at heart, rather than for the profit of a few individuals, makes such choices more palatable.
Similarly, to award state contracts for critical services to black economic empowerment (BEE) companies on the basis of their owners’ political connections or liberal donations to the ANC, while knowing that they do not have the capacity to deliver, and so again robbing the poor of ‘a better life’, is equally wrong. It is unacceptable that state-owned companies disburse finance or tenders to businesses linked to their own board of directors. It is just silly for someone to say, ‘I recused myself from the meeting where the decision was made.’ Neither is it enough for state-owned companies to say they have disclosed such transactions in annual reports. The point is: If your friends and comrades are on the board that will make the decision to award a tender to your company, you do not need to be physically there.
Ultimately, we also need to bring greater transparency to the funding of political parties. Knowing which companies or individuals have donated to the ANC, DA or COPE is almost the only way to know whether they have secured their tenders solely on the basis of this, rather than merit. Almost every African liberation and independence movement lost the plot when they, or individual leaders, started to dabble in business, securing state tenders and contracts, trying to make profit, for themselves or the party leadership, rather than at all times governing in the broadest public interest.
Sowetan, 28 January 2010
Doublespeak paralyses society and the economy
If one listens to public statements from many senior ANC-COSATU-SACP tripartite alliance leaders, one cannot help but notice that doublespeak has now – sadly – become the dominant culture. Leaders say one thing, but do the opposite. Some leaders say they are pro-poor, but they drive R1,2-million cars paid for with public money. Others call for strong measures against corruption, but behave in dodgy ways themselves. And yet others defend gender equality while in the same breath making outrageously sexist statements.
Some argue for nationalisation of the mines, saying that this will redistribute resources to the poor. If only this was genuine. In reality, they want to bail out struggling BEE tycoons or put their friends in charge of the proposed nationalised companies – and so extend their web of patronage. Others defend our democratic institutions, but in their actions undermine them. They defend the rule of law and call for those who transgress it to be harshly punished. Yet, they themselves – as senior politicians – appear to be untouchable. When they do wrong, they can manipulate things in such a way that they will go scot-free.
Leaders ‘talk left, but act right’. Some say they are communists, but their real actions indicate they are not. In public ANC leaders say everything is hunky-dory, that they are ‘united’, but in private they fight viciously among themselves. Nobody knows any more what the genuine policies of leaders and organisations within the ANC family are.
It is now difficult to distinguish between fact and fantasy. It is a circus. If the consequences were not so tragic, one could joke about it. Firstly, the policy confusion that the double talk is causing means that those who devise and implement policies either do not have adequate information, or have the wrong information, to do so effectively. The same goes for those who want to make new investments. They cannot do so, because they do not know the real policy position of government.
Mixed messages from politicians make it very difficult for government planners to allocate resources efficiently. They also cause implementation paralysis. Senior civil servants are reluctant to implement policies they are not sure are backed by the influential politicians in the ANC. It could be career-ending.
The double talk also opens the door for corruption. Since there is no certainty about policies, those with enough money can pay to have policies that favour their interests implemented.
Ordinary people are totally confused. Government leaders make outrageous promises, even if they know the resources are not available (not to mention the capacity). They talk up the expectations of ordinary citizens. Not surprisingly, promises made this way are hardly ever met fully. No wonder that many deflated communities then vent their frustration in angry outbursts by burning down municipal buildings, trains and the homes of local elected representatives.
It is better if there is total honesty about policies. It is also better to state the real motivation for particular decisions and approaches. Then society can debate the various proposals on their merits and honestly decide our core priorities – which we cannot do effectively now, in a culture where doublespeak is the norm.
If only for selfish reasons, the ANC, COSATU and the SACP must stop the doublespeak. It erodes the trust their members and supporters have in them, and without that trust their membership will leave them sooner rather than later. Importantly, ordinary citizens will become more cynical and withdraw from politics altogether, or start to express their preferences increasingly violently.
Sowetan, 21 January 2010
Riding out the storm of political uncertainty
Developing countries that have prospered since the Second World War have generally had focused political leadership at the helm. After the ANC’s National General Council (NGC) in Durban recently it must now be clear that the people leading South Africa don’t necessarily possess this quality. In fact, it is obvious that the ANC’s leadership has lost direction.
The ANC’s NGC deferred all critical policy decisions until the national conference in 2012, which means South Africa will have more of the same until then – loud bickering between the ANC’s different factions over policy – which will continue to paralyse government. And if Jacob Zuma succeeds in his bid for another five-year term, this cycle of paralysis will likely be repeated.
For the past two years it appears that whatever positive developments, whether new investment or outbursts of national unity during the Soccer World Cup, happened not because of the quality of our political leadership, but rather, in spite of its paucity. Can South Africa prosper when its leadership is weak, disorganised and inept? And can those outside politics make any difference?
Firstly, it is very rare for a developing country to advance economically unless the political leadership in charge is focused. Over the last 50 years we have seen many developing countries – in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia – with high economic growth rates where the benefits of this growth have not been reinvested productively, because the political leadership only looked after themselves or simply lacked the depth to give direction.
In most advanced democracies the democratic institutions are strong and generally independent. Furthermore, politics at municipal level is quite often independent from national politics and municipal leaders are in power because they deliver on local issues, rather than because they hold allegiance to the governing party. In many cases local governments can raise taxes, and are mandated to deliver public services such as education, health, water and energy at a local level.
Italy is an example of a country which has a legacy of poor political leadership. Yet the country’s public service is relatively independent from the ruling political party and is meritocratic. Italy’s public service. Italy’s public service is also ring-fenced – public servants remain in their jobs no matter which party is in power – and this means that high-quality public services can still be delivered even if those leading the country are inept and corrupt or, as is often the case in Italy, there are rapid changes in government.
Furthermore, nongovernmental sectors in Italy – business, civil society, the press and academia – are generally aggressively independent, and continue to function no matter which party is in power. And although the judiciary and the police have been criticised regularly in recent years, there are huge pockets of excellence that, ultimately, compensate for the corrupt elements, and make the overall system function.
How does contemporary South Africa compare? Within the ANC there are obvious differences over policy and the resultant administrative paralysis will continue until the party has its national conference in December 2012. The irony, of course, is that the ANC is a single entity but operates as if it were different parties with different policies. South Africa has poor-quality political leadership and most of the public service and state-owned company