See hidden discussions | Win great prizes | Get free support
It's the DG. And just to make things even more interesting we also have a Secretary for Defence, which is nothing like their Secretary of Defence.I can accept that she is just the figurehead. But who is the person that is actually in charge of operations of the military, the DG? Surely there is a head of military that has experience below her? If it's teachers all the way down, or they aren't allowed to act because she has to give the go ahead, then she isn't qualified.
TL;DR most CEOs are not technical folk that do the work, but lead the organisation. Who is the technical/operational person below her?
I find the comparisons a bit simplistic, the US has had years to build institutions and has long institutional memory to go with that, SA in particular still has to build traditions for themselves. If you were a member of the ANC MK, would you be happy having a Minister of Defence who might have been part of the enemy a few years ago, who routinely routed your pals every time there was a skirmish during the war? The minister just has to put the country first and be above the petty factional battles the ruling party is so fond of.
In my view, the fact that the DG's of ministries are not career civil servants but come and go with a particular minister is root of al the rot in government, we simply do not have continuity.
That's the problem I have been talking about all along about getting stuck comparing the two positions, but it's just easy enough for some people to accuse me of deflecting.So why aren't they comparing the DG then? This seems an incorrect comparison.
I haven't heard creative names for the frog boiler recently. I am hoping your posts will be an inspiration to creative minds.It's like insisting that King Mswati and Cyril are both heads of their respective governments and wanting to compare their positions, you can do it but you are going to get stuck somewhere.
That's the problem I have been talking about all along about getting stuck comparing the two positions, but it's just easy enough for some people to accuse me of deflecting.
You can't compare the US position to the DG as well, for an example their Secretary has some command powers or the President can delegate such powers, our President cannot do that with our DG.
But I guess where there's a will, there's a way.
"The Canadian Constitution recognizes three groups of Aboriginal peoples: Indians (more commonly referred to as First Nations), Inuit and Métis. These are three distinct peoples with unique histories, languages, cultural practices and spiritual beliefs."How come one is an Inuit and one is "first nations" that seems odd, makes me think this is a made up pos.
Also, who's the dark haired woman in the back row. She looks hot.
Ta."The Canadian Constitution recognizes three groups of Aboriginal peoples: Indians (more commonly referred to as First Nations), Inuit and Métis. These are three distinct peoples with unique histories, languages, cultural practices and spiritual beliefs."
Exactly my point, they were nonsense militarily. but guess what their political wing is in power and would you really think they would allow someone from the SADF to then lead the Defence ministry?