Mayor’s car defies logic

On Saturday a reader of the Daily Dispatch commented that the “strange logic of leaders defies common sense”. He might well have been referring to the mayor of Buffalo City Metro Zukiswa Ncitha who has splashed out R1.2-million on a Mercedes Benz SUV.

Her decision to buy a luxury vehicle is strange logic indeed, for two reasons.
First it suggests she is unaware of – or uncaring about – the extreme sensitivities the public has about officials and politicians splurging on luxury items and the damage this spending is doing to her government and party’s reputation. For example, a spending spree on cars by President Jacob Zuma’s cabinet in 2009 sparked such outrage and so embarrassed the ANC that a task team was set up to review ministerial spending. Then Finance Minister Trevor Manuel continues to apologise for his role in the debacle – a R1.2-million “error of judgment” – and Blade Nzimande wrecked his communist party credentials with a R1.1-million BMW 750i. Only Collins Chabane, beloved for driving a Volkswagen and his predecessor’s 4x4, and Pravin Gordhan, who bought a R557 000 Lexus, emerged with any honour.

At the time government attempted to defend itself saying the spending was within the limits set by the ministerial handbook, but critics pointed out that legally permissible did not translate into morally defensible. This argument remains valid and applies to the mayor’s new car.

The second reason her splurge is “strange logic” is because of its inflammatory effect on the public. Communities are no longer just moaning about their needs going unmet while government representatives and politicians ride the gravy train. The people are in open revolt. Almost daily some part of our country is aflame.

People are angry, not so much because they are poor, said University of Johannesburg deputy vice chancellor Adam Habib at a Daily Dispatch/University of Fort Hare Dialogue last week. Far worse poverty exists in other countries but it is not accompanied by extreme, violent protest. Rather, the rage manifesting in our townships, vineyards and mine compounds, is due to rising inequality and perceptions of what people are entitled to. To be clear, inequality is not so much about race, but class and who is getting what. If left unchecked the rising inequality will cause South Africa to burn, says Habib. 

This means the continual displays of excess at the public’s expense – the exorbitantly priced cars, the unnecessarily lavish hotel accommodation, the first class air tickets for politicians’ children and their au pairs – are fuelling the flames. Splurging is not just a slap in the face for the poor but a short sighted exercise that will further destabilise the country. Not common sense in anyone’s book.

This is the editor’s opinion as appeared in the Daily Dispatch, 28 January

FNB ad reaction highlights ANC’s undemocratic tendencies

It is never a good sign when an organisation or individual completely overreacts to perceived criticism. As the simmering discontent of South Africa’s underclass boils over into open revolt and violence and as corrupt shoot-to-kill cops are increasingly deployed in places as far flung as Marikana, De Doorns and Sasolburg to protect the old and new elites from the wrath of the dispossessed.

The hysterical and often undemocratic response of various ANC and SACP structures to the First National Bank (FNB) advertising campaign is a case in point.

The FNB campaign includes video clips of young South Africans apparently speaking their minds. In one of these a participant says: “Stop voting for the same government in hopes for change – instead, change your hopes to a government that has the same hopes as us.”

The ANCYL and SACP joined the ANC in slamming the campaign, with the league saying it was “deeply angered and disappointed” by the bank’s “treacherous” campaign. On Sunday, a youth league spokeswoman said FNB had failed in trying to “recreate an Arab Spring of some sort in South Africa” and said it “uses children to make unproven claims of a government rife with corruption. We call upon South Africans to close ranks against what is a treacherous attack on our country”.

ANC spokesman Jackson Mthembu said the ANC (which is never directly mentioned in any of the videos) was “appalled” by the campaign in which the ANC, its leadership and government were “under attack”. The campaign was an “undisguised political statement that makes random and untested accusations against our government in the name of discourse. While we believe people are entitled to their views, we don’t accept that young kids should be used as proxies to articulate political views espoused, as in the case of the FNB advertisement”. 

These vehement reactions to what appear to be rather mild criticisms of the government and platitudes about one’s right to vote for the party of one’s choice (widely accepted in any functioning democracy) are curious for several reasons. First, whatever one might think of FNB and its advertising campaign, the manner in which several ANC and SACP spokespersons conflated the ANC with the state and with the country is worrying. The ANC is not the state. Neither is it the sole representative of the South African people. South Africa, in the words of the Freedom Charter, belongs to all who live in it – it does not belong to the ANC. Like any political party, the ANC deserves to be praised when it does something well and to be criticised when it abandons the poor it professes to love and serve. Second, the statement that the FNB campaign is treacherous and tries to recreate the Arab Spring, is anti-democratic and proto-fascist. There is nothing wrong with telling people they should refrain from voting for the governing party. Voting for whomever one pleases is at the heart of political freedom in a democratic state. Every democratic election is based on fair and free contestation between political parties in which we are all allowed to express our preferences.

We are also all free to try to convince others to vote for the ANC, to vote for the DA, or to vote for any other party for that matter.

It is probably not a great business model for a bank to get involved in an advertising campaign that might alienate the majority of voters, but if it does, there is nothing treacherous about it. If FNB had not pulled the adverts I would have lauded the bank for putting its principles before naked profits. Unfortunately the bank caved into political thugs.

The Arab Spring refers to various uprisings organised by oppressed populations in countries where citizens did not enjoy political rights and where democratic contestation and free and fair elections could not be held. To refer to an advertising campaign in which a teenager urges people in South Africa to vote for the party of their choice as an attempt to recreate an Arab Spring, suggests the ANCYL believes South Africa is not a democracy, that its citizens are oppressed, do not enjoy political rights and that they will never be allowed to change the government by using their vote.

The ANCYL’s reaction is revealing rather more than it intended about its own undemocratic tendencies. Pity Mthembu will not display the same sense of outrage about this full-frontal attack on our democracy.

Whether one is a staunch ANC supporter or of the right wing Freedom Front Plus, if one supports democracy one will not be appalled that an institution has dared to criticise a political party. Only protofascists would be appalled by the fact that a bank has dared to broadcast statements criticising the government. Claiming the sentiments are treacherous or that it is not legitimate to criticise the party displays the kind of undemocratic intolerance that cannot be associated with a party that supports democracy.

It is always better to ignore attacks that are far-fetched or motivated by racism, hatred or a complete lack of information. If the criticism is serious, one either responds to it by pointing out why and how it is wrong, or one takes it on board and changes one’s behaviour. One does not tell those who criticise they are committing treason or that they are attacking the state merely because one happens (for the time being) to be the party of government.

The ANC reaction is a symptom of the fear and guilt that stalks the political class in South Africa. As Marikana, De Doorns and Sasolburg have shown, the poor, economically excluded and marginalised members of society have not benefited as handsomely from the end of apartheid as the members of the old (mostly white) and emerging (mostly black) middle classes.

While those in the chattering classes squabble about silly adverts made to promote the commercial interests of a big bank and argue whether these adverts exploit children, many of those same children are dropping out of school or receiving a third rate education because of the cowardice of politicians who are too scared to take on a powerful union.

The real issues to address during the Centenary Commemoration of the 1913 Land Act

2013 marks the Centenary of the 1913 Land Act. It is a date all South Africans should commemorate, in order to better understand this law’s tragic consequences, and find ways to make redress meaningful.

The 1913 Land Act was apartheid’s “original sin” because it reserved 87% of South Africa’s land exclusively for white ownership, as the basis of the “Bantustan” policy. It not only dispossessed many black South Africans of the land they owned, but also sought to prohibit black people from ever acquiring land in so-called “white” South Africa. The ultimate aim of the National Party government was to strip black South Africans of their citizenship.

This Act, and its successor, the 1936 Land Act, are a major cause of dispossession and endemic poverty in South Africa today.

It is appropriate that public debate in 2013 should focus on this tragic legacy and our failure, since the advent of democracy, to address it. 

One of the many reasons for this failure is that the national government’s restitution strategy has primarily targeted the declining number of commercial farmers who, in the face of tough international competition (and without the state subsidies their competitors enjoy), still manage to maintain South Africa’s food security, generate exports, underpin our agri-processing industries and generate much-needed foreign exchange. Since 1994 the number of commercial farmers has dwindled from 120 000 to 37 000. And even more alarmingly, the number of jobs generated by the agricultural sector has declined by almost 400,000 over the same period. If this trend continues, South Africa will soon become a food importing country and the thousands of unskilled workers whose only access to the economy is through jobs in the agricultural sector, will be destitute.

Contrary to common perception, commercial farming is rarely lucrative. In fact, farmers reap the lowest return in the agricultural value chain. Research conducted by “Capturing the Gains” project found that many farmers are struggling. For example, industry data shows that 30% of grape farmers in the Hex River Valley in the Western Cape have sold their farms between 2007 and 2011. Hex River farmers who sold their table grapes to the UK in 2011 only received 18% of the final retail price while supermarkets took 42% and distributors 22%. Furthermore, according to industry reports the net income per 750ml of wine has dropped from R1 in 2004 to 38c in 2011.

Any discussion on sustainable land reform needs to acknowledge that our remaining viable, productive farms are a precious resource. We must seek to extend their number among farmers of all races, not diminish them.

It would, therefore, be a disservice to the cause of redress to make productive farmers the target of attack during the centenary commemorations of the 1913 Land Act. The real goal should be to try to understand why the government’s attempts at land reform have failed so far, and what we must do to redress the legacy of the past while retaining and increasing the productivity of our agricultural land.

This is a complex debate. It is not reducible to a simplistic black-versus-white/good-versus-evil analysis. But, if President Jacob Zuma’s January 8^th statement is anything to go by, the ANC will milk this commemoration (yet again), for the purpose of racial mobilisation, in order to deflect attention from the real reasons for 20 years of failed land reform. And this diversion will merely perpetuate these failures.   

Before South Africans fall for this con-trick, we would do well to ask the following questions:

1)      Why is 90% of the 5.9-million hectares of land bought by the state for emerging farmers no longer productive? (according to Minister of Land Reform and Rural Development, Gugile Nkwinti).

2)      Why does the government blame the “willing-buyer-willing-seller” principle for its failure to meet its land reform targets, when the money squandered on failed projects could have purchased 37% of all farm land in South Africa at market value? (according to Mr Theo de Jager, Deputy President of AgriSA).

3)      Why, almost 20 years since the dawn of democracy, is the audit of state-owned land (which is needed for the potential release of millions of hectares into productive use), still incomplete? Why has the deadline for this audit repeatedly been extended?

4)      Why is 30% of South Africa’s most fertile agricultural land so unproductive that it yields hardly any food and almost no jobs?

If we can use this centenary commemoration to grapple with these questions, and answer them honestly, we will take a significant step towards sustainable restitution. This is the least we owe to dispossessed South Africans who could make a living off our fertile soil, if land reform were tackled properly.

At the outset, it is important to note that only one third of our country receives more than 500mm of rainfall per year. That means that more than two-thirds of our country is semi desert or desert.

Most of the high yield agricultural land lies on our eastern seaboard. And a full 30% of the most fertile land is controlled and allocated by all-powerful traditional leaders in feudal communal land tenure systems. The rural peasants who live on the land are dependent on the Chief’s patronage and have no independent rights to the land.

As the historian G Findlay correctly noted:  “tribal tenure is a guarantee that the land will never properly be worked.” That is why hundreds of thousands of people migrate from very fertile land (under tribal tenure) to less fertile provinces to seek work on productive farms.

Ironically, the ANC already recognised the urgent necessity of reforming tribal tenure systems as far back as the 1940s when its President, Dr AB Xuma, said: “The fundamental basis of all wealth and power is the ownership and acquisition of freehold title to land.”

An even greater irony was President Zuma approving use of this quote in his 8^th January speech -- despite the fact that the ANC has, since 1994, moved in the opposite direction, entrenching the power of tribal chiefs, in return for their commitment to secure their subjects’ political support for the ruling party. Tightening his grip on power is a far greater priority for the President than tackling land reform.

Against this background, the ANC’s lamentations about the slow pace of land reform ring hollow. If President Zuma really takes the National Development Plan seriously, as he professes to do, he would take note of its analysis that “insufficient tenure security” for black farmers in communal areas is “the first major risk” to “integrated and inclusive” rural economies. The NDP concludes that “better land use in communal areas has the potential to improve the livelihoods of at least 370,000 people”.

If the ANC simply applied the NDP’s proposals for transforming communal land tenure, it would more than quadruple the yields of the most fertile land in the country, meet its numerical land reform targets, create thousands of jobs, and extend food security. This surely, must be a priority, rather than the continued destruction of once productive farms, in an escalating race to the bottom.  

But this shift cannot happen without limiting the patronage and power abuse of the tribal chiefs.  And the ANC refuses to take this risk, even though the National Development Plan (which the ANC adopted at Mangaung) identifies it as a priority.

It would also be too much to expect our President to publicly acknowledge that the only successful model of land reform to date has been the Western Cape’s equity share schemes. Over 90 farms in the Province have opted for these schemes and are now under the co-ownership of farmers and farmworkers. Approximately 80% of these deals have succeeded in maintaining the productivity of the land, while turning farmworkers into successful farm owners. Again, the National Development Plan seeks to develop this model further. 

The NDP’s proposals should be the centrepiece of public debate during this centenary commemoration, so that we can avoid the tempting detours of political expedience that has resulted in past failures. The saga of failed land reform projects makes heart-breaking reading, such as the account of 20 top crop and dairy farms in the Eastern Cape, bought for R11.6-million, which have ceased production. Several have become informal settlements, according to the Sunday Times.

But given the emotive value of the land issue in achieving the ANC’s goal of mobilising its electoral support base by exacerbating racial divisions, this may be too much to hope for.

The odds are far greater that President Zuma will continue to duck the issues, blame the past to avoid dealing with the realities of the present, and destroy one of the most important pillars of our economy.

It would be an even greater tragedy if the centenary commemoration of the 1913 Land Act merely entrenched its bitter legacy.

Nearly 200 killed in strike action in 13 years

Some 181 fatalities occurred in strike violence between January 1999 and October 2012. A further 313 people were injured and over 3 058 arrests made during the period. This is according to figures released but the South African Institute of Race Relations.

The figures indicate how strike action in South Africa is now often characterised by violence. Fatalities were most often the result of clashes between police and strikers, between striking and non-striking workers, and between rival unions. In many cases, the intimidation of non-striking workers escalated to public humiliation, brutal beatings, maiming with weapons such as pangas and knobkerries, and even homicide.

As a society we cannot afford to see these levels of violence continue. Recent events in Marikana and De Doorns attest to this. 

A Private Member's Bill proposed by the DA to hold unions accountable and financially liable for the misconduct of their members during strikes was referred to the Labour Committee for consideration in September last year. 

The Private Members Bill submitted by the DA in October 2010 sought to amend the Labour Relations Act of 1995 and proposed that unions be held accountable for their members' misconduct during strikes. We believe it will go some way to protect non-striking workers and the general public from violence and intimidation, and to protect public and private property from malicious destruction during strike action.

The legislation would make unions liable for, amongst others, penalties and damages for the illegal and undisciplined behaviour of individual members. The proposal was approved by the Committee for Private Members' Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions, a rather rare occurrence in the short history of our democratic Parliament.

This Private Members Bill has been strongly opposed by COSATU, with Zwelinzima Vavi stating that he would personally make sure that the bill is kept out of Parliament on the grounds that it would bankrupt the unions. If Mr Vavi is worried about Cosatu's finances, he should do more to control the actions of his members who wantonly destroy public property during strike action.

The DA will continue to ensure that the democratic right to strike is exercised responsibly. All unions must be held accountable for the behaviour of its members.

Jacob Zuma’s re-election as ANC president is a sad day for all South Africans

While personal congratulations to the winner of an election are always in order, the re-election of Jacob Zuma as President of the ANC is not good news for South Africa. His lack of leadership on any of the major policy questions that we face will continue, as will the corruption and abuse of public resources that has so far characterised his time in office. Unemployed and poor South Africans will feel particularly let down today, as it is they who bear the real brunt of a President and government that cannot offer any implementable solutions for economic growth and job creation.

 

President’s Zuma’s re-election sends out the clear message to ANC members around the country that it is acceptable to use positions in government for personal enrichment, and not for public service.  It sends out the message that corruption and the abuse of public funds for personal gain is acceptable in the ANC, and that there will be no consequences for the guilty.  And it sends out the message that the ANC is the kind of party that puts powerful people above the law.  This is particularly clear globally, where it is just inconceivable that a President who has avoided, for three years, facing trial on over 700 counts of corruption, could be re-elected a Party President.

 

However, we should also take heart from the result because it will hasten the disintegration and collapse of the ANC. Many ANC members and many more ANC voters are feeling alienated by the decision in Mangaung. The Democratic Alliance will continue to build a real alternative government made up of all South Africans who believe as we do in the future of our country, and who share our values.

 

We invite all South Africans who are disappointed by the ANC’s decision today to join this movement – this new majority that is working for, and delivering, meaningful social change and job creation in South Africa.

Our education system is still failing too many children

Many of the 2012 matriculants were justifiably celebrating their achievements after the results of the National Senior Certificate (NSC) exams were released earlier this week. Some of them had to write their exams under less than ideal conditions, and their successes in particular deserve recognition.
However, now that the first flush of celebration has passed, it is time to take a hard look, not only at the actual value of the NSC, but also at the alarmingly high number of children who are dropping out of the school system before completing Grade 12.

According to the City Press of Sunday, 6 January 2013, census 2011 data revealed that 322 644  children between seven and fifteen were not in fact in school. An astounding 106 830 of these children are from KwaZulu-Natal.  This is due in part to socio-economic reasons, but academic failure is also to blame. There appears to be little support for learners who fail to move on to higher grades, and many become so demoralised that they eventually drop out of school completely.

In light of this, we need to consider the 133 323 learners who did not pass the NSC this year, and ensure that they receive the support they need to stay in school and do better next year. 
It is worth noting that, of the 1 130 659 learners who registered for Grade 1 in 2001, 619 507 have since dropped out of the school system. Based on these figures, the real pass rate for 2012 is not 73.9%, but a much more sobering 37.5%.

Only 26.2% of learners scored high enough to gain access to bachelor-level studies at university. However, they will still need to undergo benchmarking tests set by the universities, and some will have to attend bridging courses before being allowed to commence their studies. Given the high drop-out rate of first-year university students in particular, it is likely that only a very small percentage of this already low number will graduate.

Of these, it is unlikely that there will be nearly enough of them to meet the labour market’s need for qualified science, engineering and maths graduates. This points to a problem in the teaching of maths and science that originates much earlier on in the schooling system.

The results of international benchmark tests, as well as the local Annual National Assessments, reveal that South Africa’s learners fare among the poorest in the world when it comes to numeracy and literacy. The majority of learners in Grades 3, 6 and 9 cannot read with understanding and cannot be considered numerate. The fact that they still manage to pass successive grades, and achieve passes in matric, raises serious questions about the quality of these passes.

While we must welcome the steady increase in the matric pass rate since 2009, we also need to acknowledge the fact that there has not been a correspondingly robust increase in the number of matriculants writing the NSC each year during this period, nor can we say with confidence that the quality of the matric pass is beyond reproach.

DA education spokesperson, Annette Lovemore, will therefore be submitting a number of pertinent questions, including the following, to Minister Angie Motshekga once Parliament is in session again this year:

• What provision has been made for matriculants who failed to pass the NSC exam since 2009; how many of them attempted to write the NSC a second time; and how many managed to pass after successive attempts?
• What provision is being made for the education of the 619 507 learners who have dropped out of the school system since registering for Grade 1 in 2001; and what measures have been put in place to ensure that the retention rate improves?
• What provision is being made for teachers to receive training that will improve the teaching of maths and science from Grade 3 onwards, and to ensure that more learners achieve pass rates in these subjects that will allow them to qualify for bachelor-level studies ?

It is critical that we provide all our young people the opportunity to pursue a productive future – with the capacity to learn skills within a job or career, or to become an entrepreneur, or to pursue further studies.  If the National Senior Certificate cannot give them access to any of these options, it is for all practical purposes, useless.