Zuma's giant leap to nowhere - Helen Zille

Zyzzyva

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
7,616
Reaction score
440
Zuma's "giant leap" - off the cliff

The ANC's policy conference in Midrand this week has dispelled any lingering hope that the ANC can still rescue South Africa from the consequences of 18 years of ANC rule.

If the conference resolutions (couched in tired, old Marxist jargon) are ever implemented, they will undoubtedly worsen the crisis of poverty, unemployment and inequality the ANC claims it wants to address.

The ANC acknowledges in its own discussion documents, prepared for the conference, that the state is "impotent". It acknowledges that there is a "crisis of outcomes" (otherwise known as delivery failure). But its plan to fix this is - more state control!

Despite the acknowledged failure of almost every state-driven intervention - from land reform to education renewal - President Zuma's opening speech blamed the familiar scapegoat: "white men" and the inherited disparities of apartheid.

Instead of the "giant leap" forward Zuma promised, the conference ended in a tenuous "holding operation" endorsing the re-hashed policy proposals adopted at Polokwane almost five years ago.

To be sure, it could have been worse. A large number of delegates were pushing for more radical forms of state-led populism, such as the wholesale nationalisation of the mining industry (which reportedly led to a fist fight between delegates behind closed doors) and the confiscation of land without compensation. If this lobby had triumphed, it would have been the death knell for further investment and economic growth. It is important that these calls were resisted (even if only by a narrow margin, in the case of the "land-grab" protagonists).

But this does not represent progress. It means that President Zuma will be even more compromised than he was before the conference. Policy paralysis is the inevitable outcome. Talk of the "developmental state" leading the "second phase of South Africa's transition" is hollow rhetoric, bereft of content.

Even if some of the policy proposals are implemented, they will make matters worse rather than better. Take the resolutions on mining: they are designed to make conditions more difficult for the mining industry, at a time when many mines are battling to survive. The proposed 50% resource rent tax on mining will inevitably lead to mine closures. The increased revenue government is trying to gain will be minimal compared to the economic and social impact of thousands more unemployed people.

Instead, we should grow mining output by working to reduce costs associated with poor transport infrastructure, inadequate export facilities and rising electricity prices. To grow jobs we need more down-stream industries in mining and to achieve this we should focus on improving the business and regulatory environment so that these industries are attractive to investors. State coercion to force mines to diversify by undertaking "beneficiation" will have the opposite effect.

Then there is the issue of land reform. The conference resolved that land should not be confiscated without compensation unless it had been acquired illegally. And while the concept of "willing-buyer, willing-seller" was rejected, the conference accepted that constitutional change was not needed. So the legal "status quo" remains: if the state and a private owner cannot reach agreement on compensation for land, a court must determine a reasonable price.

But the state's own central role in the failure of land reform remained unexamined. Eighteen years into democracy, an "audit" of land ownership in South Africa is still incomplete. If there was any serious intent to drive land reform and improve agricultural output, the ANC would start by focusing on South Africa's most fertile land along the country's eastern sea-board which is largely unproductive and held in various forms of "traditional" communal ownership. The state also owns vast tracts of land. But instead of using this land to broaden ownership and enhance agricultural production, the focus remains on punishing productive farmers. This is incomprehensible given that, according to the government's own statistics, over 80% of land reform ventures country-wide have failed.

Then there is the all-important area of investment, economic growth and job creation. It is clear from the discussion papers that the ANC still believes State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) should be the core drivers of "economic transformation" with a mandate to "advance the socio-economic and political agenda of the developmental state".

This jargon is pure satire, given the combined records of Transnet, Telkom, Eskom, South African Airways and the SABC. Between 2008 and 2010, state-owned enterprises had to be rescued by taxpayers to the tune of R243-billion. And to add insult to injury, when their CEOs and senior staff were "relieved" of their positions, it cost taxpayers R262-million to let them go.

As if this is not enough, there are now plans for a new state-owned mining company, a state-owned bank, a state-owned construction company, and a state-controlled "human resource planning entity". Each one of these is destined for failure. If a state is so inept that it cannot even deliver textbooks to schools, its attempt to control the supply and demand of human resources throughout the economy will certainly result in a "giant leap" - over the cliff and into an abyss.

While seeking state intervention everywhere it shouldn't, the ANC continues to resist it where it should. In 2011, R5-billion was budgeted to implement a Youth Wage Subsidy in order to encourage employers to offer "first-time" jobs to enable young work seekers to get a foothold on the first rung of the economic ladder. It remains unspent. Under pressure from COSATU, the ANC has shied away from implementing one of the few interventions by the state that would really boost productivity and opportunity, and broaden the participation of young people in the economy.

Instead, the ANC has opted for precisely the opposite. Although details are still sketchy, the conference mooted an ill-defined "job-seekers grant" offering young people an "allowance" while they look for work. This misdiagnoses the failure in our labour market, where job search costs are a limited contributor to unemployment. Accordingly, a grant with such a narrow focus will be relatively ineffective, increase dependence on the state, and do nothing to encourage more job creation.

One of the defining features of South Africa's unsustainable-socio economic order is that grant recipients outnumber personal taxpayers by more than 3:1. This new "grant" will merely skew this situation further. It will not enable more people to move into the productive economy and up the ladder, eventually growing the number of taxpayers. In fact, it will do precisely the opposite.

To really create jobs in South Africa the Youth Wage Subsidy (that supports the demand-side of the labour market) should be matched by a supply-side "Opportunity Voucher" to give young people the choice of subsidised further education or seed capital or business loan guarantees, according to their individual needs.

As the ANC delegates argued (and came to blows) behind closed doors, it was fitting that external developments overshadowed their deliberations. These events, that grabbed the headlines, told us much more about the "real ANC" than the resolutions emanating from its own commissions.

As if to symbolise the discrepancy between the ANC's words and its deeds, the rhetoric of Midrand was obliterated in the metaphorical pall of smoke that rose from the state-sponsored burning and shredding of undelivered textbooks a few hundred kilometres further north (appropriately near Polokwane).

Towards the end of the conference, another story took centre stage: the news that the state is finalising a R2-billion deal to purchase a new private jet for Jacob Zuma - that is bigger and better than Angela Merkel's.

That tells you all you need to know about the ANC's "developmental state" and the farce that passed itself off as a "pro-poor policy conference" in Midrand last week.

Sincerely yours,

Helen Zille

http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politi...b/en/page71654?oid=309340&sn=Detail&pid=71616
 
Very well said. Zuma is a "grab it all as fast as I can" person, not a leader at all. He compares with many of the more useless leaders in Africa
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, we have until April 2014 to see in which direction this country is headed I guess. 2 more years of ANC blunders, misadministration and corruption won't be enough for them to lose, will it be enough for the DA to take 34% and the two economic nodes, Gauteng and WP? The current rhetoric really does scare me. I love this country, I truly think in the right hands it can be a powerhouse but the current administration is a cancer. I wasn't able to vote in the last election, but I can vote in the next one and I most certainly will. I will be finishing up my degree by then and the ANC policies and extent of their power will determine whether another brain drain starts, and more skilled people, who have the power to create jobs and be employers leave this place or if they stay. If the outlook isn't positive I'm going to have no option but to do a post-grad overseas and to stay there.

At the current rate the DA has a good chance of taking the NC, Nelson Mandela Bay and a good share of Gauteng (Tshwane and Ekhurleni especially) If that is the case they will control every productive area in the country. They could effectively control South Africa with a minority and while not ideal, it would certainly be better than whatever the ANC do.
 
Could shower**** lose it at mangaung? Would things be better under Gwede?
 
Towards the end of the conference, another story took centre stage: the news that the state is finalising a R2-billion deal to purchase a new private jet for Jacob Zuma - that is bigger and better than Angela Merkel's.

That tells you all you need to know about the ANC's "developmental state" and the farce that passed itself off as a "pro-poor policy conference" in Midrand last week.

The biggest chief!
 
Now I agree with her with the problem STATE INTERVENTION. Now tell me how is a youth wage subsidy which is a STATE INTERVENTION going to solve the problem of STATE INTERVENTION?

The youth wage subsidy will not create jobs it will replace 1 job with another.... our issue with job creation stems from our labour laws and yet she doesn't mention it one bit, why isn't she addressing the proper issue?

lets be honest, they want to use the wage subsidy to try and buy votes..
 
Last edited:
Now I agree with her with the problem STATE INTERVENTION. Now tell me how is a youth wage subsidy which is a STATE INTERVENTION going to solve the problem of STATE INTERVENTION?

The youth wage subsidy will not create jobs it will replace 1 job with another.... our issue with job creation stems from our labour laws and yet she doesn't mention it one bit, why isn't she addressing the proper issue?

lets be honest, they want to use the wage subsidy to try and buy votes..
Yip

It's a hard sell to tell the poor the way to get them jobs is to allow employers to pay them less. The primary thing this wage subsidy does is it makes the ANC look like the bad guy, atleast to the jobless, which is a key voting demographic.
 
Code:
java.lang.NullPointerException: CCSObjectFactory: Could not instantiate object implementationName=native, interfaceName=CCSObjectInstanceFactory - com.cambrient.pangaea.common.PException: XMLParser:getFirstElement:Element 'interface' with attribute 'name' = 'CCSObjectInstanceFactory' not found in /var/tomcat/webapps/politicsweb//WEB-INF/conf//ccsobjectfactory.xml

It was working earlier.
 
Now I agree with her with the problem STATE INTERVENTION. Now tell me how is a youth wage subsidy which is a STATE INTERVENTION going to solve the problem of STATE INTERVENTION?

The youth wage subsidy will not create jobs it will replace 1 job with another.... our issue with job creation stems from our labour laws and yet she doesn't mention it one bit, why isn't she addressing the proper issue?

lets be honest, they want to use the wage subsidy to try and buy votes..

Ok, you - as government - set up a fund where EMPLOYERS use YOUR money to pay interns' salaries. Let's break it down:

- Free labour for you as the employer, at no cost to your company
- Nobody is getting laid off, because government is paying the new guy's salary.
- The new guy is getting experience at a company
- The new guy becomes employable because his cv is growing
- Government is not paying an endless grant to the unemployed dude, but rather an investment in them to get experience and become a TAX PAYING person.

Where exactly is the youth wage subsidy swapping 1 job for another?

What is the alternative? Giving people money to stay home? If I give you R5k a month, how will that make an employer suddenly want to employ you? Yeah, no thanks.
 
Ok, you - as government - set up a fund where EMPLOYERS use YOUR money to pay interns' salaries. Let's break it down:

- Free labour for you as the employer, at no cost to your company
- Nobody is getting laid off, because government is paying the new guy's salary.
- The new guy is getting experience at a company
- The new guy becomes employable because his cv is growing
- Government is not paying an endless grant to the unemployed dude, but rather an investment in them to get experience and become a TAX PAYING person.

Where exactly is the youth wage subsidy swapping 1 job for another?

What is the alternative? Giving people money to stay home? If I give you R5k a month, how will that make an employer suddenly want to employ you? Yeah, no thanks.

I would assume the fear is existing employees would be subtly dropped(or not hired in the first place) for cheaper subsidized employees.

But don't get me wrong, i think its a far better idea to pay people to work than pay people to sit on their rear ends.
 
I would assume the fear is existing employees would be subtly dropped(or not hired in the first place) for cheaper subsidized employees.

But don't get me wrong, i think its a far better idea to pay people to work than pay people to sit on their rear ends.

Subtly dropped how? If you retrench someone, it is against the law to hire someone to fill the same position for the next 6 months (or is it 2 years?)

Also, there is a difference between an internship and permanent employment - not to mention that, judged by my experience, the interns would simply be incapable of producing the turnover required to replace existing staff.

It is then up to the employer to decide if they want to employ the intern full time & offer them a salary.

In essence this is the same model used by E.P.W.P & SITA. Of course it would actually work properly if it wasn't infected with maladministration, but that's a topic for another debate.
 
lets be honest, they want to use the wage subsidy to try and buy votes..

Yep, in fact I'd go as far as saying they are encouraging more unemployment to be able to give more grants and therefore buy more votes. I don't think the ruling bunch are anywhere near stupid, but are happy the rest of us think so...
 
Yep, in fact I'd go as far as saying they are encouraging more unemployment to be able to give more grants and therefore buy more votes. I don't think the ruling bunch are anywhere near stupid, but are happy the rest of us think so...

Helen Zile's logic is currently: "government intervention is the problem, therefore we need MORE government intervention.."
 
Helen Zile's logic is currently: "government intervention is the problem, therefore we need MORE government intervention.."

I read the exact opposite into her statements. Where are you getting that from?
 
Helen Zile's logic is currently: "government intervention is the problem, therefore we need MORE government intervention.."

Not really. A Youth Wage Subsidy will allow employers to appoint at rates lower than labour law rates. If successful it will expose our current labour laws.
 
Something needs to be done about the poverty in this country. It's a damn shame .. Thing is I don't know what ANC can achieve, we will see if this can really help the man on the street. As for the DA, yeah I'm afraid they don't have nearly enough power to do anything right now, don't expect that to change overnight either.
 
Even if some of the policy proposals are implemented, they will make matters worse rather than better. Take the resolutions on mining: they are designed to make conditions more difficult for the mining industry, at a time when many mines are battling to survive. The proposed 50% resource rent tax on mining will inevitably lead to mine closures. The increased revenue government is trying to gain will be minimal compared to the economic and social impact of thousands more unemployed people.

Instead, we should grow mining output by working to reduce costs associated with poor transport infrastructure, inadequate export facilities and rising electricity prices. To grow jobs we need more down-stream industries in mining and to achieve this we should focus on improving the business and regulatory environment so that these industries are attractive to investors. State coercion to force mines to diversify by undertaking "beneficiation" will have the opposite effect.

How is that a bad thing?

Australia has implemented additional taxes (resource tax) on mining because of the ridiculous amount of money that they are currently earning due to the demand from a product that is 'natural' and belonging to the nation. WA's (West Aust) GDP was something like 14.5% due to mining (compared to NSW 1.8) for a national average of 4.5%. Dump truck drivers earn over $100K- up to $200K and general labourers on fly in fly out up to $100K.
Some of the mines (Fortescue) have built their own railway lines even and where they are is a outback as you can get.
The owners (Rhineheart, Forrest and the multinationals) are amongst the richest people in the world.

So, if the mines in SA are struggling that is either incorrect or they deserve kick up the bum in today's market, given that labour costs and transport costs will be much lower in SA. In otherwords it points to ineffeciencies by the mining rather than things like resource tax and infrastructure.
Can the govt do worse if they controlled it?

Something smells wrong and tells me there is a huge amount of money going overseas due to ownership of mining and the tax can only be a good thing. But hey, gotta blame the ANC for something.
 
Last edited:
How is that a bad thing?

Australia has implemented additional taxes (resource tax) on mining because of the ridiculous amount of money that they are currently earning due to the demand from a product that is 'natural' and belonging to the nation. WA's (West Aust) GDP was something like 14.5% due to mining (compared to NSW 1.8) for a national average of 4.5%. Dump truck drivers earn over $100K- up to $200K and general labourers on fly in fly out up to $100K.
Some of the mines (Fortescue) have built their own railway lines even and where they are is a outback as you can get.
The owners (Rhineheart, Forrest and the multinationals) are amongst the richest people in the world.

So, if the mines in SA are struggling that is either incorrect or they deserve kick up the bum in today's market, given that labour costs and transport costs will be much lower in SA. In otherwords it points to ineffeciencies by the mining rather than things like resource tax and infrastructure.
Can the govt do worse if they controlled it?

Something smells wrong and tells me there is a huge amount of money going overseas due to ownership of mining and the tax can only be a good thing. But hey, gotta blame the ANC for something.

Of course they can do worse, i take it you didnt read this part :)

This jargon is pure satire, given the combined records of Transnet, Telkom, Eskom, South African Airways and the SABC. Between 2008 and 2010, state-owned enterprises had to be rescued by taxpayers to the tune of R243-billion.
On the issue of taxes, it's my understanding that mines already pay around 40% tax, which to me is more than enough considering all the mine closures.
 
@OzzieCapie, not to put you down or anything, but you just can not compare the cost of mining of open cast Ausie mines to the Deep mining performed in South Africa. Seriously, work out the costs just to try and cool the environment enough to be able to mine @4km below the ground. Seriously, do your homework.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X