Happy Birthday, Mr. Mandela. And, By The Way, Please Don’t Die Yet.

 

Today is the 90^th birthday of Nelson Mandela (‘Madiba’) and the whole world has been sending their best wishes and thanks to him.

 

At the risk of being accused of jumping on the bandwagon, I, too, would like to extend my own personal greetings and wishes to him. Not that they are likely to reach him, of course – I very much doubt that the great man is a subscriber to this blog. And even if he were, I suspect that he might not wish to admit to the fact. Nonetheless, my wishes for his special day and for his continued good health and longevity are sincere and heartfelt.

 

However, today is not as joyous as it could perhaps be for far too many South Africans and, in light of that fact, I would wish to amend my birthday wishes to Mr. Mandela as follows: ‘Many happy returns of the day, Madiba, and please could you find the strength and energy to come out of retirement for a short while and put our country back on track’.

 

Ordinarily, the 21^st century political and government scene should, after all the lessons of the past few hundred years around the world, be one where the characters and characteristics of individual politicians and leaders (not necessarily the same thing, by the way), whilst important, should not, however, be dominant over the system of prevailing political and economic theory and practice.

 

Despite considerable fear at the time of the transition from the old South African order, Mr. Mandela proved to be an acceptable exception to the above statement. His humanity, compassion, statesmanship and deep discipline marked South Africa out as being a beacon of hope to many other countries around the globe – to say nothing of those people who had, directly and indirectly, suffered under the pre-1994 government. In so doing, Mr. Mandela bequeathed a bold and immensely valuable legacy to South Africa.

 

Which is precisely why today is not as happy an occasion as it could – and should – be as the great man and a significant portion of the planet celebrates the start of his 91^st year.

 

The stark reality is that the Mandela bequest to all South Africans has been defiled and squandered by those who took up the reins of power and influence after his departure. Sure, the words of those now steering our ship of state on to the political, social and economic rocks are filled with obsequiousness to the man and his vision; but the lip-service is cynical and self-serving when compared with the actions and motivations of those now with their hands on the tiller.

 

Some fourteen years after the 1994 transition South Africa appears to have progressed little towards those objectives set out and exemplified by Nelson Mandela.

 

South Africa still has the obscenity of innumerable squatter camps. Where housing for the poor has been provided it is invariably small, mean and inadequate for the needs of growing families and entrepreneurs. The squatter camps of the next decade and on will be the RDP and low-cost housing projects of the townships.

 

South Africa still has the obscenity of a gargantuan and permanent crime wave (now no longer excusable as a form of anti-Apartheid political action) which is, in terms of volume and nature, on a par – at least – with any war zone you might wish to name on the planet.

 

South Africa, far from leading the rest of Africa away from the stereotypes of the continent, has actively joined the club of banana republics in the race to grab the titles of the most corrupt and most politically expedient societies in the world. Political and social leaders vie with one another, it appears, to see who can extract the most money and power from the cookie jar of government service and public finance. Nepotism and cronyism are rife locally and internationally. Our foreign policies – most notably towards Zimbabwe, Equatorial Guinea, and Sudan (amongst others) – are an international joke and a domestic embarrassment.

 

South Africa’s education system (never noted for its egalitarianism or excellence) is collapsing under the weight of acute teacher shortages and administrative incompetencies.

 

Similarly, the South African public health system, under the leadership of a minister who denies the realities of HIV/AIDS and would prefer to treat those thus afflicted with beetroot, spinach and whatever local witch doctors might concoct from unprovenanced ingredients, is imploding from staff and skills shortages, graft and maladministration.

 

South African infrastructure is unraveling. The road system is (literally) breaking up under the traffic. No new major road or highway has been constructed since 1994. Public transport is so piecemeal as to be non-existent. Eskom and the electrical generation and distribution network under its care is a monstrous caricature of what the ANC inherited from its predecessors.

 

South African government is ceasing to work properly. Government departments are slothful and inefficient. Where once a passport would, routinely, be issued within ten to fourteen days, applicants now have to wait for upwards of six months. Driving tests and the issuance of licences, once accomplished within days can now – depending on the locality – take over one year.

 

South African public ethics and the moral fibre of the country are disintegrating. Public officials, no longer afraid of their subjection to the law of the land, openly – and oftentimes violently – compete for power. Politicians and government departments flagrantly flout or ignore court orders and rulings. The judiciary appears to be becoming enmeshed in political rivalries and factionalism.

 

At least 26% of all South Africans, from all racial and socio-economic groupings, are reported to be either in the process of emigration or are actively considering it.

 

So, Mr. Mandela, Happy Birthday.

 

But would you please at least consider coming out of retirement for a year in order to put our house back in some semblance of order? It’s a lot to ask and I’m sure you are tired. It would be appreciated – especially by those who are closest to your heart; the poor, the elderly, the sick, the young.

 

And – please – don’t die anytime soon. For then South Africa will have no-one with any political integrity or moral authority left to shield us hapless common folk from the predations of who are ambitious, greedy and ruthless.

 

Spearpoint.

 

18^th July 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shooting to Kill the Criminals

 

Maybe it’s a bit premature, but I feel like cheering.

 

At long last someone in the South African government appears to have made a break from the usual line of bull dust regarding the fight against crime.

 

The Deputy Minister of Safety and Security has encouraged the police to be very much tougher on dangerous criminals.

 

During some sort of conference/seminar in which she addressed members of the police force (sorry – ‘service’) (yeah, sure) the Deputy Minister said (referring to the criminals) “Kill the bastards – especially if they are threatening you or the community”. She is reported to have received an enthusiastic response from those police officers present.

 

Spearpoint has had occasion to make comment on the issue of crime in some earlier posts (“Crime and Punishment”; “More About Crime and Rights in South Africa”; “A Little More on Crime in South Africa”).

 

Those of you who have graced my site and read those posts will understand why old Spearpoint is a small step closer to throwing his hat in the air.

 

How refreshing it is that, out of the blue – and in stark contrast to the stance and performance of the Minister of Safety and Security – a senior government minister has had the courage and honesty to break from the usual insipid ANC utterances and actions on how best to combat the criminals in our midst.

 

Good on you, Deputy Minister. Crime is against the law. The law is derived from our much-vaunted Constitution. Crime contravenes the Constitution and our Constitutional and human rights. Contravening the Constitution cancels the Constitutional rights of the contravener. He, therefore, has no constitutional rights and the police then have the duty to terminate, with extreme prejudice, those rights. Survivors will be prosecuted.

 

It is likely, however, that the good lady Deputy Minister will be severely chastised by her ANC brethren for daring to be so politically incorrect.

 

If a reprimand or dismissal follows her comments then you will know, without doubt, that the present government and the ANC has absolutely no interest or intention of further tackling crime and its aftermath beyond what they have already determined to be an “acceptable” level.

 

But coming hot on the heels of Jacob Zuma’s recent outspoken statement about the electoral fiasco in Zimbabwe, I am struck by the thought that, maybe, just maybe, we might be seeing some sort of shuffling of feet away from the more usual ANC policy of doing everything on the quiet – “quiet” diplomacy, “quiet” policing and “quiet” ethics.

 

Of course everything has been “quiet” on the part of the government. When you bury your head under the blankets for fear of seeing the bogeyman you’re so afraid of having to confront and take a stand on, then everything does go quiet. So you do not, then, hear your neighbour abusing his family, you do not hear the burglar coming to help himself to what he hasn’t earned and you do not hear your own family members conniving to rob you of what the burglar leaves behind.

 

Jacob Zuma’s comments on Zimbabwe and on re-opening the debate on the death penalty (see my post “The Death Penalty and Electioneering in South Africa”) are understandable. He is trying hard to establish himself as a credible popular politician suitable for the role of the leader of this country and doing it in a way that will distance and distinguish himself from the “business as usual” style of Thabo Mbeki and his allies.

 

Perhaps the Deputy Minister of Safety and Security is, cynically, also positioning herself for the upcoming change of government leadership in 2009. Perhaps she just wants to ensure that she will still have a nice cushy ministerial job come this time next year.

 

I don’t really care.

 

For the first time the necessary words are being spoken. It remains to be seen whether the necessary actions will follow. I, for one, certainly hope so.

 

I just hope that the police are up to the task…

 

Spearpoint.

 

 

 

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.

Is “One Man, One Vote” Democratic?

You just know, don’t you, before even I start this little discourse, that I am going to be a bit perverse and argue in some way or another that “One man, one vote” is not, in fact, democratic. And, yes, that’s what I’m going to do.

Now (obviously) I don’t want you, gentle reader, to think badly of poor old Spearpoint, skip this post and then shun future posts. So let me make clear that I am a democrat.

I believe very firmly in democratic ideals and aspirations. Having (once upon a time ) lived in a non-democratic one-party state for a couple of years, I am all too aware of the actual and potential benefits of democracy. The experience of living in a place where democracy was an enemy ideology made precious those freedoms of thought, expression, movement etc. – and which I had taken so much for granted in the past.

Not that those two years were, in and of themselves, bad; in many ways they were not. But what was salutary was the growing realisation that one had to be careful – sometimes in the extreme – of what one said and did and the manner in which it was done. Because one’s ability to walk around and enjoy the fresh air, because one’s ability to obtain, keep and prosper in a job, and because one’s ability to secure halfway-decent housing was all totally dependent upon the unfettered whim of some minor government or party flunky, the recognition of, and obedience to, political correctness in a one-party or quasi-one party state is a vital survival strategy. For someone brought up in the relatively free and easy-going Western democracies it was, indeed, salutary.

For those who have never had such an experience it is easy to forget that there are places where tolerance to diverse points of view or lifestyles is slim to non-existent. It is no wonder that, economic considerations aside, people try to flock to some of the Western multi-party democracies, away from their more restrictive origins.

So I am a great supporter of democratic ideals.

 There are several differing types of democracy around the world, but all are pretty much based upon the concept of “one man (read “person”), one vote”.

Generally the vote is granted to persons of legal majority age (varying from territory to territory) and restricted only to citizens or legally permanent residents of those territories. Most, if not all, countries which practice their particular version(s) of democracy now include women on their voters’ rolls.

The original concept of democratic power determination appears to have come about in the ancient Greek city states but would not be accepted too widely today as a good democratic model. Only land-owning mature males who were citizens could vote. Women and slaves were excluded – I guess the thinking was that property could not have a voice as to how property could and should be managed. Interestingly, there was no body of professional politicians such as we have today; leaders of each city were seconded – often against their wishes – to rule and manage based upon the record of each seconded individual as an upright, loyal citizen and successful businessman. Normally, each selected individual was seconded for a period of about one year and was barred from making any financial gains during his tenure; political leadership was not, therefore, something that was actively sought after by most people – it was too expensive and, if the incumbent was inept, unlucky or crooked, the penalties could be severe.

How strange it is, then, that we in our modern world – which is so much more complex that that of the Ancients – have chosen to re-work the original concept in a way that is counter-productive to the ideals and realisation of the democratic concept and to which so much lip-service is given.

We have allowed everyone a single vote of equal value. We place the voting power and wisdom of the untutored peasant on a par with the individual who has striven to better himself and those around him through, for example, education and community service. And because (such is life – in Richard Bach’s words; “The higher, the fewer”) the peasants outnumber the men of letters and other achievements, our modern democracies tend to use processes which select the elect based upon lowest-common-denominator-thinking.

This is dangerous.

It is dangerous because the majority of voters are those most amenable to manipulation and coercion. It is dangerous because it permits those most hungry for personal power to gain ascendancy without necessarily seeking the benefit of the wider community and those who are targeted by the aspirant politicians to elect the power-hungry into office. It is dangerous because the power-hungry are not necessarily armed with the mundane operational skills of daily power management which translate the theories of any particular government into the daily realities of those who gave their votes in return for the various promises made; this results in the creation of a sub-strata of less ambitious and less capable individuals who, often riding on the coat-tails of their political patrons and through the provision of the more prosaic skills, generate their own niches by which they can gain social status and their own brand of power.

Society today is too complex to safely continue along this path. Surely we have learned from the Hitler’s, Stalin’s, Mugabe’s and others in our recent history that populism and dictatorship (included elected dictatorship) are too easy to acquire through our current democratic processes and methodologies to continue as a viable model of government selection.

We will always have people who are ambitious for personal power. Their motives might range from ideological to egotistical, through to financial.

But why make it unnecessarily easy for such people to gain and hold power? All they have to do is to figure out what the bottom stratum of society most craves, translate those cravings into simple and simplistic terminology and promises and then present those promises in an irresistible manner – be it in the form of gifts of food and land, social elevation, power sharing or, even, genocide – come the time of the election. We are, ultimately, too reliant upon the good will of those we elect to power and, far too often, we have paid terrible local, regional and global prices when that reliance and trust has been abrogated.

Perhaps a solution could lie with something written as a novel back in 1959. “Starship Troopers” by Robert Heinlein is a science fiction novel that pictures a society in the fairly far future (and released as a rather gory – but good – movie a few years ago). The following thoughts are based, loosely, upon my own personal reading and understanding of the book.

The basic premise is that in order to enjoy the benefits of a complex technological society those born into that society must earn their position and fulfill certain obligations before reaping the rewards. All societies throughout history have, one way or another, been meritocracies based upon the then perceived needs of those societies – even if some regarded merit as being defined by birth, class and caste.

Generally speaking, Western societies today are broadly technological and monetary meritocracies and access to the benefits of those societies are, broadly, available to those with either sufficient appropriate skills and/or sufficient money. Again in general, money permits the acquisition of skills which, in turn, expose the acquirer of those skills to more money. In other words, society tends to reward those who make the effort to better themselves because society tends to benefit from the acquisition and application of those skills.

But how can society possibly benefit from having the bulk of its political voting power rest with the majority of its people who, rightly or wrongly, are the least educated, least skilled and least able to create for society?

Might it not be better to endow the vote with certain obligations before it can be exercised – rather than simply granting the right to vote just by virtue of the accident of birth and the attainment of a certain physical age? Why not allocate voting privileges, according to published lists of socially acceptable standards and attainments, to those who achieve certain milestones and achievements that are beneficial to the society which is awarding the right to vote?

For example:

• For reasons of personal, social and political maturity do not permit voting in public elections:- 1) before the age of 25 years; 2) following conviction for any series of three misdemeanours or one felony; 3) following the failure, without good reason, to exercise the right to vote in any public election;
• For reasons of intellectual ability to understand and participate in the electoral process, allocate 1.0 vote to each person who has passed scholastic 16+ examinations and is over the age of 25 years or, failing a scholastic certificate, has satisfactorily and successfully completed a two-year period of work or community/military service by the age of 25;
• For the successful completion of either an apprenticeship/trade qualification, undergraduate university degree or professional diploma – allocate 0.5 of a vote;
• For the successfull completion of a higher degree or equivalent professional/trade qualification – allocate 0.5 of a vote;
• For any officially recognised social or business achievement which has demonstrable results for the betterment of the community – allocate 0.25 of a vote per achievement to a maximum of 0.75 of a vote.

There are probably many additions and permutations that could be made to the above. (The vote values are, incidentally, quite arbitrary on my part and are intended only for the purposes of example.)

In this way not only would the electorate have – and be seen to have – the maturity and capability to participate in the electoral process, but it would be less likely to be open to manipulation by the less honest and unscrupulous power seekers through a more critical assessment of the arguments and exhortations. Additionally, the electorate would be incentivised to continually improve itself at an individual and community level both for the personal improvement in voting power and for the improvement of the community in general.

This and similar ideas have, no doubt, been espoused before in one form or another. Since I am not a political scientist/sociologist/politician or the like, I am not aware of those arguments except through Heinlein’s book. Probably there are some better ideas around of which I have no knowledge.

But it does strike me that, in the interests of stabilty, peace, continuity and general social development and progress that a more mature method of guaging the general public’s social and political desires needs to move away from the cynical manipulation of often ill-informed and unconsidered perceptions based upon the drive for immediate gratification that so often characterises electorates.

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.