Opposed To BEE ‘Quick Fix’

AS an Old Mutual client, I qualify to call myself a financier of the recent Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) deal and that gives me the right to scrutinise and criticise (when necessary) whatever business decisions they make.

I’m a little disappointed with the BEE deal announced on Tuesday this week. Although Old Mutual’s Managing Director for African Operations, Johannes !Gawaxab, stated that the deal was more broad-based, unlike other BEE deals in which the same usual people appeared in every BEE transaction, the Old Mutual Group BEE deal was no different in the sense that the BEE beneficiaries are still politically connected people.You have Sandra Tjitendero, Hilda Basson-Namundjebo, Linnea Shaetonhodi, Dr Tjama Tjivikua, Michaela Huebschle, Norah Appolus and more.The BEE deal is in fact broad-based and I have to applaud Old Mutual Group for including Women’s Action for Development (WAD) which is doing so much to empower the women and men in rural communities.Old Mutual Group should also be applauded for including church groups, trade unions and their employees in the BEE transaction.But I’m really puzzled as to why large companies have to use politically connected people in their deals.Even if the point of Black Economic Empowerment is to increase the level of black ownership and participation in the national economy, do companies have to do that at the expense of the very needy in our rural communities? Although these politically connected beneficiaries of the largest BEE deal in Namibia were historically disadvantaged, today they fall under the ‘haves’ group.This is a more-than-enough reason for them not to benefit from huge BEE deals.I disagree with a letter by Mr Dirk Conradie that appeared in The Namibian newspaper edition of Tuesday, September 5 that stated that the majority of historically disadvantaged that are now classified as ‘haves’ can still be classified as disadvantaged as they have not been empowered through connections with those in power, but through hard work.This is selfishness in the extreme.In my opinion, these individuals or consortiums led by individuals who are already well-off should not have been part of the Old Mutual Group BEE deal at all.Large companies, like Old Mutual Group should instead invest their money directly into organisations such as WAD that are making a difference in the lives of many families in rural communities.About a year or so ago, Nedbank Namibia did just that, with their One Million Dollar Project where all monies went directly to good causes, such as the Katutura Old Age Home, training for development of SMEs, entrepreneurship education for the youth, the national youth service at Berg Aukas, development and promotion of mushroom farming in Namibia, and others.This project was perfect in my opinion, because it was not directed to individuals who already ‘have’.If BEE is not working, why should we continue to pursue it just because South Africa is doing the same thing? If we can see that it is not working, we should get rid of the whole concept and rather introduce something that will really empower our previously disadvantaged people who are still disadvantaged.We don’t need Individual Economic Empowerment (IEE), we need Collective Economic Empowerment (CEE).What is crucial is a clear definition of Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) and whom it should benefit.If BEE is about bringing well-off individuals on board to apparently participate actively in our economy, but truly only enriching a few, then a BEE law should not be passed in our country.There are many ways disadvantaged people can participate in the national economy other than through BEE, such as investing in education and training to empower our future generation to run the economy on the basis of their qualifications and not through political connections.It might take time, but it is worth it, then the quick-fix schemes of BEE.Although Old Mutual’s Managing Director for African Operations, Johannes !Gawaxab, stated that the deal was more broad-based, unlike other BEE deals in which the same usual people appeared in every BEE transaction, the Old Mutual Group BEE deal was no different in the sense that the BEE beneficiaries are still politically connected people.You have Sandra Tjitendero, Hilda Basson-Namundjebo, Linnea Shaetonhodi, Dr Tjama Tjivikua, Michaela Huebschle, Norah Appolus and more.The BEE deal is in fact broad-based and I have to applaud Old Mutual Group for including Women’s Action for Development (WAD) which is doing so much to empower the women and men in rural communities.Old Mutual Group should also be applauded for including church groups, trade unions and their employees in the BEE transaction.But I’m really puzzled as to why large companies have to use politically connected people in their deals.Even if the point of Black Economic Empowerment is to increase the level of black ownership and participation in the national economy, do companies have to do that at the expense of the very needy in our rural communities? Although these politically connected beneficiaries of the largest BEE deal in Namibia were historically disadvantaged, today they fall under the ‘haves’ group.This is a more-than-enough reason for them not to benefit from huge BEE deals.I disagree with a letter by Mr Dirk Conradie that appeared in The Namibian newspaper edition of Tuesday, September 5 that stated that the majority of historically disadvantaged that are now classified as ‘haves’ can still be classified as disadvantaged as they have not been empowered through connections with those in power, but through hard work.This is selfishness in the extreme.In my opinion, these individuals or consortiums led by individuals who are already well-off should not have been part of the Old Mutual Group BEE deal at all.Large companies, like Old Mutual Group should instead invest their money directly into organisations such as WAD that are making a difference in the lives of many families in rural communities.About a year or so ago, Nedbank Namibia did just that, with their One Million Dollar Project where all monies went directly to good causes, such as the Katutura Old Age Home, training for development of SMEs, entrepreneurship education for the youth, the national youth service at Berg Aukas, development and promotion of mushroom farming in Namibia, and others.This project was perfect in my opinion, because it was not directed to individuals who already ‘have’.If BEE is not working, why should we continue to pursue it just because South Africa is doing the same thing? If we can see that it is not working, we should get rid of the whole concept and rather introduce something that will really empower our previously disadvantaged people who are still disadvantaged.We don’t need Individual Economic Empowerment (IEE), we need Collective Economic Empowerment (CEE).What is crucial is a clear definition of Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) and whom it should benefit.If BEE is about bringing well-off individuals on board to apparently participate actively in our economy, but truly only enriching a few, then a BEE law should not be passed in our country.There are many ways disadvantaged people can participate in the national economy other than through BEE, such as investing in education and training to empower our future generation to run the economy on the basis of their qualifications and not through political connections.It might take time, but it is worth it, then the quick-fix schemes of BEE.