.za/article/da-statement-by-helen-zille-democratic-alliance-leader-on-the-fifa-soccer-world-cup-11062010-2010-06-11
@ Maggs,
I’m not sure what your point is on the article above.
To ascribe the success of the SWC to the ANC government is a little over-the-top.
Firstly, the event was managed by FIFA, not the government.
Secondly, Cape Town, which is DA-led and in a DA-led province, was an exceptional host city.
Thirdly, the people of this country united behind the event and were the ultimate champions.
But, hey, give credit where it is due. The government managed to hold everything together until the end of the tournament before things went to hell in a handbasket again!!!
P.S. We have an ANC-led government, not an ANC government. DA pettiness, perhaps, but I felt I should point that out.
Samantha says:
September 2, 2010 at 16:40 pm
LOL!
I am happy with an ANC government.
There are indeed many things that are wrong, but it’s an exaggeration in the extreme that “things went to hell in a handbasket again”.
We are a robust democracy under the ANC government with civil society mobilising against its excesses in all kinds of ways – this is certainly the kind of country that I am proud to be part of.
Gwebecimele says:
September 2, 2010 at 14:06 pm
The same goes for me. And the fact that I have two children at university who, despite 13 matric distrinctions between the two of them, and a degree awarded cum laude to the eldest, could not get a bursary. I also would have liked to invest in the hot hundred.
Thats a damn disgrace, Chris!
Quick question: Anyone know offhand who is Switzerland’s Minister of Finance?
@ Brett……..Hans-Rudolf Merz. Wonderful thing Google
@ Maggs and Samantha
“To ascribe the success of the SWC to the ANC government is a little over-the-top. ”
I find it difficult to understand the rapturous enthusiasm about the great success of the FWC. (The fact that Blatter, or whomever, billed it as the “greatest ever” does not convince me.) It is meaningful to go on in this fashion only if your implicit baseline expectation was set by the absurdly dismal forecasts of the alarmists and professional Afro-pessimists. (German fans to wear “knife-proof vests” etc!)
A country like South Africa of course should be able to host an event like this very well – especially considering the irresponsible, gargantuan over-investment in stadia.
Consider: Moscow hosted a successful Olympics in 1980 – notwithstanding the U.S.-led boycott. If a dictatorial, bankrupt state like the Soviet Union could do it back then, why on earth should SA not have been able to follow suit in 2010?
Anton, I know you get the point!
Switzerland is a heterogenous society composed of 3 main language groups surrounded by countries which comprise those 3 language groups – which countries were at war with each other 2x in a quarter-century.
How does Switzerland avoid the internal strife and sectarian violence that is characteristic of so many heterogenous countries – even in Europe? It has even reached Belgium.
Low-key government, is one big part of it! No personality cults, no self-aggrandizement.
No pics of wannabe dictators or suspects against walls.
May I say – on a personal level – despite having stated the above; that I would be most disappointed should life-size pics of ANC leaders become unavailable?
I dunno what Michael, Sam and Maggs are on about: Sepp Blatter ran South Africa very well for the duration of the World Cup!
I’m going to make two points which have rather little to do with one another. The first of those points is something of a courtesy submission – by which I mean I’ll make it so as to comment on the topic set by the Professor in his freshest piece. At it’s core, my point is that Blade, as the Professor makes out, would probably have done well to avoid putting himself in a position wherein he’s pretty much assumed contradictory responsibilities.
The second of my points concerns an opinion that Michael directed towards Maggs and Samantha. Michael’s view – on the assumption that I’ve read it right – boils down to a position that could very easily offend: in the broader order of things, staging a passable world cup – and I think ‘passable’ is precisely what the world cup was – is not really a remarkable achievement. And I so say because, even though overcoming the many logistical problems was commendable, let’s face it: putting on a tournament is a narrow, limited and focussed object – in terms of both scope and time. And even South Africa (much like Moscow as Michael cited) could work towards holding its breath and keeping its shirt tucked in like some unruly school child wise enough to walk on eggshells while the principal’s about.
Sam???
Manie van Dyk???
Leigh says:
September 2, 2010 at 19:07 pm
Hey Leigh,
To the extent that some nations have reached Mars and beyond on the one hand and are at the point of unraveling the heart of matter as warps of time and space on the other, hosting a good soccer tournament is really no big deal especially given the amount of resources and the international support that was deployed.
The subject of discussion is captured best in:
Dianne Kohler Barnard says World Cup security message did not need his picture attached.
“What the Minister does not answer, is the following part of the question: What was the purpose of displaying his photograph on each of these billboards?”
That against the background of the rather complimentary “DA: Statement by Helen Zille, Democratic Alliance leader, on the FIFA World Cup (11/06/2010)” sounds very DAish!
Somebody please unpack this.
The Constitutional Court reserved judgement on Thursday in the case of businessman Hugh Glenister, who was challenging the disbanding of the Scorpions special investigations unit.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-09-02-court-reserves-judgement-in-glenisters-scorpions-bid
Maggs, this is way before your time….
Long ago the world changed over from dot matrix to colour bubblejet printers…
Ask any mature person on this blog how much more it cost to print a colour page than run a dot matrix print!
See?
@Gwebecimele:
Just to clarify one thing about the 18% of black investors owning the JSE:
If you strip out the 45% of foreign JSE investors, what remains is owned by SA blacks to the tune of 37%, although that may still not be good enough for you. In any case, I’m told by the experts that now is not a good time to be owning equities, which is just as well, isn’t it?
Brett Nortje says:
September 2, 2010 at 20:09 pm
Hey Brett,
As usual – whatever are you on about?
Wasted ink, Maggs, wasted ink!
Brett Nortje says:
September 2, 2010 at 20:21 pm
Huh?
@ Brett,
Sorry to disappoint!! I’m nothing more than a DA Branch Chairperson in the middle of nowhere. But, I take it as a compliment that you think that I am an MP. Who knows? One of these days I might be and then Maggs will really be in trouble!!
@ Michael and Leigh,
I agree with much of what you say about the SWC. However, I do believe that for many of us, it gave us the chance to reignite our passion for our country and to forget, for a little while, what separates us and remember what unites us. I cannot give Sepp credit for that. That came from our people!
@ Maggs,
I wasn’t only referring to the strike, but to everything that has followed the 10th of July. The mining sagas, the mine killings, the fresh corruption, the MAT and PoIB, the moronic ANCYL etc.
Maggs is right
We hosted the best World Cup ever – without the significant navigational and astrophysical advantages that accrue from having guided a probe onto the surface of Mars!
Billions around the world applauded the brilliance of the ANC.
Best of all — more than 10% if the vuvuzela’s were manufactered RIGHT HERE IN SOUTH AFRICA!
if the vuvuzelas = of the vuvuzelas
Samantha, you make two points about how the world cup gave rise to some benefit: the first being that it gave us all a chance to rekindle our passion for this country and the second being that the tournament amounted to a pleasant reminder that very different people aren’t as different as historical baggage might give us to believe.
I’m going to agree with you on the second point. But with respect, I’m not quite so sure as to your first – which, I believe, lends itself to a handful of constructions thereby reminding us all (me most certainly included) of the desirability of considering the hidden and untested implications from which our opinions often derive.
Yes, one would be justified in asking what the devil I mean by all of the jazz I just wrote. And I’d answer by saying that it comes down to largely this: why would one be passionate about one’s country? One possibility is that one would want the economy to thrive so that the inhabitants thereof could enjoy a descent enough standard of living. But surely that’s more about concern for human welfare rather than caring overmuch about that patch of dirt on which you were born. In a nutshell, if by being passionate about one’s country one means caring about social welfare, then maybe it’s best to just say so.
Leigh, I must disagree with your statement. Maybe I should not generalise, but talk about my own personal experience.
The World Cup reminded me of the things I love about being a South African – our warmth, our hospitality, our generosity of spirit and most of all, our amazing sense of humour. I loved seeing our country through the eyes of the visitors that came here. I loved listening to them extolling our virtues on the news. I loved feeling proud of Sipiwe Tshabalala and Kune (one of my heroes of the Cup).
I read an interesting quote today which asked, “If a friend of yours spoke to you the way you speak to yourself, would you still be friends with them?” That is so true of the way we all speak of our country. SWC made us talk about ourselves so positively. It’s such a pity that we can’t do it all the time.
So, my feelings during SWC were not about social welfare and our many problems, but about celebrating what we have.
Pierre,
Have you seen the opinion piece on TimesLive about your attacks on Blade? Just so you know – they won’t be provoked by the likes of you!!
http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/letters/article638287.ece/SACP-wont-be-provoked-by-the-likes-of-De-Vos
Samantha says:
September 2, 2010 at 21:31 pm
Hey Sam,
There are indeed many things that need civil society to be worried.
The PoIB is the most serious. It’s unlikely that it will pass into law as it stands, but nevertheless it’s worrying that such a bill could have been even dreamed up.
The underhanded mining licence saga has very serious implications for South Africa.
There’s a host of other things to be unraveled and government to be checked.
Having the picture of our Minister of Police on a bill board is not even a matter that ought to be of concern in the entire context – the DA cannot be taken seriously if that is the level of engagement which we can expect from it.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
September 2, 2010 at 23:15 pm
Mossad Guy,
That was a small fix, eh!
Anyway read what my all time hero has got to say in the link below.
Ok he’s my number two hero – you are my all time hero (I forgot that for a mo).
http://www.timeslive.co.za/scitech/article637164.ece/God-gets-made-redundant
Samantha says:
September 2, 2010 at 21:27
LOL!
Brett was goading, rather than complimenting.
Aunty Pat will sort it out – well done to her for doing what MPs need to do.
@ Maggs,
Again, I ask the question – where do you draw the line at holding the government accountable? Is there a wasteful expenditure limit? In other words, do you only hold the government in check for monies over R 1 million? or do you question all their spending? The billboards cost R 315 000, seemingly to promote the Minister, which is why the issue of his photo on them was raised. Is this acceptable?
By the same token, the allegation against Manie van Dyk related to R 247 000 odd in petrol claims. Is the revelation of this any less petty than Dianne’s complaint about the billboard? Or is it okay because it is against a DA MP and exposed by Patricia de Lille?
My feeling is that ANY wasteful expenditure of our money should be made public. Where monies have been used badly, the MP should be castigated, irrespective of which party they belong to.
BTW, thanks for pointing out my misunderstanding of Brett’s post. I have to admit to being a little mortified at my misinterpretation. Thank goodness no-one can see me blushing!!
Well spotted, Samantha. Someone else who shares my hope that Pierre could be South Africa’s very own Pim Fortuin.
“De Vos, a right-wing, anti-communist and anti-ANC crusader”…
Pierre, Solly vergelyk jou ook met ‘n “apartheid agent provocateur”!
Pierre, hy soek om gemoer te word!
Maggs, are you happy with the way the ANC pipid away the world wide commodities boom?
For your amusement (at http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/letters/article638287.ece/SACP-wont-be-provoked-by-the-likes-of-De-Vos):
One can’t help but be reminded about this when reading Pierre de Vos’s attacks on the general secretary of the SACP, Blade Nzimande (“Skewering Blade, August 31).
One of the very first pieces of legislation passed by the apartheid regime after its ascendancy to power in 1948 was the Suppression of Communism Act, making the SACP the first organisation banned by that regime.
As the apartheid regime became more desperate, especially during the 1980s – at the height of our people’s intensified mass offensive – it started planting agent provocateurs, often posing as combatants of our struggle, aimed at sowing divisions and confusion among our ranks.
The campaign to divide and weaken the liberation movement did not end in 1994. In recent times there has been a renewed right-wing offensive, often disguised as the liberal defence of our Constitution.
One of the leading ideologues of this struggle is De Vos, a right-wing, anti-communist and anti-ANC crusader, whose vitriol against Nzimande in your newspaper is nothing more than a personification of his right-wing agenda.
He tries to sow divisions – in typical apartheid agent provacateur fashion – between the ANC and the SACP, as well as the SACP and President Jacob Zuma’s Cabinet, by trying to portray the SACP’s unapologetically principled support for public-service workers’ struggles against deepening inequalities in society as a challenge against Cabinet.
Since when has Cabinet taken a decision against the legitimate right of workers to strike? Since when has a principled position taken by a Cabinet minister, in his role as a political leader of a political party, for narrowing the wage gap, become a violation of our Constitution?
Is the legitimate workers’ struggle for a housing subsidy in contradiction with the Cabinet’s positions over the years? Or is De Vos’s argument aimed at trying to isolate our general secretary from the rest of his Cabinet colleagues?
Our general secretary and the SACP long ago addressed the question of a vehicle acquired for doing government work as well as the distorted story of a claimed waste of public money in hotels.
The participation of communists in Cabinet can never be regarded as the abandonment of the SACP’s principled support for legitimate working-class struggles. For that matter, at no stage will communists sell their soul just because they are in government. After all, South African communists are not serving in an enemy government, but in one they helped bring about.
The SACP will never allow itself to be lectured by right-wingers parading as liberals!
Our principles are not for sale, especially to those who never lifted a finger in the struggle against the evil apartheid regime.
Samantha says:
September 3, 2010 at 8:28 am
Hey Sam,
My take on the issue is twofold.
The concern raised is not so much that a bill board was put up, rather that it had a picture of the Minister.
Secondly, if the cost of putting up billboards were an issue it ought to have been raised at the time, not months afterwards, especially after the DA was so very chuffed with the way things went during the world cup.
My view is that those bill boards were the right thing to do at the time and I would not consider it wasteful expenditure.
There a huge differences between the billboards and exploiting the “handbooks” to the extreme, the latter being people entrusted with looking after our interests as a nation using loopholes to fleece the system.
And it doesn’t matter which party they belong to, it’s just not acceptable.
Brett Nortje says:
September 3, 2010 at 8:36 am
Hey Brett,
“are you happy with the way the ANC pipid away the world wide commodities boom?”
At best it’s tardiness, more a damned disgrace as i see it.
Too many personal and selfish interests driving national processes.!
Pierre De Vos says:
September 3, 2010 at 8:36 am
@ right-wingers parading as a liberal,
“Our principles are not for sale, especially to those who never lifted a finger in the struggle against the evil apartheid regime”.
Are the principles for sale (wholly or partly) to those who lifted a finger in the struggle against the evil apartheid regime???
Good point Maggs
I think you will find those principles are definitely for sale.
I find any SACP in government an offense to democracy. If they contest an election, win some seats and form a coalition government that’s OK.
The SACP are the purest form of parasite, incidentally ideologically opposed to multi party democracy and freedom of the press to boot.
The SACP will never, ever, ever, ever, break away from the ANC because it would dwindle into extinction. Nobody with brains votes for communism after all.
COSATU on the other hand have some real electoral power…
I am looking forward to the day we start doing things for us and only because we want it rather than doing things to please a white man with a briefcase or Indian lately who comes as an Investor, Fifa, Banker, IMF etc.
Why are you whispering Brett?
Sam???
Manie van Dyk???
Dr Salmon Van Dyk (DA MP) who …………………………….travel gate.
http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2010/09/03/mps_love-for-driving-hits-taxpayers-hard
I’ve always known that De Klerk is probably not the smartest person around but his arguments here are simply ridiculous:
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=196557&sn=Detail&pid=71616
I just took a look at Solly Mapaila’s piece reflected above in the Professor’s post. He bangs on about some sort of anti-ANC agenda that the Professor is supposed to have which has been carefully disguised as a defence of our Constitution.
To put it simply, Solly talks a lot of crap – which I think is at least in part attributable to the point that he fails to understand that there can be a significant disjunction between a vehement belief on the one hand, and a good point on the other. Through his inability to see that Blade, as a cabinet minister, owes responsibilities that fetter the remarks he can publically make in a constitutionally permissible way, he’s simply missed the point that (a), Blade may actually have breached section 92 of the Constitution and (b), the Professor’s sentiments may in fact be a proper, bona fides defence of the Constitution.
So in sum, a reasonable recommendation would be to let Solly get his scarely rational (and deeply uncritical) complaints out of his system. After all, he has that right. But in contexts wherein cooler – and dare I add, somewhat more sophisticated – heads prevail, let’s be clear that Solly appears to have precious little beyond over-imaginative conspiracy theories to contribute.
zoo keeper says:
September 3, 2010 at 9:30 am
Hey ZooK,
Some of our smartest and best minds are among the SACP members.
It’s most unfortunate that it is allowing itself to be reduced to an adult version of the ANCYL.
If that’s the best that the SACP could come up with is presented by Solly Mapaila, maybe it’s time to reconsider my view that South Africa’s finest political intelligence lies in their ranks.
Whilst Solly Mapaila might have a point in accusing PdV isolating Nzimande in Cabinet by taking a SACP statement and present it as a personal statement, unfortunately he is also commiting the same offence with his in accurate labels. The explanations for BMW and hotels don’t change the fact that they should have never happened.
Samantha says:
September 3, 2010 at 8:28 am
Hey Sam,
Is it true that Aunty Pat is replacing Leonard Max????
Some of our finest political minds reside in the ranks of the communists?
Guys – are you serious?
@ Maggs
May be Max will replace Petros who moved to Gauteng as head of police.
Zweli Mkhize, Premier of KZN is calling for freezing of salaries of snr public officials including cabinet. He might not be a cabinet member but he is a NEC member and a Premier. I mentioned in an earlier posting that even ANC members do differ with government and that should not lead to resignations.
I know some will say there he is not speaking against a cabinet decision but the last decision on cabinet salaries were supported by cabinet except Pravin. Mkhize was speaking as an ANC provincial chairman and has every right to communicate his or his supporters feeling.
In the alliance this is allowed and accepted and is not regulated by the constitution. It is also in line with the overall mandate of the alliance to close gap on inequality.
The new policy changes suggested by Cosatu are also within the same space where debate, suggestions that are different from cabinet are entertainded especially if they support the overall mandate of the alliance.
Perhaps Mkhize is making populist noises because he feels his ass being measured for the sling?
ANC supports Nzimande statements.
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Politics/ANC-Freeze-ministers-pay-increases-20100905
Cosatu is right what else is not fixed, lets throw the executives in jail.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/business/article644348.ece/Tyre-cartel-uncovered
I hope this is not true. This minister has been making right noises lately.
http://www.fin24.com/Economy/Shabangu-may-be-heading-for-door-20100906
Copy successes – by reversing failed policies – while initiating paths unique to SA.
CAPE TOWN – Among today’s top performers, the successes of highly dissimilar China, Brazil and Germany trace back to their having reversed the policies and attitudes which had constrained their economies. Unless SA can muster the analytical insights and political wherewithal to combine this approach with innovative solutions, economic shortfalls will encourage self-defeating redistributive policies.
We can dismiss any lingering notions that the current set of policies is politically sustainable. The economy grew each year in post-apartheid SA until the recent, and relatively mild, correction. Yet we now know that despite such prolonged growth, SA’s labour force participation – a core economic success metric – remains among the world’s worst. Subsidised expansion of housing and services plus cash grants in lieu of jobs have limited hardships and bought time; they are not solutions.
Another myth to overcome is that SA can achieve its economic objectives through accelerating overseas exports of finished goods. Four billion well-capitalised Asians are steadfastly intensifying already hyper global competition. SA’s economy will continue to benefit from many niche successes but substantial growth requires removing broad commercial barriers domestically and in Africa to expand employment and hence consumption. Increasing employment is simultaneously a solution component and a goal. Therefore, if SA adopts successful domestic policies while the continent’s jobless mount, prospects for South Africans will suffer. SA’s future will be largely determined by how it responds to African threats and opportunities.
A core requirement of a rapidly expanding global middle class over the past several generations has been the rural-urban development path which relies on improving agricultural productivity such that farms produce rising surpluses. This lowers food prices and raises disposable incomes which help inspire job creation in villages and cities.
Many of SA’s rural development policies are counterproductive and should be foremost among those to be reversed. It is time to take a fresh look at the tools within reach. SA has the potential to break new ground in rural development and then play a valuable role in exporting such solutions to many parts of Africa.
Roughly half the world’s poorest and most malnourished people are subsistence farmers. SA’s current rural policies will ensure a similar downward spiral due to the hostility between laws of economics and redistributive legislation. Business-government relations are particularly ineffective in the agriculture sector. Government’s lawyers write regulations which target companies, in part, because as legal entities they are easy legislative targets. Supply chains are not legal entities but they hold the keys to successful development. Two of SA’s top banks have recently recognised this and the credit risk mitigation benefits.
Banks focus on the critical role of lending but, as importantly, tremendous knowledge is clustered within supply chains. It is reckless to think small-scale farmers can become similarly knowledgeable. It would be vastly more prudent to combine up-dated BEE ownership and upliftment structures within supply chain focused commercial development projects than to undermine food security and development by breaking-up productive farms.
Another area ripe for reversal is foreign policy. Successful countries tightly align foreign and economic policies. SA’s primary foreign policy goal should be creating at least a million sustainable jobs through recalibrating, or reversing, current policies to focus on job creation. As an example, how many jobs would open up if half the Zimbabwe immigrants were to return? If jobs are made the top priority of the Foreign Affairs Department, historic loyalties can be weighed against domestic consequences – and solutions negotiated.
Every region has one or two behemoths and their policies are crucial to regional advancement. SA’s post-apartheid regional role could have been much more constructive. To maximise job growth at home SA’s representatives need to appreciate that much Western and Eastern influence across Africa is destructive. The alternative, effectively playing them off each other, offers game changing possibilities. In the natural order of economics and international relations, this is SA’s role and responsibility.
SA cannot afford economically flaccid international relations. A similarly severe encumbrance is poor government-business relations. In successful countries, business and government find ways to work together.
Where the opportunities are greatest for economic advancement is often where institutional capacity is weakest. This is frequently a dire problem for the 50 smaller countries in Africa with an average population of just over 10m. In rural SA it is also frequently an extreme challenge. The organisations with the greatest capacity to deliver institutional capacity to unruly places while providing strict governance and adherence to regulations are large corporations. Leaders of smaller countries often cannot be made accountable to anyone. Conversely, corporate directors and managers can be held accountable – and can pressure their alignment partners to adhere – to prescribed rules. For example, see: http://eiti.org/
SA’s government and businesses can – and must – be regional leaders in combining development goals with corporate knowledge and institutional capacity to accelerate job creation and profits. Government’s focus must shift from bullying companies to working through supply chains to reduce risks thus broadening funding and expertise. Cooperation-styled BEE ownership and upliftment tools are crucial.
Staging the World Cup demonstrated SA’s capacity when a specific goal is clearly envisaged. Objectively interrogating our challenges reveals what has been conspicuously absent among public policy debates: an achievable vision for widespread success.
*Shawn Hagedorn is an independent analyst
The choice of the picture in the Sunday Times and this link speaks a thousand words.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article644728.ece/Attack-on-Zuma-irks-young-communists
@ Maggs
Here is another SACP member of cabinet.
CAPE TOWN — Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Minister Tina Joemat- Pettersson has welcomed her former “senior” in the South African Communist Party, Langa Zita, to her department where he takes over as her director- general.
Gwebecimele says:
September 7, 2010 at 15:12 pm
Hey Gwebs,
It seems that the SACP is quite a force in cabinet/government.
Certainly enough to be formidable.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=120908
HILARY JOFFE: Cosatu should rethink its views on fiscal policy
‘The top 8% of individuals, those who earn R400000 or more, contribute 51% of SA’s personal income tax’
Published: 2010/09/14 07:26:30 AM
LAST month, the African National Congress (ANC) released an economic policy document for discussion at next week’s national general council meeting. Today, the Congress of South African Trade Unions ( Cosatu) will release its new document, Growth Path Towards Full Employment. But in the meantime, it has fired an opening salvo in the economic policy debate with a 14-page response to the ANC’s discussion paper that welcomes it but goes on to savage it in a deluge of jargon.
Perhaps the workers who are members of Cosatu unions will make sense of the document. I found much of it incomprehensible. What caught my eye, though, were the comments on fiscal policy.
Cosatu’s economists criticise the ANC’s for neglecting fiscal policy and for saying it has been “counter-cyclical”. This is wrong, says Cosatu. And it has a point, though probably not the point it is trying to make.
Economists such as the Harvard panel that advised the government have argued that SA’s budget was not nearly counter- cyclical enough, at least until the past year or two. When the Asian crisis hit in the late 1990s, the government cut spending, making the downturn worse. Then, when the boom took off in the 2000s, the government ramped up spending, adding to the economic froth, and though it did run a 1% fiscal surplus at the peak of the boom, that surplus should arguably have been as high as 4%-5%.
Finally, however, when the recession hit in late 2008, the government did stick to its spending plans, even though revenue plummeted, helping to lessen the effects of the downturn by letting the deficit jump.
Cosatu’s economists seem not to be satisfied with countering the cycle in that way. But in any event, they want much more. They want a deficit that is structurally (permanently) much higher. And they want a more redistributive budget, with a more progressive tax policy.
Has Cosatu been looking at a different budget all these years? It certainly doesn’t sound like the one with which we’re familiar, which is already highly redistributive.
The first point to make is that SA already has a tax system that is steeply progressive.
For a start, we are highly taxed as a society, with a ratio of tax to gross domestic product that is exceptionally high by the standards of emerging market countries and fairly high even compared with many developed economies.
But then there’s the tax system itself, which does take from the rich (and the middle classes) to give to the poor. The top 1% of individual taxpayers pay more than 20% of personal income tax. And there are no more than about 40000 individuals in that bracket (earning more than R1m), so it’s hard to imagine that the government could extract much more money from them, even if it raised rates — all that would do is persuade those people to hire fancier tax consultants and move their money to tax havens.
And it’s not just the “super-rich” who pay . The top 8% of individuals, those with incomes of R400000 or more, contribute 51% of SA’s personal income tax. And they don’t get a lot in return from the government, since most of them will also be paying for private healthcare, education and security.
Economist Dawie Roodt has estimated they pay nearly R5 in tax for every R1 of benefits they receive from the state (the figure for those earning more than R1m is closer to R17).
At the other end of the scale are the millions of working people who pay no tax at all on their incomes because the threshold for income tax is set quite high, at R57000 a year. They do pay value added tax, but even that is quite progressive because of the exemptions on staple foods.
The second point is that on the spending side too, fiscal policy is strongly redistributive, with SA said to have one of the world’s most “pro-poor” budgets. About 60% of the budget goes on social spending in areas such as social grants, health, education and housing.
A study by University of Stellenbosch economist Servaas van der Berg found that the government’s social spending was unusually well targeted at the poor, with “fiscal discrimination” eliminated and benefits having shifted significantly over the years from white to black and from richer to poorer. Between 2000 and 2006, the increase in social spending per person was almost three times as large for the poorest 40% of the population as it was for the richest 20%.
Much of this was the result of deliberate policies to increase transfers to poor households — social grant spending has increased particularly quickly in recent years — but some, unfortunately, was simply because the quality of public services was so bad that anyone who could afford to pay for their own healthcare or education went private.
The inefficiency of the public sector is a key reason, as Van der Berg points out, why outcomes are still so unequal, even though so much public spending is targeted at poor households. At this stage, improving the quality of the public services that are provided would do far more to improve the quality of life for the poor than spending more of the budget on them.
As it is, the government’s ability to shift more resources to grants or infrastructure for poor communities is constrained because of the weight of the public sector wage bill, which in the latest year consumed 47c of every R1 the government raised in revenue, up from 35c three years ago.
The latest settlement will see pay continue to loom large in the mix of government spending. And though Cosatu clearly doesn’t believe the government needs to be too careful to keep the deficit under control, it might want to think about what that means for policy more broadly.
Foreign investors have been piling into SA’s bond markets this year because, like other emerging markets, the yields we can offer are so much higher than the US or Europe. But the trend has also been driven by the fact that we have so many bonds to sell. Those foreign inflows are a big reason why the rand has strengthened.
But Cosatu is convinced that what we need for growth and jobs is a weak rand. So if it wants that, it might want to think again about fiscal policy.
- Joffe is senior associate editor.
THE “BRAVE” ASMAL
“Stung by the communist party boss’s castigation of him for keeping quiet during the period of Mbeki’s Aids denialism, Asmal called Nzimande “an unreconstructed bigot” who tried to silence anyone who disagreed with him and “turn every issue in South Africa into a political position that he holds”.
“Asmal admitted to his close friends that cowardice had kept him from speaking out about Aids. There is little doubt that his cabinet career would have been terminated if he had, and he believed the country needed him.”
Later, when he called Matthias Rath, the vitamin salesman and Aids denialist friend of health minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, a quack and told him to “voetsek”, Asmal was left to foot the inevitable legal bill when he was sued.”
http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/2011/06/26/asmal-s-brave-proud-legacy
He complained privately that Mbeki never once consulted him about education and was wounded by Mbeki’s rough interrogation of him at cabinet meetings.
In 2004 Mbeki phoned him up, said he heard he was sick, told Asmal there was a need to make room for someone younger and that he had decided not to reappoint him.
The former president may have been irritated by Asmal’s tendency to overstate his successes – the improbably high matric pass rates he announced to an increasingly sceptical public being one example – but Asmal suspected there was more of a history to his dismissal.
When Mbeki made his acclaimed 1996 speech “I am an African”, Asmal asked him if he had written it himself. He believed the thin-skinned Mbeki never forgave him.