Managed liberalisation was deeply flawed

Its rotten in the core. Ivy is just one of the main pips that has caused everything to fail as it has to date.

Why did Trevor Manual do so well and others fail so miserably? Most of the ministers that are in the cabinet, are not their for what they have done in the past (work wise, I must add), they are they because they are comrades to the ANC.
 
rpm said:
Managed liberalisation was deeply flawed
Click to expand...

So-called "managed liberalisation" wasn't "flawed" because it worked exactly as planned - i.e. to block competition and progress. Something can be considered "flawed" only if it *didn't* do what it was intended to do. "Managed liberalisation" is in fact working extremely well (for the purposes for which it was designed). By labelling it "flawed" one implies that intentions were at least in the right place.
 
Last edited:
stoke said:
I did a google search on Ivy Failed. Quite astounding.
Click to expand...

:D class

Ivy was not alone in her actions. Remember, the stakes were huge.

For 2007, Telkom's operating profit was R14 Billion. That's not pocket change. and government = major shareholder.

Ivy was purposefully placed as Minister to prolong the status-quo for as long as possible, but the recent ruling in favour of Altech means a massive derailment.

Ivy did a great job for her employers, but it was at the expense of the entire country.

blame = government
 
Art2

I am not sure there is too much to be gained from debating where the blame should sit. Technically Cabinet takes collective responsibility and the rot in any event predates the current Minister by some time (from one perspective 57 years with the enactment of the Post Office Act but more reasonably we should look at the corruption of the White Paper process which predated the passing of the Telecommunications ACt in 1996).

The Horwitz & Currie article on managed liberalisation http://web.si.umich.edu/tprc/papers/2007/778/SA Telecoms HorwitzCurrie.pdf tells it best

SA also clearly does not subscribe to any form of the doctrine of ministerial accountability ...

my feeling is that it is useful to have a figurehead to look to and who is theoretically accountable for a particular sector. so while the buck stops with Mbeki his accountability in respect of telecoms is vague, fuzzy and diluted by all of his other responsibilities. instead we can look to the single person charged with providing policy and guidance in the best interests of SA ...

... for all the good that has done us :)

regards

d2
 
DavidJ said:
So-called "managed liberalisation" wasn't "flawed" because it worked exactly as planned - i.e. to block competition and progress. Something can be considered "flawed" only if it *didn't* do what it was intended to do. "Managed liberalisation" is in fact working extremely well (for the purposes for which it was designed). By labelling it "flawed" one implies that intentions were at least in the right place.
Click to expand...

agreed. hence the opposition to the Altech decision and the fact that Thatsleepy-Cassawari is probably highly unpopular with her peers

ShaunSA said:
Star Wars dom? :cool:

Can Ivy be Jabba's wife? :D
Click to expand...

i try to keep myself entertained :)
 
Ivy is largely to blame for not standing up for her department and, in general, just being greedy and lining her own pockets.
The most fault though is with guavamunt who initiated the policies which she implemented and uphelp.
Off with all their heads!
 
Goldstuck concluded that the new cabinet had the opportunity and the imperative to make telecoms inclusive, but that it would depend heavily on whether a competent individual would take over from Matsepe-Casaburri or whether it would be a political appointment.
Click to expand...
Why do we need a Minister & Department of Communistications? - other than the reason that dominic highlighted which is to have a stooge to attend conferences - which could easily be performed by the DTI.

There is a shortage of prison space in SA, turn the Department of Communistications into a prison & don't let Poison Ivy and her minions out.
 
DavidJ said:
So-called "managed liberalisation" wasn't "flawed" because it worked exactly as planned.... By labelling it "flawed" one implies that intentions were at least in the right place.
Click to expand...
That's not a debate, but semantics, with circular logic to boot. Just because it operated as advertised doesn't mean it wasn't broken. There are hundreds of policies in this country's history that did what they were intended to do in terms of protecting vested interests or suppressing others' interest, but ultimately against the best interests of the country. The fact that they did what they were meant to do does not make them any less flawed, disastrous or stupid. As a policy for a country with the needs we have, managed liberalisation was DEEPLY flawed. If you don't like that word, I have others: broken, stupid, ludicrous, ridiculous, stultifying.
 
Art2 said:
If you don't like that word, I have others: broken, stupid, ludicrous, ridiculous, stultifying.
Click to expand...
I prefer the all encompassing word "corrupt" which IMO describes Poison Ivy, Stalin-Mafole, and Paris Mashile, along with Poison Ivy's other plants within !CASA, oh and Thabo and Zuma, et al.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X