Why are South Africans in Tokoza, Diepsloot, Mashishing, Emalahleni, Simile and other townships across the country protesting “poor service delivery” by blockading roads with rocks and burning tyres and throwing stones at police? The government seems to be at a loss. It has commissioned a report on these “service delivery protests”, and has decided to audit elected local councillors and municipalities to try and stem the tide.
Pardon me for being a party-pooper, but I would be shocked and surprised if these steps – while sincere and laudable – will bring and end to the protests.
And although the announcement that the ANC is beefing up its constituency offices so that its elected representatives can better respond to the needs of the voters who elected them is to be applauded, this move on its own will not make much of a difference either. This is because in my opinion these protests are the result not of technical or technocratic problems around “service delivery”, but rather because of larger problems in our society and our political discourse.
Surely it is far too simplistic to say the protests may be the result of an ANC plot - as Helen Zille stupidly suggested. And it is also far to easy to blame Thabo Mbeki and – like Sipho Seepe – to suggest that local councillors are perceived as part of the previous Mbeki regime and protesters are therefore protesting against Mbeki.
I suspect the protests are at least partly caused by the fact that we live in a deeply divided society, a society in which the ever increasing gap between rich and poor is exacerbated by the neo-liberal economic policies of the government. This means rich and poor receive vastly and scandalously different services and opportunities. Rich people can send their kids to good schools, live in clean and leafy suburbs and have access to streetlights, tarred roads, clean water, electricity (well, most of the time) and all the other municipal services that money can buy.
It seems obscene that in the middle class suburb where I live, the City Council regularly sends workers to sweep the streets and collect the falling leaves while a few kilometers away people do not have access to clean water and live in shacks. The kind of justifiable resentment bred by such glaringly obvious injustice will eventually boil over unless people feel that something is really being done about it.
The government, of course, knows this and is committed to improving the lives of poor South Africans. But because the ANC is the only viable governing party and because the ANC-run government is one of the few profitable employers for people who do not have high end skills, or do not wish to “fit in” with the dominant Western culture (or have too much dignity to do so), nepotism and corruption in appointments is inevitable and thus often result in the appointment of spectacularly unqualified and heartless individuals to important positions at municipal level. The result is that services deteriorate for those who do not have the wealth to contract out of the public system and those affected see the wealth of the white elite and the wealth of the well-connected public officials and they get bloody angry.
All this would have still been okay if the government was less technocratic and more democratic. It seems to me the enormity of the task of transforming South Africa has led the government to exactly the wrong conclusion, namely, that in order to effect change clever people in government offices had to devise plans, listen to consultants and then had to implement “service delivery” in accordance with these plans – regardless of what people really wanted.
“We as the ANC have liberated you from apartheid and now we will liberate you from poverty,” the government seems to think. This grandiose but delusional elite-driven governance is perfectly illustrated by the N2 Gateway Housing Project. With the best of intentions the government decided to “upgrade” the Joe Slovo settlement. Some clever official devised a plan in terms of which the residents of Joe Slovo would be moved to Delft, 15 kilometers and a R10 taxi ride away, and new houses would be built in Joe Slovo for an emerging lower middle class clientele. The officials just forgot to actually ask the members of the Joe Slovo community if this was what they really wanted. The results have been disastrous.
As Steven Friedman pointed out this morning, the government seems to confuse “service delivery” with “public service”:
Public service, by contrast, starts from the recognition that, in a democracy, the government’s job is not to “deliver” to citizens. It is, rather, to listen to them, to do what the majority asks, if that is possible, and, where it is not, to work with citizens to ensure that what is done is as close to what they want as it can be. It stems from the core democratic idea that government works for citizens and that it cannot do this unless it listens to them.
The protesters are demanding public service, not delivery. While the causes of the protests differ from area to area, in every case people want to be heard and to be taken seriously. The protesters are saying that they are citizens with rights and that they insist on being treated accordingly.
In some cases, people do want cleaner water or better neighbourhoods. But that does not mean they want officials to “deliver” to them. A study of people who benefited from government housing subsidies in the 1990s found that those who had larger and better houses were not more satisfied than the rest: the only people who were happy were those who said they had been able to choose their housing type. The beneficiaries were saying that they did not want the houses officials thought they should have, even if they were technically “better” — they wanted the houses that they chose.
Constant claims that citizens want “service delivery” are antidemocratic because they deny citizens a voice: reporters and commentators do not have to listen to what protesters are saying, they can decide for them what they do not like.
What we need is a more democratic and responsive state, not one fixated on numbers and targets. We need a state that not only believes its slogan of Bathopele – people first – but also follows it. Of course, such an approach would remove much of the power from the elected officials and government apparatchiks and lower their status and would make it more difficult to justify the need for their fancy cars and inflated salaries.
But until we have more democracy and less technocratic centralism, people will continue to protest, burn tyres and throw stones at police.
In the ‘green and leafy’ suburb where I live, the city council collects rubbish (although not this week) .
The rest is done by the residents. Sweeping of anything by the municipality has not been seen for the longest time. Picking up leaves………well, that is done by the residents ………no postal delivery either……..get a post box or die……
afri-forum reported this afternoon that a former municipal official, discharged from the Bloemfontein office due to corruption, has recently been employed/reinstated at Sannieshof[north west province]. Currently, the Sannieshof community plans to launch action in terms of s24[constitution]. This comes as a result of no accessibility to clean water.
Now, I agree with Prof that we should have more democracy to adhere to the actual needs of the people, but surely democratic functionaries will provide for the baby steps to get there?
I agree with Pierre de Vos that the protests can be explained, inter alia, by the deep inequality that characterises our society, and the fact that (some of) the municipal appointments were not made on the basis of merit. I also concur with Steven Friedman’s analysis – a good one, indeed.
But I disagree with the attempt to attack people on that what they did NOT say or imply. Helen Zille’s statement was made on 5 May 2009 and did not refer to the current wave of protest. And Sipho Seepe’s article dealt with the form and stridency f the protest by describing four features thereof. Nowhere did he state that the protesters are protesting against Mbeki.
C’ mon
“Fourth, it is possible that local councillors are perceived as part of the previous Mbeki regime — a consequence of holding the local, provincial and national elections at different times. Most of the anger seems directed at the municipal level. In this regard, one cannot discount suggestions of rank opportunism, in which those who did not make it to the provincial and national lists are positioning themselves for the next municipal elections” Seepe in Business Day, 29 July 2009
I thought that the problems in the North West have a lot to do with the above.
Maybe this debate will eventually lead to something truly great. The meaning of democracy… We are very quick on our rights, but not so sharp on our responsibilities. We continuously expect government to change although they have ardently shown that they will not. Is it not akin to insanity to get on the same dead horse over and over again and then expect it to get up and run? How stupid are we really? If you continuously vote for the same troop then violence is probably the only way to get what you want, but if you take your vote away from the source of the problem it could lead to peaceful and rapid change. It seems like basic democratic math.
Apparently, and this is very enlightening, the ANC is the only viable governing party. In my mind, their track record seems to violently oppose the word viable. Do not get me wrong, I think that most politicians in this country are false, but the DA have taken some cost cutting steps to show their “commitment” to progress. It is probably has a very pronounced element of vote securing, but in the end it has a positive effect on the province and if the voters continuously hold them to this behaviour it could lead to something really big. On the other hand the only viable governing party is going ahead and spending precious tax money on the most ludicrous of luxuries without the fear of retribution from their supporters.
Democracy is about the people and in the most basic terms, you get exactly what you vote for. From “The Splintering Rainbow – Al Jazeera” it seems that the voters have no expectations when it comes to the only viable governing party; they keep on voting for them because the politicians seem to love them. To now turn around and demand change is preposterous. Protesting about the squalor that you voted for is pathetic to say the least. The only viable governing party is predictable in their actions. The failures in our so-called democracy come from the source of democratic power – the people!
Prof Pierre,
Maybe you’re spectacularly uninformed about the depth of the service delivery protests.
You seem to imply that it is only the poor and/or Blacks that are protesting. That’s not true.
You like to forget, for example, the [ White ] people of Sannieshof. And Colesberg. And Heilbron. There are 100′s of towns all over the country where the [more affluent] people are witholding municipal fees because of lack of basic services. They’re protesting in other ways.
The cause is racial based Affirmative Action. It is simply, simply a matter of the cronies deployed by the ANC who cannot and/ or are too lazy to, do the jobs. It is as simple as that.
Henri please dont be ignorant by confusing AA and the appointment of cronies. Regardless of Affirmative Action this is done anyway. It was done under Apartheid and it is done under this government. You would be suprised at how many countries have the same problem to a greater or lesser extent than South Africa. AA & BEE are not disappearing anytime soon.
The problem in municipalities is that no one is held accountable, there is a lack of transparency in operations and the people who are the clients dont have much power to hold those in the municipalities up to their demands. The one party hegemony of the ANC is like a giant monkey on the backs of our democracy dragging us down. The ANC government has worked hand in hand with Apartheid organisations in reaping the wealth of the country and filling their own bellies. It so ridiculous how much money flows around this country and you still find people living in squalor. Im not a communist but I strongly believe that we do need a social revolution in this country.
Can we have some discussion of the 17th constitutional amendment bill recently tabled that increases the power of the centre over provinces and municipalities – an ANC plot to stay in power?
I live in a small town in the Eastern Cape with 87% unemployment. Our two ANC councilors earn R 15000 per month and for that, are required to work half-days. Our PR councilor was fired from the municipality for stealing R 40000, but was then “deployed” by the ANC as a councilor, quite possibly as a result of her ongoing affair with the Mayor.
We have a large coloured population who live in dire poverty, filth and squalor, while our smaller black populace receive municipal work, have their streets kept clean by the municipality, have better lighting, have easier access to housing and better service delivery. Poor whites are entirely marginalised.
Prof, this article is accurate in one regard – The ANC’s response to any and all issues in our town, is to hold meetings. And many of these are characterised by no-shows by the councilors. In fact, our councilor missed one important meeting because he was still busy brewing his sorghum beer. Nothing gets done, nothing is followed up on and they continue to rake in their money every month. How quickly the ANC have moved from a “liberation movement” to a “bureaucracy” hell-bent on uplifting only its bureaucrats.
Let’s face it, the real essence of our current ruling party is that they do not care about the people of this country. They care about amassing personal wealth, driving flashy cars, riding on the Blue Train and “showing off” their power while their fellow citizens are starving, dying from lack of adequate medical care and without necessary services to enable themselves to be uplifted.
To me, the ANC are not dissimilar to the Catholic Church. Keep the people poor and uneducated and they might not notice that they are actually being used and exploited to build the wealth and power of the “ruling” elite.
Charlotte A // Jul 30, 2009 at 12:20 am
Democracy is a farce and failed system hence why you have demo in the wording it is a demo system.
Through out history we have had a monarch, kings, princes, queens and so on and over time it changed from monarchy to democracy which involves no more or less than a hereditary monopoly “caretakers”.
Both systems produce bad kings or bad presidents.
A King because he “owns” the monopoly and may sell or bequeath it, will care about the repercussions of his actions on capital values.
A president does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is permitted to use it to his advantage. That includes short sighted explotation.
The selection of government rulers by means of popular elections makes it essentially impossible for a harmless or decent person to ever rise to the top.
Hence, democracy virtually assures that only dangerous men will rise to the top of government.
It results in continually increased taxes, paper money and paper money inflation, an unending flood of legislation, and a steadily growing “public” debt.
Democracy leads to lower savings, increased legal uncertainty, moral relativism, lawlessness, and crime.
Democracy is a tool for wealth and income confiscation and redistribution.
Democracy involves the legislative “taking” of the property of some – the haves of something – and the “giving” of it to others – the have-nots of things. This means something valuable is systematically reduced. In other words, the proportion of not-so-good people and not-so-good personal traits, habits, and forms of conduct and appearance will increase, and life in society will become increasingly unpleasant
Democracy is described as resulting in a radical change in the conduct of war. eg via tax
Democracy has transformed the limited wars of kings into total wars
Is there an alternative?
Yes its called the Nature order
Every scarce resource, including all land, is owned privately
Every enterprise is funded by voluntarily paying customers or private donors, and entry into every line of production, including that of property protection, conflict arbitration, and peacemaking, is free
Democracy disarms their citizens hence high crime rights
A natural Order is armed citizens
In a Natural Order insurance companies become defensive agencies
A natural order will help with racism because in a democracy you have been stripped of your right of right to exclusion and been replaced by “forced intergration” by policies like affirmative action, and multiculturalist policies. In a natural order the right to exclusion inherent in the very idea of private property is restored to private property owners.
Natural order is distinctly un-egalitarian: “elitist,” “hierarchical,” “proprietarian,” “patriarchical,” and “authoritorian,” and its stability depends essentially on the existence of a self conscious natural voluntarily acknowledged aristocracy
I tend to agree with the views advanced by both the Professor and also Steven Friedman: people would be more inclined to stop protesting if governmental efforts cleaved more closely to what the citizens said they want. Occurences such as the shameful Joe Slovo upgrading – and concomitant relocation – sugget that the present ruling party seems to be quite paternalistic.
Samantha, I would agree with you. The ANC talks a fine speech (at least its speeches are fine enough for people disinclined from interogating them). But to me the ANC, at the core of it, is really about benefitting an elite at the expense of the citizenry.
Charles Scheepers // Jul 30, 2009 at 7:44 am
Maybe this debate will eventually lead to something truly great. The meaning of democracy…
sorry my post (Chris Mcdaniel // Jul 30, 2009 at 9:08 am) was actually directed at you
Pierre, you, and most contributors, are missing the more fundamental problem. Even the most efficient, honest, affirmative action-free administration would have not the remotest chance of addressing the huge inequalities to which you rightly point,
The ANC, in documents like the Freedom Charter, and during election campaigns, makes utterly unattainable promises that would entail a huge redistribution of wealth. But the ANC is also pragmatic enough to know that, if there was such an economic revolution, what remains of skilled labour would disappear, there would be a massive capital flight, and the economy would collapse. Moreover, the longer that AA and BEE (neither of which help the poor), are implemented, the bigger the stake ANC crony-capitalists develop in the economic status quo.
So, the ANC’s glowing promises remain unimplemented, whites remain very comfortable, and the poor become poorer. No wonder they are angry. That anger will not abate so long as the ANC continues to make promises (500,000 jobs by the end of the year!), that it knows it cannot keep,
I am not saying this problem is unique to ANC rule. The DA is less extravagant in its irresponsible promises. But in the very remote event that it ever took power, the DA would face the same fundamental dilemma: Only a socialist style re-distribution would placate the poor. Yet such a policy would swiftly precipitate complete economic collapse.
No one I know has ever proposed a way out of this mess.
I do not really want to engage in the debate about the causes of the current wave of protest action, where ‘poor service delivery’ is targeted. I can however place a few facts on the table pertaining to the situation in one of the municipalities struck by people on the rampage since I have first-hand knowledge of the history here, and people can then decide for themselves.
The local Mayor of the one town (an esteemed ANC cadre) became the Speaker of the local authority combining a few towns a few years after the first democratic elections at local authority level. The Mayor thereafter became a mere figure-head, while the political power in the local authority appeared to be vested in the office of Speaker. He was notorious for his hardhanded (overt and covert) action against all (even people from his own party structures) that dared cross him, and nepotism thrived under his rule. Eventually, after proper disciplinary action taken at both the local authority and party levels, he was amicably ‘dismissed’, in other words he was no longer to be the Speaker of the local authority, which is a fairly lucrative position. This resulted in his being ‘disgruntled’ and, rumour had it that he had joined COPE. These were however none other than rumours, since he has not publicly campaigned for COPE during the recent elections, and COPE did not fare well in this particular area.
After his dismissal, a few of his erstwhile ‘opposition’ entered the local authority arena, and a few Mayors of the municipality died during mysterious motor vehicle accidents. The current Mayor, however, is also notorious for her hard-handed action against anyone that crosses her, and nepotism thrives under her reign (the current Speaker being no more than a mere figure-head) – her close family members all have lucrative positions in the municipality and businesses in the area under protection of the municipality.
However, service delivery under her remained as poor as under the reign of the previous local authority regime. (Less than 5% of the budget has been spent on servicing and upgrading infrastructure.) Someone did, however, during the election period make mention of her, at a polling station, bragging to one of tthe officials that the ANC is going to win big because they have vigorously campaigned that all their supporters will receive social grants and housing, whereas those who do not vote ANC would not. She also said that they will utilize the same tactics during next year’s local government elections. At the time, the blogger was lambasted on this very blog that she underestimated or insulted the intelligence, honesty and support of the voters by saying that such false campaigning had something to do with the landslide victory of the ANC in this area.
A few days after the last elections, some money (a fairly large amount) mysteriously disappeared from the bank accounts of the municipality concerned, and even forensic auditors could not later trace and reclaim everything from the bank acounts into which the money was deposited.
Then entered the erstwhile Speaker, who then mobilized society with a story that, the increases that local authorities will be levying countrywide as a result of electricity price increases approved for Eskom, are actually not inceases levied for that purpose, but are intended to refund the large amount of money that went missing.
The heads of the Mayor, Municipal Manager and a few others were sought during often violent protest actions spreading from the one town in the municipality to the other. And, when the Mayor refused to resign, and the Premier refused to act against the local authority, the protest actions became more violent by the day. All under the guise of protesting poor service delivery. Power backouts were blamed on the Mayor’s brother, who is the Council’s top electrical engineer. Houses have been burned, tyres set alight, roads barricaded, people prevented to go to work or even to town for shopping, learners prevented from attending schools and, when the guy behind it all was eventually arrested, all hell broke loose, and tyres were burned even at the court house, so as to demand the guy’s release.
There are a few other incidents that still can be related, but we do not need a very lengthy discussion to show that, in this area, it is not resentment towards poor service delivery in the poorer areas of the towns concerned that sparked the whole issue, but rather people with a political agenda, on the one hand promissing better service delivery without being able to provide it, and on the other hand, political infighting capitalizing on this whole issue. This kind of protest then spread to other areas, all jumping on the same bandwagon of ‘poor service delivery’.
I think an audit is a good idea, as long as the goal thereof is honest and government has the political will to put an end to empty (false) promises of service delivery, political infighting within ANC ranks and nepotism. In other words, the political will to ration the gravy for those on the train, by visibly improving service delivery and becoming accountable to the electorate.
Michael, it is difficult to argue with your contention that the government seems to face an impossible choice: Vigorously redistribute wealth which might cause the economy to collapse on the one hand or muddle along by trying (unsuccessfully) to keep as many people happy as possible on the other. But you seem to be suggesting the most plausible solution: a more honest and democratic approach in which government admits it cannot do everything it wants to do, engage with communities by saying this is the money we have and this is what we hope to achieve, now what would you want us to do with the limited funds available? This will not turn us into Switzerland or Sweden, but maybe into Brazil?
Prof,
Neo-liberal economic policies being blamed for service delivery issues? Hmm, clearly not a Professor of Economics. I would rather say that neo-liberal economic policies has not been implemented fully (or correctly) in South Africa which in turn has exacerbated the inequalities that was inherited post 94. Yes leafy suburbs are getting better services but then again they are also the ones paying for those services. Is that fair? Perhaps not. About 60% of local municipality budgets are being funded by old-Apartheid towns with 10% coming from the “location” and the rest from provincial and central government.
If we compare SA to countries based on neo-liberal economic policies like the UK and US, local service delivery is among the best in the world.
I would know I work for one of the (28) London municipalities.
The issue is that the ANC sees themselves as the liberators and thus not really accountable to the people that voted them in.
Claiming that the ANC government “is committed to improving the lives of poor South Africans” is another fallacy. All the ANC stands for is looting tax payers’ money.
In 1st world countries and pre ’94 the local municipalities’ budget is usually 20% for staff salaries whereas in South Africa-post 94 60% goes on staff salaries with most of the 60% being used to pay elected officials. In the UK the elected officials don’t even get a salary but just an allowance of about £500pm.
The big issue here is that people do not vote according to the performance of the party they’ve elected. Ask most of the people rioting if they voted ANC during the election they would say yes. How daft is that? If the party running the municipality is not performing the people should vote them out. That is why democracy works. But in South Africa we have a façade pretending to be democracy.
@ Michael,
While I agree in certain respects with your posting, as to the immense problems facing the ANC, I disagree that there are no solutions. This merely allows the ANC to throw their hands up in despair, blame apartheid and continue to line their own pockets.
Where they have enough money to spend R 46million on renovating King’s House using imported sanitaryware, or to spend R 5.5million on the Durban City’s website, or R 1.7million on luxury vehicles for MP’s, they do not have enough money to provide basic services. This is unjustifiable.
There are more than enough capable people who can take few resources and solve big problems. The problem is that these resources are being used frivolously and for the enrichment of the ANC elite.
In addition, the ANC consistently fail to deliver on their promises. As soon as they are caught out, they develop a “new” strategy which their Public Relations team “sell” to the unsuspecting public. These new strategies are nothing more than re-named projects which are doomed to failure through lack of interest, implementation or competent management – think RDP to GEAR as an example.
In those small towns where ratepayers are withholding their rates from the muncipality and utilising them themselves to provide their own service delivery, things function properly and effectively.
Lack of resources is not the problem – it is lack of interest, incompetence and corruption that is the problem.
Samantha // Jul 30, 2009 at 11:05 am
“Lack of resources is not the problem – it is lack of interest, incompetence and corruption that is the problem”
Could not have said it better myself.
Um Michael there a solution to this whole mess
like I said its called “The Natrual order”, the whole idea is based around private property and to restore to private property owners.
socialist style re-distribution would not placate the poor or benefit society A larger quantity of a good is valued more highly than a smaller quantity of the same good. re disribution reduces value and still does not benefit society.
Property and property titles are distinct entities, and an increase of the latter without a corresponding increase of the former does not raise social wealth.
Once the principle of government uses judicial monopoly and the power to tax – is incorrectly accepted as just, any notion of restraining government power and safeguarding individual liberty and property is an illusion.
The solution is this an outright abolition of government, with private, competing organizations assuming its few genuinely useful functions. Insurance companies could protect against crime and invasion, just as they do against natural disasters. also that in the absence of government, natural aristocrats would arise to arbitrate contract disputes between citizens.
This I believe is the the way out the mess, You dont need a government and you dont need to be taxed to death for it
The right to private property is a principle of ethics and the `basis for continual optimal economic progress.
natural order is also refered to ordered anarchy, private property anarchism, anarcho-capitalism,private law society, and pure capitalism.
This is the future a state-less social system with freely financed insurance agencies serving as competitive providers of law and order.
Indubitably there is the problem of government dictating what people should want instead of listening to people but the issues go far beyond that. My perceptions (and I admit that they are perceptions because I have never studied the subject in any real depth) are that the core problems are -
1. The capacity for delivery has to a large extent been destroyed. The manner of BEE implementation is part of this: the focus on transferring jobs to achieve a reflection of racial demographics as opposed to transferring skills and capabilities (a far more arduous and long term task but the only real way to create the human structural element required). This is why so often budget components for service delivery remain unspent. Until we solve the intellectual capital problem, every else is simply noise.
2. An expectation created but not met. Part of this goes back to the expectations of liberation, part of it to promises made but not delivered upon since then. The poor have been exceptionally patient.
3. An entrenched mindset of entitlement and expectation that government must provide. The so-called “slave psychology” where the weight of new freedom and responsibility for self are more than can be borne. Government is as much to blame for this as anyone else. But to a certain extent the citizenry are also to blame. There seems to be an unwillingness or inability to create and implement a self-help plan within the communities. It is not unique to South Africa but it does seem to permeate our society.
It has been said that every nation has the government it deserves and also that every revolution ultimately eats its own children. I am not sure if that is applicable here but I do sometimes wonder if it isn’t.
Pierre, call me a cynic, but I fear you place too much faith in democratic politics and consultation. In a democracy, sectoral interests are invariably rapacious rent-seekers. (See Public Choice theory.)
Ask stockholders in mining houses what they “want”. Naturally, they seek low taxes, minimal regulation, etc, and other policies that they believe serve their short term interests. Ask people in Squatter Camp A what they “want.” They too will demand that which they see as maximising their short term interests – and if that means sacrificing the interests of those in Squatter Camp B, or those that have been on the waiting list for years, so be it.
I do not share your faith that reasoned discourse, appeals to values, ubuntu etc. will induce sectoral interests to sacrifice their perceived needs in favour of the “public good” — which is always a nebulous, highly contested thing anyway.
Like you, I viscerally dislike authoritarianism. But frankly non-democratic regimes like Vietnam (about which you wrote last year), which do not spend much time consulting , and pay workers a dollar a day to stitch running shoes for rich Americans, are more likely to uplift their people economically than we are. Tragically, our rights-rich Constitution may end up condemning the masses to poverty, while countries like Vietnam join China at the top of a new world economic order.
Will the African poor then draw comfort from the spirit of Nkrumah, and say: “I would rather starve on my feet than live on my knees”?
Samatha, I think you are naive to say that lack of resources are not the problem.
By all means, scrap every stadium, make every Minister to drive a Kia. Yet the savings yielded would not begin to address the vast inequality..
There are only two possible solutions. Massive redistribution. (A very , very short term answer.) Or unattainably high economic growth.
Michael // Jul 30, 2009 at 11:54 am
Unattainably high economic growth I would say is the answer. But this would require strong implementation of neo-liberal economic policies with frim grip on inflations. Thatcherism 101
And as we already know from people like Prof and (dare I say it) Malema, this is a no go. Most South Africans would ‘expects’ massive redistribution (aka nationalisation)
Michael // Jul 30, 2009 at 11:54 am
Massive redistribution. (A very , very short term answer.)
is not going to work your economy will go down doesnt matter how short term it is it will have a negative effect
this is what you do for the poor mass, give them property rights dont shack them up in RPD houses, shack them up in houses that give enough land for micro farming and they can be governed by a private law society then they are producing what happens your economy goes up.
Mass redistribution of wealth is not the answer
I don’t think that service delivery is directly related with accelerated wealtyh redistribution. these are two separate issues that shouyld be dealt with by the different organs of the state. they need to listen intently to what the people are crying about and be able to delineate these ills, and only then can they get the best manpower to tackle these issues. It is about time!
Chris, I have to agree.
It is simply going to wreck the capital component of the means of production in the economy. Also, it will ensure capital and investor flight. For a very short window the poor will be better off and after that far worse. This is exactly what has happened in the Zimbabwean context. It is entirely akin to eating the flock of breeding stock.
I come back to what I say: our problem is less one of a lack of the physical capital component than one of the human intellectual capital component. The flight of intellectual capital from this country has already caused enormous damage which is going to be very difficult to recoup. To add to that we have the massive backlog of developing our people. Until we effectivley address this issue we can solve nothing of substance. Today’s world is built primarily on knowledge capital. We cannot effectively compete without a lot more of it.
CD
“Today’s world is built primarily on knowledge capital. We cannot effectively compete without a lot more of it.”
Im a firm believer in pure capitalism thats why I love the Idea of Natural order.
Government is the beggest problem to social chaos. Think about it what do you need a government for?
If we take for example insurance companies, south africa has one of the best insurance companies and policies there is but yet the police service is one of the worest in the world and crime extremely high
now an insurance company is now changed to a defence agency that is privatized and functions on captialism policies you create compatition and guess what crime goes down.
The same can be said about enterprise law
what about the poor? as I mentioned Private law society. give the poor land they have a right to property and privatized property. Have the poor start for example micro farming, it is only natural that a group will form out of that to farm on a bigger scale.
imagin a cluster of micro farms inplace of RPD houses spreed across south africa. The poor are now self employed, they own there own land and its up to them to sell there products on the international stage provided how big they become.
All government will do is just tax them….get rid of government
what happens if you get rid of government on a racial front? you want have issues of what color a person should rule this country? what color a political party should be and which ethinic group a political party is fronting for.
Chris Mcdaniel // Jul 30, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Chris, as a neo-liberal capitalist I see your point, but only in a pure theoretical view. The same why the theory goes that supply & demand is 100% efficient with no slack or wastage, only true in pure economic theory.
But unfortunately we live in the real world and I for one would NEVER suggest the removal of social welfare or governments altogether.
For instance, take your example and everybody owns the piece of land the live on with micro farming. What will happen when a drought hits? All of a sudden micro farming or farming at all would not be able to fall back on state support. Or say one of the people living on his/her piece of land falls ill? There is all of a sudden no state support…
No no no, what SA needs is not radical. Just simple politicians that have the best interest of the people that elected them in mind instead of their own. Unfortunately that requirement rules out the ANC.
George Gildenhuys // Jul 30, 2009 at 3:26 pm
you need to think outside the box.
of course its natural to have government in place , no society has ever lived with out one in some since, so its only natural to resist against an idea or new world order like that, you need to also remember im telling you, u need to make the switch between the 2 systems like straight away something like this will take time and it is predicted the US will go down that road of a Natural order, since social order is becoming a problem.
When i talk about micro farming im not just talking about cows and potatos, think solar energy micro windfarms, solar heated electricity, think bio foals.
If there is a drought or a natrual disaster you have insurance companies already inplace for that, i dont see the problem there already??
it doesnt need to fall on state support you have insurance companies, you just pick one who has the best polices eg social welfare
Ive already explained to you the system of democracy will always elect people who will do more bad than good.
democracy disarms there citizens that social order rendering you defenseless against crime…
Natrual order arms citizens
“politicians that have the best interest of the people ” and you think thats not radical?
if government must stay, then strip government of power and just use the basic functioning power and allow these institutes to be free.
george think out the box
Michael:
There is one obvious (to me–maybe others can come up with more) counter example to your equation of non-democratic authoritarianism as the only route to long tern economic growth–India.
(And it isn’t enough to point out that China has grown faster for longer–your argument is that consultative, democratic, participatory government isn’t capable of long term, massive economic growth–that long term massive economic growth requires an authoritarian government, like Singapore, China, S. Korea, Chile, etc.–and that democracy can come later–the Lee Kuan Yew argument on “Asian Values”)
So, if India can do it, why not South Africa?
@ Michael,
Perhaps I am somewhat naive. However, there exists in this country a wealth of resources that are being plundered or under-utilised.
For example, in my town of +/- 10 000 people, we have 3 primary schools, an intermediate school and a high school. While the primary schools appear to be functioning effectively, there are ongoing problems with our high school. Last year we had a matric pass rate of 18%. One of the critical areas of failure, was in Biology for the Afrikaans-speaking children. A post was advertised for a Biology teacher. (Although dual-medium, the school is 80% Afrikaans and an English-speaking Biology teacher is in place). The SGB followed statutory guidelines and presented the Education Department with a list of potential candidates in order of preference, with the most preferred being a coloured (Afrikaans-speaking) teacher from within the community. The Department of Education ignored the recommendation and appointed a Black teacher, from another town who cannot speak Afrikaans.
Sport at the school is non-existent, although the town has a rugby field, tennis courts and netball courts. The only thing missing is teachers who are willing to go the extra mile and coach these kids. The current teachers refuse to do any coaching as they do not get paid extra for it.
In other words, our town has adequate physical resources to ensure that the children receive an excellent, holistic education. What is lacking is political will to ensure that the correct people are in place to ensure this outcome.
We also have an outstanding state-aided hospital, with superb nursing staff, who have just been informed that the state will not be increasing their salaries or providing the back-pay that they had promised last year. We have the physical and manpower resources to run a brilliant hospital, but the lack of political will to ensure that this status quo is retained.
Those are merely two examples of where the current government are NOT utilising existing resources to improve the lives of the citizens of this country.
Our problems are immense, but many can be easily solved. It just requires the will of those who wield the power to see to it that it happens.
PM, please back and read my post again.
I did not say that authoritarianism was the “only route” to long term economic growth. I said that Vietnam was “more likely” to bring economic uplift. (It would obviously be foolish to claim that the authoritarian route was the only one: cf. U.S.A.; Botswana; Italy.)
I accept that India is encouraging. I offer three caveats though:
1. India remains massively unequal. Bangalore is the glittering facade that covers hundreds of millions living in terrible poverty. Authoritarian regimes like China and Vietnam have, so it seems, been more successful in tackling absolute poverty than India.
2. I may be wrong in this, but my understanding is that India is nowhere close to SA in terms of administrative justice, consultation, participation, etc. It is true that the Indian Supreme Court courageously blocked the removal of the poor from the pavements on which they were sleeping in the 1980’s. But the Court has been cowed into relative quiescence since then.
3. Moreover, I do not believe that India’s lower courts are nearly as quick to check arbitrary administrative action, forced removals etc, as SA courts. But I have not studied this matter, so I cannot speak with any authority
I know not what you are saying. I am a very cold person (I’m told) and don’t see why the people who PAY for services should be denied them so that those who don’t pay, or pay much less, should get the same or similar services? Maybe the street sweepers are from the poor area and would die of embarrassment if they were seen sweeping their own streets…
The Independent on Sunday said: “Vincent Magwenya, the presidential spokesperson is quoted as saying Zuma would not be drawn into the debate over who would succeed Langa, but would listen to advice from Langa and the JSC before making a decision. ‘The rule book says that there is no provision for nomination to the position, it is purely a presidential appointment, made in conjunction with the outgoing chief justice and the JSC,’ he said. The Hlophe people called the Prof an airhead and a White Supremacist for making the same point. Is Magwenya also now a White Supremacist? Just asking.
A week ago, the DA launched a “Wasteful Expenditure Monitor” which records the unnecessary and wasteful spending of the government.
To date, they have already spent R 75.9million on frivolous things including:
R 11million by the Free State legislature on 11 new Mercedes Benz for the their MPL’s
R 7 million for the opening of the Free State legislature
R 796 003 on a new Mercedes Benz, including R 15000 of extras, for the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Based on current costs this R 75.9million could have built 1407 new RDP houses or paid the salaries for one year of 589 teachers.
To reiterate my point about the fact that there are sufficient resources in this country, let me quote our new Minister of Finance, Mr Pravin Gordhan, who said:
“Money is not the problem … it is how we spend the money. This has to improve. In several sectors, budgets have grown exponentially but outputs have not increased in tandem”.
At the risk of redundancy, service delivery in this country is less hampered by lack of resources than by lack of interest and a desire to self-serve.
Samantha, I agree of course that the huge waste of money entailed in corruption and bad public investment is a terrible shame, and everything possible should be done to curtail it.
But I still think your claim – and that of Mr Gordhan – that “resource are not the problem” does not take begin to take account of the enormity of the problem. A million here, a billion there; all but a tiny drop in a vast ocean.
Consider some rough calculations.
1. Assume 20 million people in South Africa live in poverty.
2. Assume further that we would like to give them a lift by giving each one a guaranteed income of R9,000 a month over two years. (This is a fairly conservative figure — AZT itself can cost R1000 a month – for life.)
3. My (bad) maths shows that the cost would be two trillion rand (200,000 per person times 20 million). (My calculations may well be out; I welcome corrections.)
4. SA’s GDP is about R250 billion. Let us assume that 25% of that goes in corruption and entirely unproductive public investment.
5. That would mean R62 billion rand a year could be saved by eliminating all corruption and entirely unproductive public investments..
6. If that is so, it would take 32 years of eliminating all corruption and entirely unproductive investment – just to give those in poverty two years of income at R9,000 a month.
Even if my figures are way off, I think they demonstrate that a massive shortage of resources – coupled with the fact that what resources there are concentrated largely in the hands of a small luck elite — is indeed the fundamental problem.
Michael:
I appreciate your effort to come up with some rough, back of the envelope calculations (and I have not gone over these in any way), but I think that there might be some confusion here–surely your argument should apply to total government expenditures, not to the Gross Domestic Product?
Even if there were 25% waste, etc., in the GDP, Government would not be able to fix that–GDP is, after all, a measure of TOTAL expenditures–government, individual (Samantha and Pierre, etc.) and business.
This is, or should be, a discussion about government expenditures, and the waste, fraud and corruption therein.
PM
PM, I used GDP because I think that Samantha also had in mind fruitless capital investment, a la Green Point Stadium, into which both public and private funds are sunk.
If the measure is indeed government expenditure, I suppose my point is all the stronger.
Absolutely, your point is even stronger.
Waste, fraud, corruption are maddening, and should be eliminated, but doing so will never be a cure all for the problems of a country or culture or government. They are best viewed as an indicator, not a solution.
On Jul 30, 2009 Henri wrote:-
>There are 100′s of towns all over the country where the
>[more affluent] people are witholding municipal fees
>because of lack of basic services. They’re protesting in
>other ways.
What is the ‘legal’ basis of their withholding ?
Have there been any Court decisions relating to withholding ?
And Samantha wrote:-
>In those small towns where ratepayers are withholding their
>rates from the muncipality and utilising them themselves to
>provide their own service delivery, things function properly
>and effectively.
I don’t understand how, when the municipal authority is the
monopolistic supplier of water and electricity, and must be
capable of levying taxes, eg. for road maintenance, how the
property owner CAN divorce himself from the tyranny of the
incompetent municipal authority ? Please explain.
———-
Related hereto, my previous post’s wrong email is now fixed:
}I seek such a competent attorney to finish an
}appeal, for which I’ve done the research, re. Ekuhuruleni LC
}who can work with email, rather than the SA-skaapie-method of
}`ry en praat’. Please contact — not labeas AT gmail.com , but
} lab.eas AT gmail.com. Thanks. LC=local council.