Thursday, 7 October 2010

You have to love that man Julius . . .

The CEOs of banks like those of mining companies are looting the country's resources for their individual pockets. This, or words to that effect, is what the man Julius said on television news this morning.



Just when you would have thought that the income disparities would receive proper attention and ventilation, enters the man Julius. Of course there is some difference between the mining and the banking industries. There are similarities too. The captains of either industry are the country's if not the world's, handsomely rewarded individuals. Whether they should or not be as handsomely rewarded is of course a mammoth debate. There are those who argue that the combination of the abilities, qualifications and responsibility of these individuals is enough justification for their envious pay packets. Then there are those that would say: "to each according to need and from each according to ability."


Julius simply says that they are earning far too much for an individual and that must be fixed forthwith.


What then, if I may ask, would be an appropriate salary for a CEO of a bank? Julius doesn't say but I am sure he has a number in his head that would be appropriate and in the national interest. Let us not lose sight of the prevailing negative sentiment where bankers and stockbrokers are concerned, the world over. There is sufficient smoke there to justify a suspicion of a fire, without the methylated spirits that Julius was dispensing at the Garankuwa student gathering.


It is not the first nor will it be the last time that the man Julius shall enthrall students with his brand of oratory. You will recall that he had some inspiring words and lyrics for the students of the University of Johannesburg not too long ago. Then there were the statements that led to a human rights court proceedings. Incidentally, whatever happened to that case?


The way I see it is that while there are somewhat serious and hopefully cerebral conversations happening elsewhere, someone has to keep the youth entertained. Now who other than the inimitable Julius Malema would be up to such a task, bearing in mind the short concentration span most youth suffer from? Or can it be that the ANCYL does have a programme that will see the mines nationalised and private sector salaries set by legislative fiat? I do not think that there is too much resistance to the idea of some form of public ownership of the mines. Afterall the public already owns the minerals, the mining companies only have a licence to mine and sell the minerals, at their cost. For this privilege the public, through the state apparatus, collects royalties. This is not quite the case with financial services unless something happened in Durban that changed the rules and I missed it. As far as I have been able to work it out, financial services sector is regulated for the protection of and in the public interest. As long as the institutions follow the letter of the law, they are at liberty to pay what the believe is the right price for the services of their employees, all the way to the most senior employee. This approach to business is according to Julius wrong and if he has his way, will soon be changed. For this, the youth applauds.


The irony of this whole saga is that the very students, once they qualify or is it if they qualify, stand to be employed by the very private sector that they hold in such low regard. Having accumulated knowledge and experience in their respective careers, would they accept that the government or some public formation determine how much they should earn? Maybe that problem does not arise because they probably do not wish to grow up to be a CEO of a bank or of a mining company. Maybe they wish to grow up to be a politician.


Whichever way you look at this, it can only be that the address of the man Julius can only be acknowledged for its entertainment value, if anything at all.


Consider the other call that the rich must be taxed to fund the proposed National Health Insurance. With the passage of time and declining CEO salaries (if Julius gets it right) who will then fund the NHI? Possibly the proceeds from nationalising the mines? Incidentally, how much would the CEO of the NHI be paid or will she be a public servant whose salary shall be determined by law?


Don't say this has not been entertaining please, there is a funny side to this. On a completely different note: how much would Julius say is too much for an official car of a minister? The cost of minister Davies' Toyota Fortuner or the cost of minister Nzimande's BMW?


I have to say it once more, you gotta luv that man Julius.

Monday, 4 October 2010

Our divisive constitution . . .

The constitution is too important a matter to be left to lawyers and politicians alone. This is no fancy speak; in fact I don't recall being more serious in this space than I am now, writing this post.

This weekend I had a rare privilege of reading one of the speeches written by the late Robert Sobukwe. If you can, do get a copy of that booklet of speeches by one of this country's foremost leaders. Sobukwe writes, in this particular speech, to set out the policies of the PAC - "to set the record straight" as he puts it.

On the issue of rights of the citizens under a new constitution (speaking prospectively of course) he says that the PAC would not consider minority or group rights. He goes on to say that it is the view of the PAC that granting and guaranteeing individual civil liberties would be the highest order of rights for the citizens. He says that in a free South Africa there would be no need for group rights as each individual citizen would be assured civil liberties.

I do not do Sobukwe justice in my paraphrasing of some of the views he expresses in this particular speech but I urge you to find and read it. A copy of the booklet of speeches may be found at bookshops and at the Market Theater precinct.

It is in the context of reading this speech that, as I have always believed, the short-comings of our constitution became clearer than before to me. I suppose that when one has been deprived (of anything really), even the smallest token resembling that which you have been wishing for would suffice. Of course hindsight is perfect vision and it is of course easy to sit in the comfort of my home and muse about the past as if I am an expert of sorts. For the record, I am no expert. I am a keen student of events.

The constitution of this country was born of negotiations which were meant to end the struggle, apartheid, poverty, etc. Moreso, the constitution was meant to end all forms of discrimination and to bring the nation together. You will therefore appreciate my confusion as I try to make sense of Proportional Representation. This system of voting is meant, among others, to protect the rights of minorities lest they get overrun by the black masses and become the new-age dispossessed.

What group rights such as proportional representation and the "vote for the group" rather than the individual has done is to perpertuate the very divisions that the constitution was meant to eliminate.

The result is that there is no division between the party and the government. Maybe there shouldn't be such a division but the problem here is that the executive is not accountable to parliament (representatives of the South African people) but to the party. This is no small matter. It is government of the organisation, by the organisation for the organisation. The people do not matter that much.

It is for this reason that you should not leave the constitution to the lawyers and the politicians alone. This document ultimately determines how you live your life and carry on your trade, raise and educate your children. It is a document that ought to give you the power to choose who should be in charge of public health and education. Under the current system, the political party not you, makes that choice. Loyalty to the party (whichever party that may be) is rewarded at the expense of your vote.

This will remain the case, for as long as group rights are prioritised above individual rights as it is under our divisive constitution. A constitution that is apparently one of the best in the world. Best for who really? Definitely not for the people.