Living in a Parasites’ Paradise

WHEN a policy keeps on popping up in newspaper headlines like the proverbial frog on the beer mug; then you know it’s a failure.

chronically ill patient frequenting a clinic. For sometime now, BEE (black economic empowerment) has been rearing its ugly head at almost every forum.At issue is whether BEE is advancing a true socio-economic transformation to which the country should commit large-scale national resources.Or simply a project meant to satisfy an imaginary lifestyle of a minority of blacks? There are two views on this.The mainstream view is that on the whole BEE is working but there are a few problems that need ironing out.This is the view supported by the Namibian Government and the few BEE beneficiaries – basically the well-to-do in Namibian society.The other view is that BEE is not advancing the welfare or transforming the economic plight of the majority in our society.Some would even argue that BEE is not an economic policy.First, it’s very narrowly based – a very exclusive venture indeed.Does it do the greatest good to the greatest number – to paraphrase Jeremy Bentham on utilitarianism? It also raises the broader moral question as to whether it is the Government’s business to create what is essentially a private business class and enterprises.These problems have long been ignored.But there seems to be a slight view change recently among some policy-makers in the face of mounting evidence suggesting that from a practical and moral viewpoint; BEE in its current form is not sustainable, perhaps not even desirable.In South Africa, they have now added a few extra adjectives to BEE.It’s now called broad-based black economic empowerment (BBBEE).In Namibia, the Government is also copying from its neighbour.It has now come up with a Transformational Economic and Social Empowerment Framework (TESEF).We don’t know yet what it would contain.But as with its South African counterpart, this might just be a matter of playing with terms and acronyms while retaining the same old wine.These governments are putting public faces onto what is essentially a private agenda.And one way of doing that is to acknowledge publicly that the policy has some defects but being quick to point out that they are being addressed.This is how Prime Minister Nahas Angula recently tried his rescue operation.He recently said: “We have cases where we have empowered people but they sell the fish quotas and buy a Mercedes Benz, which they later crash.This time, we want to avoid that; this programme will have to truly address the economic issues.”Is this the kind of diagnosis to expect from someone regarded as one of the best brains in Government? And this coming in 2006 while some of us have been writing about these very issues, pointing out possible negative consequences, way back before 1996.Some policies don’t need to be acted out before one can tell about their outcome.You can simulate the possible outcomes during the policy-formulation process.Besides, some public policies have no moral or philosophical grounding to come into being in the first place.For example, you don’t turn public resources into private resources for a few.The fishing industry was a classic case and hence its dramatic failure – although the Minister there enjoys a lifelong tenure.In any case, no minister has been fired for under-performing or for following wrong policies – they are only further rewarded by being recycled and reshuffled.That’s why those responsible for policy-making aren’t wary of bad policies.No one pays for them.Take the example of GIPF’s CEO.He has been at the helm of an entity that has been accumulating millions in bad debts, mainly through BEE projects, for as long as we can remember.But he is still retained there – precisely because no one cares.There are other problems related to BEE.The idea that one needs millions to start a business is simply an absurdity.Most of today’s big corporations started off on shoestring budgets, some in backyard garages.So, as soon as you flash millions to someone, then there is no longer an incentive to run a business.S/he has enough cash already to lead a millionaire’s life – flashy car and home and, if a little bit educated, a vacation to the islands.So, what we have done so far is to create a truly parasitic class that depends on public resources to lead an un-earned lifestyle.And the big white-owned businesses are also creating this parasitic class by giving out shares in their companies to previously disadvantaged groups as BEE partners.Personally, I don’t have a problem with these latter arrangements – although this is sometimes done as a way of landing tenders and projects from Government.What frightens me, however, is that the BEE cancer is now eating at the very heart of public enterprises too.For example, MTC, which is supposedly 100 per cent State owned, now has a certain percentage reserved for these BEE parasites.And that raises the biggest question of all: How do you operationalise BEE in a country that is more than 90 per cent black? Who is included and who is left out? Who benefits and who doesn’t? Historically, BEE and its cousin Affirmative Action (AA) had their origins in the USA.There, it was meant to bring a minority black population who had been left behind into the mainstream economy.The results of this, as we now know, have been mixed.Again here, AA has enabled few people, from mainly well-to-do families, to gain access to the best schools and climb the American corporate ladder.By the same token, how many from South Africa and Namibia’s most neglected groups are benefiting from BEE? It seems BEE is just as a cover in the absence of concrete socio-economic policies in both SA and Namibia.We simply don’t have any idea as to how to move our countries’ economies forward to create a decent and affluent society for all.For sometime now, BEE (black economic empowerment) has been rearing its ugly head at almost every forum.At issue is whether BEE is advancing a true socio-economic transformation to which the country should commit large-scale national resources.Or simply a project meant to satisfy an imaginary lifestyle of a minority of blacks? There are two views on this.The mainstream view is that on the whole BEE is working but there are a few problems that need ironing out.This is the view supported by the Namibian Government and the few BEE beneficiaries – basically the well-to-do in Namibian society.The other view is that BEE is not advancing the welfare or transforming the economic plight of the majority in our society.Some would even argue that BEE is not an economic policy.First, it’s very narrowly based – a very exclusive venture indeed.Does it do the greatest good to the greatest number – to paraphrase Jeremy Bentham on utilitarianism? It also raises the broader moral question as to whether it is the Government’s business to create what is essentially a private business class and enterprises.These problems have long been ignored.But there seems to be a slight view change recently among some policy-makers in the face of mounting evidence suggesting that from a practical and moral viewpoint; BEE in its current form is not sustainable, perhaps not even desirable.In South Africa, they have now added a few extra adjectives to BEE.It’s now called broad-based black economic empowerment (BBBEE).In Namibia, the Government is also copying from its neighbour.It has now come up with a Transformational Economic and Social Empowerment Framework (TESEF).We don’t know yet what it would contain.But as with its South African counterpart, this might just be a matter of playing with terms and acronyms while retaining the same old wine.These governments are putting public faces onto what is essentially a private agenda.And one way of doing that is to acknowledge publicly that the policy has some defects but being quick to point out that they are being addressed.This is how Prime Minister Nahas Angula recently tried his rescue operation.He recently said: “We have cases where we have empowered people but they sell the fish quotas and buy a Mercedes Benz, which they later crash.This time, w
e want to avoid that; this programme will have to truly address the economic issues.”Is this the kind of diagnosis to expect from someone regarded as one of the best brains in Government? And this coming in 2006 while some of us have been writing about these very issues, pointing out possible negative consequences, way back before 1996.Some policies don’t need to be acted out before one can tell about their outcome.You can simulate the possible outcomes during the policy-formulation process.Besides, some public policies have no moral or philosophical grounding to come into being in the first place.For example, you don’t turn public resources into private resources for a few.The fishing industry was a classic case and hence its dramatic failure – although the Minister there enjoys a lifelong tenure.In any case, no minister has been fired for under-performing or for following wrong policies – they are only further rewarded by being recycled and reshuffled.That’s why those responsible for policy-making aren’t wary of bad policies.No one pays for them.Take the example of GIPF’s CEO.He has been at the helm of an entity that has been accumulating millions in bad debts, mainly through BEE projects, for as long as we can remember.But he is still retained there – precisely because no one cares.There are other problems related to BEE.The idea that one needs millions to start a business is simply an absurdity.Most of today’s big corporations started off on shoestring budgets, some in backyard garages.So, as soon as you flash millions to someone, then there is no longer an incentive to run a business.S/he has enough cash already to lead a millionaire’s life – flashy car and home and, if a little bit educated, a vacation to the islands.So, what we have done so far is to create a truly parasitic class that depends on public resources to lead an un-earned lifestyle.And the big white-owned businesses are also creating this parasitic class by giving out shares in their companies to previously disadvantaged groups as BEE partners.Personally, I don’t have a problem with these latter arrangements – although this is sometimes done as a way of landing tenders and projects from Government.What frightens me, however, is that the BEE cancer is now eating at the very heart of public enterprises too.For example, MTC, which is supposedly 100 per cent State owned, now has a certain percentage reserved for these BEE parasites.And that raises the biggest question of all: How do you operationalise BEE in a country that is more than 90 per cent black? Who is included and who is left out? Who benefits and who doesn’t? Historically, BEE and its cousin Affirmative Action (AA) had their origins in the USA.There, it was meant to bring a minority black population who had been left behind into the mainstream economy.The results of this, as we now know, have been mixed.Again here, AA has enabled few people, from mainly well-to-do families, to gain access to the best schools and climb the American corporate ladder.By the same token, how many from South Africa and Namibia’s most neglected groups are benefiting from BEE? It seems BEE is just as a cover in the absence of concrete socio-economic policies in both SA and Namibia.We simply don’t have any idea as to how to move our countries’ economies forward to create a decent and affluent society for all.