African Statesmanship

The recent death of Zambia’s President Levy Mwanawasa is a tragedy for not only Zambia but also for the entire African continent.

My understanding is that Zambia has prematurely lost a leader of exceptional calibre who was striving to make a genuine difference to the lives of Zambians, particularly in his determined fight against corruption.

Almost uniquely amongst world leaders, Mwanawasa publicly confronted and then prosecuted his predecessor Frederick Chiluba for corruption and fraud. Mwanawasa’s decision to do so cannot have been easy. Chiluba had, after all, been the one to groom and present Mwanawasa as his successor and there must have been some considerable pressure from within the ruling party not to rock the boat (thereby spilling the cash) and to spare Chiluba public humiliation – to say nothing of Chiluba’s underlings, hangers-on, presumed beneficiaries and possible co-conspirators.

Instead, Levy Mwanawasa chose to be a statesman, deciding – as far as possible in a political environment – to honour his promises to the electorate by adhering to the principles (oft-repeated but rarely practiced by the power hungry) of his country’s Constitution. In so doing he appears to have honoured himself and his country, as well as having set a worthy example to his constituency.

Although Spearpoint never had the opportunity to meet and know Levy Mwanawasa personally, the hope is that Zambia will allow Spearpoint to join (albeit remotely) in their mourning as a fellow African.

For the demise of Zambia’s Mwanawasa is a loss not only for Zambia but is also a loss for the whole of Africa – especially southern Africa.

As at home, Mwanawasa displayed the courage to stand up and be counted in the face of the prevailing antipathy in the southern African region towards corruption, fraud and dictatorship in the form of Robert Mugabe’s tyrannical and outright criminal regime in Zimbabwe.

With the tacit support of Ian Khama, the President of Botswana, Mwanawasa alone named and shamed Mugabe for what he is, what he represents and what he perpetrates against his own country and people.

In so doing Mwanawasa also implicitly named and shamed all those other African leaders who, despite mounting and convincing evidence, have given Mugabe political support and sustenance either directly and openly or through their failure to criticise and isolate Zimbabwe for its current policies and situation.

Principal amongst these has been South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki and his ANC government.

Appointed by SADC to mediate in the Zimbabwe crisis, Mbeki has epitomized the approach of many other African leaders: don’t rock the boat; don’t embarrass Mugabe; don’t expose Mugabe; don’t fracture the façade of imagined African so-called solidarity; don’t further reinforce the global perception of Africa’s inability to identify, address and remedy its own problems, including those of poverty, corruption, crime, ignorance and indolence.

Notwithstanding recent critical comments from Jacob Zuma (as President of the ANC) regarding Zimbabwe, the fact remains that South Africa continues to pussyfoot around the person of Mugabe and the crisis in Zimbabwe and refuses – publicly, at least – to acknowledge that a problem exists. In Mbeki’s own words on the subject, “There is no crisis”. Sentiments echoed by the Minister and the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The ANC must be living in gaga land.

It’s obviously not a crisis when a neighbour of South Africa destroys its economy (inflation admitted by the Zimbabwean government just this month to be running at not less than eleven million percent – that’s eleven followed by six zeroes, folks), and driving no less than four million of its own citizens into South Africa – mostly illegally – to escape starvation and political persecution (and who knows how many into other neighbouring countries).

And how can it be a crisis when even the great ANC, champion of the art of rule by smoke and mirrors, has been appointed (in the person of Thabo Mbeki) by SADC to mediate between Mugabe and the Zimbabwean Opposition.

Yet the appointment of a mediator implies conflict, dispute and actual or potential crisis. That much SADC has got right; where it went wrong was appointing Mbeki and his team as mediators. Not only do the mediators deny the existence of a situation which they have consciously agreed to fix, but they are unsuited and unqualified to carry out such a role since they have consistently and laughably maintained for many years now that within their own borders there are no crises in law enforcement, the judicial system, education, HIV, AIDS, TB and other health matters, housing, and so on.

SADC erred in appointing the ANC and Mbeki. It is patently clear that these guys couldn’t organise an orgy in a brothel, given their record of domestic service delivery and good governance.

The mediation between the parties in Zimbabwe has stalled. Naught has been achieved. Mugabe continues to do as he pleases – even to the extent of re-convening Zimbabwe’s parliament (which, according to Zimbabwe’s Constitution, should have occurred months ago) before there is any clarity and agreement on how power division and sharing will prevail in the new government.

Now, doesn’t that just speak volumes on the dedication and abilities of the so-called mediators?

Excepting Zambia and Botswana, no-one in SADC has had the courage to slap Mugabe silly and to tell him to stop behaving like a spoiled brat and to stop embarrassing all of Africa with his puerile behaviour. Mugabe’s arrogance and assumed impunity – watch his disjointed marionette-like swagger in public – has never been challenged by South Africa and its continental cronies.

Indeed, South Africa has shown great concern over Mugabe’s dignity and has been keen to protect that dubious quality. But at what price? Where is the dignity of those Zimbabweans, forever on the cusp of eviction, arrest and starvation, free-falling into the black hole of faster-than-light inflation who have had to separate from their families and homes in order to cross the borders of neighbours looking for some means of sustenance and to live in the additional and constant fear of deportation as illegal immigrants? Where, in South Africa, is the dignity for those South Africans already suffering under the laissez-faire incompetencies of the ANC dictatorship who now have to make room in already overcrowded cities, townships and squatter camps for swarms of desperate immigrants who also want a share of what is clearly an inadequate, mismanaged and ill-divided political and economic cake?

Does the ANC have no shame? Is it not ashamed that it continues its rhetoric and spin doctoring even though it clearly cannot do its job – either at home or around the table in Harare? Just what are the criteria against which it measures itself and which, obviously, allow it in its collective politburo mind to continue its rule?

Of course, shame and admission of error are not matters for easy admission by any politician even in the normal course of events, much less at any other time. Such is the nature of the beast. (Also, incidentally, such is the nature of those that look for and permit the politicians to rule; populations and electorates tend to be lazy in thinking for themselves and constantly seek the comfort of having someone else do their thinking for them. A contradiction of the human condition is that, of all the creatures on the planet, humans have the greatest ability to deal with change, challenge and chance yet are the most persistent in their – often unconscious and unspoken – drive for certainty and comfort.)

Admission of error in Africa is very difficult. Culturally the strong man must be seen to be strong, even if – especially if – wrong. The advent of colonial rule, with all the embarrassments that that brought, together with the displays of power and material goods by the colonial powers, then provided the need to display to the world that Africa and Africans could achieve the same themselves without outside intervention.

The loss of face when African nations screw things up is immense – far more so than the purported Oriental perceptions of face. This is why, for example, racism and colonialism are frequently used as catchphrases to divert attention away from the true reasons for African failure.

Mugabe blames the racism and imperialism of Britain and America for his devastation of the Zimbabwean economy and social structure. Mbeki and many of his colleagues blame racism in South Africa for the failure of many of the ANC’s policies and programmes. It is far less embarrassing and far easier to fix the blame rather than the problem – particularly where personal political careers and ambitions might be at stake. It’s an African pastime; it didn’t rain enough; it rained too much; we don’t have enough money; foreigners are taking our women and jobs; the Whites don’t share; the British conspire against our sovereignty; the Chinese steal our resources; the Indians are lazy and greedy; the Zulus cannot be trusted and steal everything not nailed down; the World Food Programme gave our starving people the wrong food; it goes on and on.

Spearpoint is not suggesting that there are not grains of truth and reality in some or all of the above excuses. But that is what they are – excuses. Fourteen years after shouldering aside the burdens of apartheid the ANC and its stalwarts still glibly trot out racism, colonialism and imperialism as reasons behind its failures in almost every arena of life in South Africa. They fail to see that history is history; it is past and passé. History is a guide for and to the future, not a Balkan-type motivation for perpetuating old horrors as justification for interminable inefficiencies and inadequacies.

Unfortunately, it is in the past that the ANC finds itself mired. Starting its existence as a protest and liberation movement the ANC has been unable to shrug off that mindset. Fourteen years into government the ANC is trapped in a time-warp, still slavishly employing the same slogans, gestures and thought patterns of its Communist Party origins and history dating back to the October Revolution and the Long March when those who were not for the movement were targetted as enemies and to be treated accordingly. Defunct ideology and the mindless mouthing of Cold War rhetoric serve little useful purpose when the living are here and now in a world that has moved on from what may or may not have happened centuries ago.

The ANC has failed to heed its own ideological teachings and raison d’etre which were to grow, improve and develop. The ANC has fallen at the first hurdle of metamorphosing from a liberation movement into a credible political party and sustainable government. The eyes and thoughts of the ANC remain firmly fixed on the perceived glories of its past where, by virtue of the then prevailing circumstances, it was easy to exhibit and enjoy disciplined solidarity since the goals of the organisation were simple to define and explain and the enemy was easily identified. Now in government the aims and objectives are far fuzzier in the face of the need to be a responsible and credible representative of an entire and diverse population; the temptation for which the ANC has fallen has been that of remaining a lobby group for a narrow and specific segment of the populace. The ANC continues to view everything non-ANC as being ‘the enemy’ and has behaved and responded accordingly.

Thus, for example, ANC officials will blame ‘white mentality’ and resistant racism for poor results on the rugby pitch or athletics field where points are not awarded for ideological or racial purity but for excellence in performance. Excellence cannot be legislated or enforced. It must be scouted, nurtured and developed organically. A fat runner cannot be expected to be able to produce satisfactory results in the marathon, regardless of any racial or socio-economic origins from which the individual may have come; the athlete must be made fit and then trained in his discipline before adequate results can be reasonably expected. Likewise, a school leaver, unable to add, subtract and so on cannot become a computer technician or electrician until he has had the time and resources granted him to master sufficient of the basics to enable him to then progress on to more specialised (and better paid) areas of competence.

Similarly with the Zimbabwe situation. The ANC remains locked in its perennial ‘circle-the-wagons’ mentality of giving greater weight to old loyalties than to recognition of getting the job done and removing those who fail to produce results. The support given the ANC by Mugabe and Zimbabwe during the ANC’s years of opposition to the then South African regime are viewed by the ANC to be perpetual bonds of debt that far outweigh any consideration of the abilities and rationale of the creditor in that relationship. That Mugabe is an egomaniacal despot who has so alienated the people of both his own country and others around the world that the economic and political fabric of Zimbabwe now lies tattered and fallen appears to matter less to the ANC than the perceived debt owed to Mugabe by the ANC. Worse still, the negative impact upon South Africa and other SADC countries stemming from Mugabe’s depredations is clearly considered by the ANC to be of little import; it could be argued that what happens in Zimbabwe is their own affair and they should be allowed to get on with it, but the argument fails if the actions of Zimbabwe directly impact on South Africa. Would the ANC retain its present stance if the Zimbabwean army were to invade South Africa in order to seize assets no longer available in Zimbabwe? Or would the ANC turn a blind eye, again, and insist that no crisis existed?

As the governing party of South Africa the ANC’s prime responsibility is to the country and all the people of South Africa. The ANC’s responsibility to Zimbabwe (or any other country, for that matter) is secondary, at best. Get your own house in order. Only then – not before – and if there is something to spare, can you turn your charitable efforts elsewhere.

Hubris can be a terrible thing. It blinds one to failings and shortcomings which, if pride be briefly set aside, could be corrected with a minimum of fuss and damage. There is no shame or loss of self-esteem in saying “I don’t know” or “I don’t have the skills right now to correct this situation” and then turning to others who possess the requisite knowledge. Knowledge and skills know no skin colours – but where they are claimed when, in fact, they are absent then there is a real and severe humiliation when the deficit is finally revealed.

Levy Mwanawasa’s legacy – in part, at least – will be of declaring to the world that just because fellow black Africans now largely control their own destinies it is still not right or acceptable when laws and principles are broken and cast aside – just as it is unacceptable when ordinary people suffer because their leaders are too proud or ideologically blinkered to acknowledge that they are relatively new to the business of running their own affairs and to bring in the required expertise.

Spearpoint.

26^th August 2008

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

More Thoughts on the Power Crisis

I have already given voice to various criticisms of Eskom, its management and the role of the ANC government in the present electricity shortages in South Africa.

Consider them repeated and reinforced.

Further consideration, however, brings other things to mind.

I can clearly remember a sustained programme of Eskom advertising over a number of years which promoted and encouraged a continued growth in the use of electricity – a campaign which seems to have tapered off only towards the end of 2007. (Although why a state-protected monopoly working with a totally captive market should ever need to advertise its wares absolutely escapes me).

Despite having the knowledge – if we are to believe the words of the mismanagers of our beloved power utility – of an impending electricity crisis, Eskom continued to actively market their products and services to the public.

What complete lunacy.

It’s akin to the driver of a runaway truck, fast approaching an unfenced precipice in the mountains, suddenly putting his foot down hard on the accelerator instead of the brake pedal.

The management of Eskom, eager in their empire building and anxious for their revenue-related bonuses, ignored their own warnings about a looming power crisis to government and carried on as if all was normal and they had unlimited reserves of electricitry generation to play with indefinitely.

And, incidentally, concurrently running down reserve stocks of coal at all the power stations almost to the point of feeding such coal as was delivered straight into the furnaces upon arrival, blaming inevitable hiccups on “wet coal”.

Horse apples.

Where was the professional competence in such activities? Where were the planning skills expected of the executive and senior managers of a multi-billion Rand public enterprise?

How can these instances be seen, in any way that even a five year-old can accept and understand, as the directors of Eskom exercising their fiduciary resposibilities to the company and their shareholders?

And where, in all this, were the oversight mechanisms supposedly put in place and actively exercised by the Energy Regulator and the government?

Or were the various government ministers and their departments so besotted with the nice fat revenues pouring into the Treasury and SARS that they were too busy counting and planning how to spend the money to be bothered with anything else – such as making sure the goose providing those lovely golden eggs wasn’t being mistreated and starved by its handlers.

There is no escape from the inevitable conclusions to be drawn from the entire Eskom/power crisis situation as it presently stands.

The directors and senior management of Eskom – all of them – must be dismissed without benefit. Additionally they must be investigated and charged, if appropriate, under the Companies Act and whatever passes for a Treason Act in this country.

Moreover, the government ministers and senior departmental officers of the government departments concerned with the control, financing, regulation and oversight of Eskom should be immediately removed from office – without benefit – and, like the directors of Eskom, investigated and charged as appropriate.

And if the ANC decides to continue to protect these incompetents by hiding behind their infamous get-out-of-jail-free-card ploy of “collective responsibilty”, then the ANC must immediately recuse itself from government and let the country find more suitable candidates for the job.

 

Spearpoint.

More on Eskom

More about the bright sparks at Eskom…

 1.     Why doesn’t somebody from the police or – better yet – the Scorpions investigate Eskom management?

Where are the business ethics and duties to the shareholders and consumers of Eskom when the management can blithely negotiate coal supply contracts at exorbitant premium-plus prices and, worse still, when that management has done so in the clear knowledge that Eskom does not have the funds now or in the future to honour those contracts?

This has to be a blatant effort on the part of Eskom to force their desired 53% price hike through on the basis that when the stocks of coal are delivered there will be no money to pay the suppliers and the Energy Regulator will have no choice but to agree the price hike.

Such behaviour is cynical in the extreme. It is dishonest. It goes against every principle of good management practice in the book.

Unless, of course, regardless of the government and Eskom assuring everyone in South Africa that a full and proper public debate will be conducted, the decision on the price hike has already been approved on the quiet.

The Eskom board should be sacked forthwith and prosecuted for directorial malfeasance.

2.     The failure of Eskom to cut power last Monday as part of its coercive “predictive” (whatever that means) programme against the South African people, together with the patchy and inconsistent power cuts over the past few months, expose the lie that South Africa has a genuine power crisis.

A genuine power supply and distribution problem would see have seen a long period of minor power outtages rather than the sudden claimed shortage of 10+% resulting in huge areas of the country being blacked out. Such a massive shortfall could not happen overnight as it did last year. The demand for power could not have jumped so dramatically within a matter of a few days, nor could it have kept at the supposedly new high levels – even allowing for Eskom’s incompetence in maintaining its generating infrastructure. Our economy did not grow at such a pace in such a short period – and we still had more than enough power to export to every man and his dog elsewhere in Africa.

3.     The withdrawl of the US company looking to build a couple of power stations for Eskom on the grounds of the venture not being able to earn enough money is a further indication that both Eskom and the government are being less than honest with us regarding the reason for our purported power problems.

This is another straw in the wind indicating that the power crisis is a construct of the government and its lapdog, Eskom, to artificially raise the price of electricity in this country in order to make it sufficiently attractive to sell off an essential and strategic national asset to foreign investors.

For a communist/socialist movement and government the ANC sure seems to love the almighty Dollar…

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.

A little more on crime in South Africa…

“Morning Live” – a breakfast programme on SABC (the State broadcasting carrier) – today had quite an interesting theme, addressing crime and the impact upon our society and citizenry.

Usually I don’t watch this programme in any detail except for the news headlines, the business reports and the weather. I am uncomfortable with the (often) blatant apologetic and praise-singing role that the SABC adopts for the government and the ANC in this and other programmes. 

Be that as it may, this morning I was rather surprised to discover that the programme (by the way, Morning Live, you are not a “show” – you have no dancing girls, jugglers, big bands or other spectaculars intended to entertain), was devoting much of its time on air to the topic of crime and related issues. Surprised, because this is now the second time of which I am aware in the last week or so that the topic has been addressed quite so critically.

Various guests were given (by what I perceive to be normal SABC standards) an interestingly intensive grilling by the presenter who, I felt, was trying to get beyond the more usual mealy-mouthed responses given by representatives or spokesmen of whichever government bodies happen to be under scrutiny.

This type of interviewing was sufficiently different from what I have seen previously that it gave me pause for thought.

(There were, I figured, three possible ways of looking at the reasons behind the apparently new style and content:

1. The presenter had finally got sick and tired of the usual placatory spin doled out by guests on occasions like this;
2. The SABC has, finally, decided to change its editorial policy towards a position more independent of its more normal toeing-the-ANC-line function; or,
3. Like the old days in the USSR, the SABC is, Pravda-like, issuing a signal that the government is, at long last, reviewing its position on its crime-fighting policies and practices – there is, after all, an election looming next year.

Assuming any of the above might apply – Hallelujah!)

But I digress.

Each of the guests  being interviewed appeared to be sincere, professional and, even, erudite. Their responses to many of the questions were even plausible. But plausibility and political correctness are not what is required to solve our problems regarding crime.

The party line (in this case, that of the ANC) has, manifestly, failed to work to date. And falling back on the now old and tired argument of inherited legacies from our apartheid past – relevant and pertinent as they may have been in the immediate post-1994 South Africa – just doesn’t hold water any longer. Much as the ANC might wish to continue blaming apartheid for all the ills of the next two hundred years, the fact is that, aside from the ANC’s current implementation of its own particular programme of apartheid, we are living in the present and there has been plenty of time to address and correct many of the problems bequeathed to us from the old regime – especially crime.

This is where our law enforcement policies and programmes have failed so dramatically and this is what we did not hear on Morning Live today from the so-called experts. Not once did any of the guests refer to, much less accept, responsibility for the current situation.

To be fair, I doubt that any of the guests was in any sort of position to actually carry direct responsibility for the levels and types of crime so prevalent in South Africa today. But they did not say that those who are responsible for the policies, the allocation of funds and resources, the quality of the service provided by the police and courts, as well as those who perform the enforcement of our laws are not being held accountable and are not being required to accept, at a personal and professional level, the responsibilities with which they are charged.

Perhaps this is not surprising since our political masters are so adept at hiding behind the incomprehensible concept of “collective” responsibility or liability for when things go wrong. The recent Eskom fiasco, numerous cases of theft, fraud and corruption in various government departments – not only have the individuals involved all too often kept their jobs and positions but so, too, have the relevant ministers and directors-general under the doctrine of collective responsibility. The term has been used very loosely and without definition of what it actually means and what sanctions (and how they are determined) apply in such cases. If our government were honest about conforming to some principle of “collective” responsibility then, logically applied, the entire government should resign if even one minister or appointee fails in the discharge of his or her duties.

It is the issue of responsibility that is the very crux of the current crime situation.

It’s a two-way street. The government seeks, theoretically and practically, to hold you and me personally and directly responsible if we evade our taxes, drive through red traffic lights, embezzle from our employer, poach abalone, possess a firearm without a licence, use the “K”-word, abduct and kill our neighbours and their children – and quite rightly so. Most of us do implicitly and willingly accept that personal responsibility. Why can’t the members and employees of our government and its various agencies do the same? Or are there too many political debts from the past, too much hidden patronage arranged in smoke-filled rooms/jungle camps in the nineteen-eighties to ever permit true, honest and transparent personal accountability?

We have the laws. We have the human rights. We have a great Constitution.

We have – nothing.

The Constitution and its precepts are too often regarded as instruments of convenience.

Our laws are not fully, properly or professionally enforced; as a result our human rights, where they exist at all, are devalued and insignificant. Words or wishes alone do not make human rights.

Fourteen years after release from a repressive social and political order has seen South Africa take many great strides towards improving the lot of the bulk of the population and the ANC deserves considerable credit for those achievements.

However, what was the point in empowering and enriching those who were previously disadvantaged when they and their newly-won possessions and means of acquiring those possessions are not protected by their government and its various agencies? The government manifestly has no desire to see individual citizens empowered (by virtue of being enabled and entitled to own and possess firearms) to defend their own rights to life and possession of private property; by default the government has taken that role and duty upon itself – and has failed to discharge it with even the smallest degree of competence.

Surely the ANC would not wish to be accused of having sought and achieved power merely for the exercise and enjoyment of that power by the few who manage(d) to scramble to the top of the ANC pyramid and the devil take the rest? Surely the ANC would not wish to be compared with other countries in Africa?

Although my personal experience of power has been very limited (I am but a family man), I believe that, whilst there are personal benefits to be legitimately expected and gained, power also incurs obligations and responsibilities which must be honoured.

Enjoy the perks, pay, limos, nice offices and furniture, the travel and so on. We won’t begrudge you. But these come with a quid pro quo which cannot be shirked or denied.

If you cannot – or will not - actually perform your job in a way that yields the results expected of you then, please, step aside and let someone else have a shot. This is how it works outside of government; do your job well and receive the rewards; do the job badly and expect demotion or dismissal. It’s fair and just. And it engenders tremendous respect in those over whom you have dominion. Think of the regard in which both the government and, say, for example, the current Minister of Safety and Security would be held if the Minister were to say; “Sorry, guys, I seem to have made a bit of a dog’s breakfast of my job. I am going to ask the President to re-assign me to another area of responsibility better suited to my abilities and ask him to appoint Spearpoint to take over my role because I believe he might be able to get some better results”. Spearpoint may or may not do a better job but, at least the government would receive huge credit for being sufficiently self-critical as to recognise that it has a shortcoming and is doing something to rectify it.

(I should hasten to point out here that Spearpoint does not seek the post of Minister of Safety and Security or any other. My ambitions tend to be more modest and mundane.)

Leaders are expected to lead – and not just in insisting on compliance with their dictates. It is not “Do as I say” but, rather “Do what I do”. Leadership comes from example. Society follows its leaders (by definition). If society’s leaders are seen to be honest, hard working, transparent and law-abiding then society tends to emulate the example of those leaders. If leaders are seen to be dishonest, grasping and beyond or above the law to which everyone else is subject, then the rest of society will follow that same example and regard the public law with contempt; they will, like their leaders, seek their own selfish privilege (lit. “private law”) and disregard all but their own private interests to the stark detriment of everyone else.

Spearpoint.