The ANC, The Arms Deal and Accountability

There has been some considerable advocacy recently towards granting amnesty towards those individuals and organisations suspected of having derived huge underhand and illegal benefits from the now notorious multi-billion Rand arms deal with which South Africa involved itself a few years ago – and which continues to haunt both South Africa and Europe.

Principal amongst the organisations said to have benefited have been the ANC of South Africa and a number of the defence contractors in Europe which supplied the South African government with items ranging from aircraft to frigates, submarines and much in between.

Individuals said to have derived illicit benefits from the deal are, famously, Jacob Zuma (President-in-waiting of South Africa), his former financial advisor and, much more recently, Thabo Mbeki himself. Such allegations have yet to be proven in a court of law – although, judging by the (so far legitimate) delaying actions of certain of the parties named by the National Prosecuting Authority, the presentation and answering of charges before a court is looking increasingly doubtful.

Spearpoint is, frankly, astonished that the names of more individuals have not – yet – been proposed for investigation and prosecution. Mutual back-scratching is far too endemic in Africa to permit a mere handful of individuals to escape the clutches and ‘protection’ of equally greedy and unscrupulous people eager to climb on the gravy train of government contract graft.

The calls for amnesty come from a couple of different sources.

Firstly, there is the ANC and its unelected (and thus unaccountable) allies, the Confederation of South African Trades Union (COSATU) and the South African Communist Party (SACP). This is, perhaps, understandable since there must be considerable trepidation being experienced within this tri-partite alliance that its propaganda of the last couple of decades is about to be revealed for the sham that it always has been and that the three organisations and many of its officials and hangers-on will be shown to be just as base and venal as those they strove to replace on the South African political scene.

Secondly, calls for amnesty have come from parts of the South African media on the basis of preventing the fragmentation and disruption of South African society resulting from the ANC and its allies trampling the entire country underfoot as they seek to dislodge from their backs the tick birds trying to remove the sources of sickness and debilitation from the body national.

Spearpoint can ignore the ANC’s desire for amnesty or (better still, from their perspective) dismissal of all charges as being the unforgivable but natural reaction of embarrassed people caught in a series of compromising situations despite their protestations of innocence and purity. Given the current stranglehold that the ANC and its officers have on this country, Spearpoint gloomily concludes that the ANC will prevail anyway and will find means (legitimate or otherwise) to escape the worst – or all – of the fallout from the arms deal and the alleged misconduct of its partners and/or officials.

Spearpoint cannot, however, ignore the non-ANC inspired calls for amnesty.

How short are the memories of those making this call. How misolfactionate are they that believe that sweeping the malodorous products of a government’s bad habits under the rug will result in the creation and maintenance of a hygienic and healthy national household.

In political management – as in household management – infestations and disease must be eradicated entirely and without delay, else the infection returns to cause ill-health, disruption and danger to life and limb. Very often such a return is then much harder to combat since, in the process of harbouring the germs of corruption, resistance to the more usual, tried and true, methods of prevention and control builds to the point of immunity and contempt. Fighting disease is never easy, comfortable or without risk. Likewise with fighting corruption and crime.

There are few parents who will refuse medical treatment for their loved ones (excepting for availability and cost) on the basis that the treatment will create too great a risk of the patient being uncomfortable or, even, losing their life. Few people fail to see the merit in visiting the dentist when experiencing toothache, even though the experience in the dentist’s chair can be unpleasant in the extreme.

Why, then, do otherwise rational people who love their country and its social structure actively promote a course of action that can only strengthen those who would break our laws and Constitution? These are the people who would prefer to avoid the short-term yet therapeutic pain of the dental drill over the longer-term costs of political caries and oral decay. The consequences of poor dental hygiene are similar to the consequences of poor national moral and ethical hygiene – the ability to masticate and ingest the food required by the whole body is reduced until, eventually, the body goes into decline and could, conceivably, die through lack of sustenance as well as through the onslaught of opportunistic infections and ailments.

Witness Uganda in the 1970’s. Witness Zimbabwe since 1999. Witness the attempts at appeasement with Germany in the 1930’s. There are lessons aplenty to be had – what makes anyone believe that South African politicians and politically well-placed criminals are any different from those of the rest of the world at different times throughout history?

Even the President of Pakistan today had the sense – and decency? – to step down in the face of mounting demands for greater probity within Pakistani society. And this was a man who had grabbed power through a coup and had ruled as a virtual dictator for nine years. This came about because his detractors were prepared to live with the possible discomfort of experiencing the unscheduled removal of a powerful, influential and wealthy leader who had been found wanting. Perhaps Pakistan will now go through a period of greater turmoil than it has been enduring of late – but Pakistanis have decided that even in that event the price will be better than continuing the personal regime of a man they have held to be unacceptable for Pakistani society.

Why, therefore, is South African society so open to the comforts of a quiet life at any cost? Are we so blasé as to accept any injustice and crime against ourselves just so that we can stay ensconced within our little zones of comfort? Are we so pragmatic as to accept any violation of our persons and dignity that we will suffer any debasement of our expressed ideals of social and political aspiration and ambition?

Clearly, this is a watershed in our young history. Failure now will result – in fairly rapid order – in a new Zimbabwe south of the Limpopo River – the consequences of which are obvious to almost everyone except Mugabe, Mbeki and their opportunistic cronies.

Spearpoint.

18^th August 2008

What Is Democracy? (Don’t Ask The ANC!)

It’s a great shame that, after some fourteen years in power and God-knows how many years ostensibly fighting for a multi-racial, multi-party democracy, today’s ANC just doesn’t get what democracy is all about.

There are the well-known examples of the ANC’s lack of understanding of democratic principles and practices, most notably Affirmative Action (AA) and Black Economic Empowerment (BEE).

Notwithstanding the needs of actively redressing some of the social and economic imbalances inherent in pre-1994 South Africa, such outright discriminatory policies such as AA and BEE served not to heal the divisions stemming from our history but, rather, resulted in the alienation of a significant segment of the population denied access to the worlds of work and business whilst, at the same time, failing to include sufficient of the majority black population to make those policies worthwhile or realistic.

Democracy is about the equal application of ideals, policies and laws to all socio-economic groups and their individual members – without exception and without qualification.

AA and BEE are, therefore, a perversion of democratic principles and practices.

Likewise, the current – and growing – ANC elitist view of, and approach to the law.

The ANC appears increasingly to view the law as something the ANC alone decides and distributes but is not necessarily something to which it and/or its members are subject.

The lack of respect shown by the ANC to some recent legal rulings – including some of those of the Constitutional Court – has been absolutely awesome in its arrogance. Government ministers and their departments have, variously, failed to respond to summonses and subpoenas, attend court proceedings or to comply with court rulings and orders when inconvenient or embarrassing.

The ANC and members of ANC affiliates and allies have frequently and repeatedly openly flouted the laws of the land in both impromptu and carefully studied statements to the media – usually without expressed regret, later retraction or apology. Overtly racist or inflammatory comments have, largely, escaped censure or punishment. Ethical leadership from the upper ranks of the ANC (whence many of those comments have originated) has been glaringly absent.

“Bring me my machine gun” (Jacob Zuma); “We will kill for Jacob Zuma” (the presidents of the ANC Youth League and COSATU, respectively; “…you are displaying your white mentality…” (the Chairman of the Parliamentary Sports Portfolio Committee): all are very recent examples of the ANC’s disregard of, and impunity from the law. In contrast, a recent article by David Bullard in a major newspaper (which painted an imaginary ‘what if’ scenario) resulted in his dismissal and all sorts of legal threats against him at the time.

Clearly, the ANC wants its cake and to eat it, too. The ANC’s idea of gamesmanship is ‘Heads, we win; tails, you lose’.

Just as clearly, this is not democracy.

In like vein, the actions of Jacob Zuma – soon, no doubt, to be rubber stamped as the next President of South Africa – are increasingly tending Spearpoint to the view that “Methinks he doth protest too much”.

Having stridently proclaimed his innocence in the fallout from the arms deal, having strenuously demanded his day in court, he has, however, consistently failed to satisfy either the prosecuting authorities or the courts that he has no case to answer. Indeed, he has redoubled his efforts to delay or to prevent that day in court with what appears to be a cynical string of challenges and delaying tactics. The intention, one has to conclude, is to avoid any appearance in court on the charges he faces until after such time as he is inaugurated as President of the Republic – when, no doubt, he will grant himself Presidential immunity from the charges or, in the event of a conviction, a Presidential pardon. All he has to do is to stay out of court until after the elections. Heads, we win; tails, you lose.

Additionally, Mr. Zuma, through his legal team and his ANC supporters has complained bitterly that the recent Constitutional Court’s ruling against his application to deny into evidence those documents seized in raids a couple of years back was announced whilst he was out of the country.

Mr. Zuma and his legal team have been busy testing every avenue to escape the charges against him – as is provided for in our Constitution and other laws – and no-one denies him the right to do so. But where is the democracy in a situation where popularity, power and money (very little of that money, I understand, being Mr. Zuma’s) can so protract legal processes through deliberate strategy as to undermine and, even, deny the law when there are so many other people, without the same clout, who have to suffer justice (very often on remand) somewhat more speedily and ruthlessly – and, most importantly, without undue consideration of the convenience and timetable of the defendant?

Mr. Zuma wanted his day in court. Let him have that day. And on that day let him be an ordinary citizen, not the President of the country. Let the trial be conducted – and be seen to be conducted – with equality and democracy under our Constitution. If the man be adjudged innocent then let him get on with the rest of his life in peace until such time as he may breach the law again, if ever; if he is determined to be guilty then let him suffer whatever sanctions the court might impose.

If Mr. Zuma were a real democrat who did not appear to believe that he is a great man who is due homage and tribute for his supposed past services then he would resign his various posts and duties for the duration of his trial and (if it turns out that way) later appeal. In the process he would go a long way to exhibiting those positive democratic ethics and personal qualities which would merit him being the Head of State.

If the above examples are anything to go by, then Spearpoint can only conclude that not only does the ANC have a perverted and very convenient conception of what democracy is about, but also the mid- and long-term future of South Africa is, indeed, bleak to the point of utter depression.

Spearpoint.

2^nd August 2008

Would the last democrat leaving South Africa please turn out the lights…

 

 

So here we have it, at last. It has been a while coming, but come it has.

 

Not that it has been unexpected. It was bound to happen eventually, in one way or another.

 

Many very astute and able writers have been trying – for some considerable time – to show how South Africa has been slowly descending into the abyss. More recently Spearpoint has (with far less ability and effectiveness) added his own voice to the warnings that have been increasingly thronging the various media available to us in this country.

 

I fear that it will all be to no avail.

 

The pessimism, even despair, which has silently pervaded South African society over the last decade or so, is now gaining increasing momentum even amongst those who celebrated the most after the release of Nelson Mandela.

 

Now we begin to see the true colours of our Rainbow Nation; colours that were once purposefully and skillfully hidden behind shimmering nebulae of rhetoric and political razzle-dazzle are now being glimpsed more often as the perceived need for global political respectability is, more and more, discarded as the ANC and its puppet masters gain in confidence and arrogance.

 

Today, the legislation to disband the elite crime-fighting unit known as the Scorpions has been tabled in Parliament.

 

Modeled broadly on the FBI, the Scorpions have proven to be a formidable and largely untouchable crime-fighting force that has shown little or no favour and has appeared to be indefatigable in the pursuit of those who would place themselves above the law. They have been a very necessary foil to the poorly performing South African Police Service.

 

Why the ANC has bothered to involve Parliament escapes me. South Africa is a dictatorship of the elected majority party (the ANC), with absolutely no prospect of any realistic challenge to the current status quo being mounted through the ballot box anytime in the next couple of generations.

 

The ANC might as well come clean and rule by decree. It would save them and the rest of the world time, effort and embarrassment over the increasingly amateurish attempts to legitimise their fumbling realisations of their ambitions.

 

The signs have around for a long time.

 

• The selection of a party leader – soon to be the country’s President – who is awaiting trial on corruption and related charges investigated and brought by the Scorpions.
• The blatant and public protection by the current President of the country – with the tacit approval of the ANC – of the national Police Commissioner who faces serious charges investigated and brought by the Scorpions.
• The blatant and unashamed protection of numerous public officials and office holders who have either admitted or have been convicted of innumerable offences ranging from drunk driving through fraud, embezzlement and worse.
• The blasé and indifferent approach to, and acceptance of, crime levels unparalleled outside of war zones such as Iraq. (An example – it is generally accepted that a rape occurs in South Africa every 23 seconds. Do the math – 1.4 million rapes per annum in a population estimated at around 45-50 million people).
• The awesome drift from reality embodied in the continuing and, until very recently, unquestioning support of rogue and repressive states such as Zimbabwe and Burma – behaviour which has led to the ridicule and scorn of the rest of the world, to say nothing of the loss of life and liberty of those poor unfortunates living in those countries.

 

And these are but a very few of the straws that have been blowing in the wind in recent years.

 

The Scorpions are but a single example of the lengths to which the ANC, COSATU and the South African Communist Party (all members of the tri-partite alliance which rules South Africa but of which only the ANC presents itself for election before the people of the country) are prepared to go in order to exclude themselves from scrutiny by both the courts and the electorate.

 

When will the people of South Africa – as well as the rest of the world – awaken to the fact of the immense confidence trick being played upon them at their expense?

 

Do we have to wait for the raids on the newspapers and televisions stations to become more frequent? (It has already happened). Will we only realise our plight when the Internet and blogs are monitored, controlled and restricted? Will we have to wait for the situation in Zimbabwe to become a reality for South Africa (and so memorably and eloquently expressed by the unknown Zimbabwean who voiced it by saying “We have freedom of expression; we just don’t have freedom after expression”)? Will we wait until the cadres of the ANC and SACP are joined on their nightly dissent-suppression street patrols by armed MK war veterans? Will we wait for the type of bloodbath that surely lurks, Kenya-like, in Zimbabwe’s near future?

 

The writing is on the wall. We ignore it at our peril. We run the risk of a bovine-like acceptance of the denial and corruption of the hopes and aspirations of an entire country already brutalised in the not-too-distant past. Or, simultaneously, we run the risk of opening the door to hotheads and armed reactionaries eager to turn back the clock.

 

And as much as Spearpoint harbours hopes for this country and its people, it is very much my profound fear that already it is too late and that the time is nigh for the call to go out, “Would the last democrat leaving South Africa please turn out the lights”.

 

 

Spearpoint

13^th May 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eskom’s “Commercially Sensitive” Information

Reports in the press today reveal that Eskom has asked that certain portions of its submission for a 53% tariff increase to the Energy Regulator (NERSA) be withheld from public scrutiny for reasons of commercial sensitity.

NERSA has, apparently, complied with that request.

This is completely mind-blowing.

How can a state monopoly, with no competetion whatsoever in the electricity supply and distribution market, possibly have anything it does not wish to have made known to those competitors (who don’t exist)?

Who are they trying to hoodwink?

Unless, of course, there are certain facts concerning the actual costs of their operations, their actual profit margins and their staffing costs and overheads which, if the South African public were to become aware of, would reveal just how any application for increases in tariffs is unjustified and, possibly, fraudulent.

Eskom, you are a public entity. You have no competition. Ergo, you have no commercial secrets in the normal sense of the term.

Moreover, Eskom since you are state-owned that means that every member of the South African public is – both by definition and default – a shareholder and, as such, it is illegal to withhold or to seek to withhold information regarding your operations and finances.

All you are entitled to withhold, Eskom, is information regarding the physical operational security of your enterprise since you are a national strategic asset which could be vulnerable to attack and sabotage – and the secrecy necessary on that topic alone must be subject to the oversight (God help us) of the Minister of Safety and Security.

NERSA, in its lap dog roll-over for Eskom and the government which, (contrary to ANC, COSATU and overall public opinion, approves Eskom’s attempts to gouge the people of South Africa), appears to abrogate its statuted role as an independent regulator of the energy industry. The tail would appear to be wagging the dog…

One wonders what crumbs are being offered where and to whom; what quid pro quo is being negotiated behind our backs?

Maybe I’m being paranoid.

But am I being paranoid enough? Is it my imagination, or have the ANC and COSATU suddenly become suspiciously quiet and retiring on the Eskom debacle in recent days?

Incidentally, other media reports today reveal that the government has reserves of some US$34 billion. Reserves are desirable things to have because, in times of crisis, funds can be made available to counter or remedy that crisis.

Has no-one in the ANC or government yet realised that the Eskom situation is precisely that – a crisis – and that this might be an opportune and appropriate moment to apply some of those 34 billion Dollars to fixing this monumental – and wholly avoidable – problem without penalising the people and industries of South Africa?

 

Spearpoint.

 

Eskom and tariff hikes

Here we go – again.

 Don’t you just love the levels of professionalism and competence we have in South Africa?

1. Eskom removed the world-class skills base it inherited from its pre-1994 days by blindly following the ANC politically correct ideology of reverse affirmative action – it unceremoniously tossed out the white managers, engineers, technicians and linesmen who, rightly or wrongly, had comprised the bulk of expertise within the parastatal.
2. The removal of that skills base, whilst not done exactly overnight, took place over a very short period – too short to permit the recruitment and training of black replacements to the same levels of expertise, remembering that most of the white engineers and so on had served apprenticeships of several years followed by many years of on-the-job training and experience.
3. The ever diminishing numbers of competent personnel suffered increasingly low morale as the process continued and as they watched their world-class operation begin to disintegrate under the onslaught of unskilled time servers brought in through nepotism and racial quotas. “Hey, the government says we are equal and the only difference between us is that the whites have been privileged and we have not and, anyway, what’s so difficult about driving around in nice cars, having nice offices, having secretaries (oops, sorry, personal assistants), fat salaries, and so on. Skills? Aagh, we’ll pick those up as we go along – if we need them. Protestant work ethic? What’s that? We in the ANC and the new government of South Africa are socialist and communists – we don’t believe in that outdated and outmoded thinking since it is not politically correct (according to us) and, in any case, we are just taking over what was built up over generations by our predecessors.”
4. The new management of Eskom failed to understand and apply the concepts and lessons of investment in their inherited money-making machine. When, finally, the new management realised their mistake, they were too frightened of and politically indebted to their major stockholder (the ANC government) to be able to convey the severity of the developing crisis regarding the generation and distribution of electricity; nobody, it seems, was prepared to risk their lovely salaries, bonuses and related perks by being the too-earnest bearer of bad news to the powers-that-be that this wonderful cash cow was, in fact, on the brink of terminal starvation.
5. The ANC and its government officials failed to understand that the good days were on the point of coming to an end. The concept of long-term investment and re-investment totally escaped them. Things were going too well; the economy was proceeding nicely – how could anything be wrong? “To hell with these doomsayers – we, as the government have much more important things to spend money on. We must not delay, for example, spending hundreds of millions of Rands on re-naming towns, streets, municipalities. Anyway, if Eskom does need money later then we’ll look at it closer to the time – I mean, just how long can it take to build a few new power stations and the associated network? In the old days before 1994 we never seemed to have this problem, so how hard can it be?”
6. When, finally, the wheels came off the lumbering juggernaut that is Eskom, what happened? Because of the self-imposed ANC political perceptions of reality were far more important than the actual realities of life, both the government and Eskom, whilst simultaneously admitting a problem and downplaying the seriousness of that problem (admitting error is not a survival trait within the government, the ANC or Eskom), then proceeded to continue the export of substantial proportions of our power production to neighbouring countries – all previous allies to the ANC back in the days of the struggle against Apartheid.

Well, the chickens have well and truly come home to roost.

And in the process we have all been made to look utter fools to ourselves and the world at large. Once again we see that, with the ANC, its government and the various state utilities, style and spin are deemed to  be far more important and relevant that content. We can talk the talk but we’re buggered when we have to walk the walk.

 Now Eskom, with the support of the government, wants to hike its tarrifs by a stated 53%. Aware of the social and potential political fallout the ANC opposes the idea. As does COSATU. As do the bulk of businesses and private individuals. No great surprises there – except for the government’s stance.

Well, if the government is so supportive of the idea, then let the government pay for it.

1. The government is the main shareholder of Eskom.
2. The government failed (by its own – very surprising – admission) to respond in a responsible and responsive manner when, eventually, Eskom brought the problem to its attention.
3. The government has been deriving vast revenues from Eskom for years.
4. The government has failed to spend its budgeted allocations of those revenues through the inefficiencies and incompetence of many of its departments.
5. The government has been enjoying positive revenue balances for many years – partly because of Eskom’s contributions.

As with any other commercial or quasi-commercial enterprise – and especially in the case of a state monopoly – it’s all very well when times are good and you enjoy the huge dividends from your legislated market dominance, but there is an obligation to put your hand in your pocket when times are not so good.

The mere fact that Eskom is a state enterprise renders its revenues as indirect taxation. When that state enterprise turns a profit which is siphoned off into state coffers then that profit is additional (hidden) indirect taxation which is not declared as such. To have Eskom then to increase tariffs by a further massive 53% will subject the consumers of Eskom’s product (i.e. everyone in South Africa) to an undeclared indirect super-tax.

Forget the argument that South Africa has the cheapest electricity in the world. It is a spurious argument, at best. If we can produce electricity at the present price – and make a huge profit into the bargain – then let us benefit from that ability. If lower electricity prices can help to attract foreign investment into this country then let it be! We neither need nor want so-called parity pricing with other countries – it benefits absolutely no-one except traders, speculators and already well-established outside vested interests and whose secondary, derivative economic functions carry questionable economic value to anyone beyond themselves.

Let the government stump up the additional funds the Eskom now needs. The government has assumed the social role of providing the social service of electricity supply; it has enjoyed the spoils of that role and must now discharge its social duty of expanding that role at whatever cost is necessary. Moreover, the government has the moral obligation to the vast majority of its citizens who, even at current Eskom tariffs, can scarcely afford the minimum power they consume.

I just hope that the government has not seen this request for higher tariffs as an excuse to continue bilking the South African entrepreneur and consumer without exposing itself to losing those lovely revenues flowing into the Treasury…

Spearpoint.