World Competitive Report – South Africa up 4 places, but still Room for Improvement!

Below is an extract from the report (Total of 142 economies included).

“South Africa moves up by four places to attain 50th position this year, remaining the highest-ranked country in sub-Saharan Africa and the second-placed among the BRICS economies. The country benefits from the large size of its economy, particularly by regional standards (it is ranked 25th in the market size pillar). It also does well on measures of the quality of institutions and factor allocation, such as intellectual property protection (30th), property rights (30th), the accountability of its private institutions (3rd), and its goods market efficiency (32nd).

“Particularly impressive is the country’s financial market development (4th), indicating high confidence in South Africa’s financial markets at a time when trust is returning only slowly in many other parts of the world. South Africa also does reasonably well in more complex areas such as business sophistication (38th) and innovation (41st), benefiting from good scientific research institutions (30th) and strong collaboration between universities and the business sector in innovation (26th).

“These combined attributes make South Africa the most competitive economy in the region. However, in order to further enhance its competitiveness the country will need to address some weaknesses. South Africa ranks 95th in labor market efficiency, with rigid hiring and firing practices (139th), a lack of flexibility in wage determination by companies (138th), and significant tensions in labor-employer relations (138th).

“Efforts must also be made to increase the university enrollment rate of only 15 percent, which places the country 97th overall, in order to better develop its innovation potential. In addition, South Africa’s infrastructure, although good by regional standards, requires upgrading (62nd). The poor security situation remains another important obstacle to doing business in South Africa. The business costs of crime and violence (136th) and the sense that the police are unable to provide protection from crime (95th) do not contribute to an environment that fosters competitiveness.

“Another major concern remains the health of the workforce, which is ranked 129th out of 142 economies—the result of high rates of communicable diseases and poor health indicators more generally.”

The full report can be seen at http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-2011-2012/.

Thoughts about Wealth and Wealth Distribution

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for, without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody, anything, that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work, because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

And candidate number 6 from Margaret Thatcher:

1. Socialism fails when it runs out of other people's money.

Where does Democracy End and Anarchy Begin?

In South Africa we purport to be proud of our “Democracy”.  Well, I question that we actually have a democracy – see my post “Do we Really Have Democracy in South Africa?”.  But more importantly right now is – where does Democracy end and Anarchy begin?

Well – where else do you go for definitions these days but to the web.  So various Web Definitions of democracy are:

• A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives
• A form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.
• The practice or principles of social equality
• The political orientation of those who favour government by the people or by their elected representatives
• A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
•  Majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

What then is Anarchy – back to the web:

• A state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority
• Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal
• A state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)
• Most often, the term "anarchy" describes the simple absence of publicly recognized government or enforced political authority.

Do you remember Polokwane?  Was that “democracy” – or was that the first stage of “anarchy”?  What about the way the strikes these days seem to be going?  Is that “democracy”, or it is Anarchy?  And what about the recent antics of the ANCYL?  Is that “democracy”, or is it Anarchy?  And what about the threats to Zuma and his government – “we will bring you down” – is this “democracy” or is it Anarchy?  And what about the threats to the Botswana government?  Is this “democracy” or is it Anarchy?

Certainly, in my opinion, recent trade union and ANCYL activity has demonstrated “absence or non-recognition of authority”.  Equally certain, in my opinion, the reaction of government has demonstrated an absence of “enforced political authority”.  But the definition that I think best suits the situation is “a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)”.

Recent political comment has included the concept of the lack of intellectualism in government.  Both Zuma and Malema are cases in point.  And they are both “charismatic” leaders.  What does this mean?  According to Money_zine.com “Charismatic Leaders are often thought of as heroes that are able to use their personal allure to lead others.  But that charismatic charm can be both a blessing and a curse on society.  That's because charisma can be used for the good of a company or nation - but also for less-than-honorable reasons.”

So, South Africa, what is the situation here – and, if we really DO have a democracy, what are we, the population of eligible members going to do about it?  Are we going to work to get our hard-earned democracy back?  If we don’t do something, we will get the political system that we “deserve”!  Remember – all it takes for evil to survive is for good men (and women) to do nothing!

(Photo by Bryan Porter - News24 User)

Do we Actually Have a Democracy in South Africa?

Is our “new democracy” actually a Democracy?  I know that we can now all vote – but isn’t that to do with “franchise”?  Is the ability to vote a definition of Democracy?  I don’t think so.  The concept of Democracy has more to do with what we do with our vote – or maybe, what we are allowed to do with our vote.

Even Google seems to have a problem with this question.  If you Google “What is Democracy”, Google choices are “What is Democracy” and “What is Democracy in South Africa”.  So, clearly there is a difference.

Some definitions of Democracy:

• A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives
• A form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.
• The political orientation of those who favour government by the people or by their elected representatives
• A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
• Majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

So, what do we have in South Africa?  Firstly, except for the Local elections, it is not possible to elect a member to represent you in government.  You can only vote for a party.  And then, the person who will represent you needs to come from a prioritized “list” of people.  And, in the case of some parties with Local elections, they give you the only candidate that is permitted to stand for the ward.

But, where does this “list” come from?  Now, for me, this is the biggest problem that I have in calling what we have a Democracy.  The “list” is actually a “popularity contest” held among the “elite” of each political party.  We have no say as to the names on the list, or their relative position on the list.  This is part of the “popularity contest” process.  The more “influential” you are, the more votes you will get from the “elite”.  The more votes you get, the higher you get on the list and the more chance you have of becoming a member of parliament – or the provincial equivalent.  And then, to confound it even further, the top names become the Executive Committee.

There’s no assessment of ability, no assessment of commitment, no assessment of service orientation.  Nothing that could actually translate into service delivery and the will of the people.

Three of the definitions above talk about “elected representative”.  We do not elect our representatives.  Instead, the "election" of "representatives" is about who can do what to whom among the party elite.  And please don’t try to tell me that it is not so.  It IS so.  Have a look at the appointments that get made in any one tenure.  It’s all about rewarding friends, currying favour with those of influence, and making appointments that ensure that your “line” is the line that is followed.

This is just not Democracy.  And neither does it lend itself to Service Delivery – or at least not Service Delivery to the vast majority of the population anyway!  If we want to inculcate Service Delivery as a value and a standard in government, we simply have to change the system from the current “popularity contest” to a real Democracy where every eligible person has the ability to vote for the person that they believe will serve them the best.

Or is this just a pipe-dream?