The Mercury


One wonders who commissar Sihle Zikalala thinks he is  deceiving when he defends Zindzi Mandela’s racist, anti-white remarks as being within her rights yet he simultaneously pleads for “reconciliation” on the land issue (Mercury, June 18).

Not only do double standards characterise ANC posturing on racial prejudice – Vicki Momberg was jailed for a less inflammatory racial outburst – but they also inform the ANC’s position on the land issue. Zikalala’s reference to the need for caution in the transfer of land “to the people,” does not square with Zindzi Mandela’s claim (which he does not condemn) that “the land is ours.”

The blunt reality of the situation is that what Zindzi Mandela said is holy writ in terms of the ANC’s national democratic revolution (NDR) forty year strategy.  Zikalala’s posturing on the issue is merely spin-doctoring in an attempt to allay fears and to obfuscate the path of the NDR. Confirmation of that can be found in Dr Anthea Jeffery’s new edition of People’s War.


The Mercury


As with the publication of RW Johnson’s books which critically dissect the direction of South Africa under the ANC, the media have been derelict in  publicising Dr Anthea Jeffery’s incontrovertible documentation of the ANC’s agenda to transform South Africa into a socialist state as presented in her new book People’s War – new light on the struggle for South Africa.

While the bulk of Anthea Jeffery’s book deals with the history of the ANC’s  adaptation of  North Vietnamese Nguyen Giap’s Marxist-Leninist strategy of a people’s war, it is her focus on the means and ends of the ANC’s policy of a National Democratic Revolution (NDR) that needs to be exposed as widely as possible in order to understand the deliberate causes of the progressive decline of every aspect of life in South Africa.

Comprising two stages, Lenin formulated the concept of the NDR in 1905: national liberation followed by measures to produce a communist state. The ANC’s adherence to this strategy is premised on its 1955 Freedom Charter which is essentially Marxist in content. In 1989  in its programme of action titled “The path to power,” the SACP emphasised the importance of the Freedom Charter to the success of the NDR.

At all five of the ANC's national conferences since 1994, the most recent one was  in 2017, the goals of the NDR were endorsed. The words “radical economic transformation” refer to the implementation of the NDR.  Despite the billionaire wealth capitalism has gained for him, President Ramaphosa endorses the NDR.

Scheduled to be fully implemented by 2034, to date the following interventions of the NDR are evident: the systematic weakening of Parliament and its ability to hold the executive to account; the eroding of judicial independence; cadre deployment to the levers of power; further onerous B-BBEE requirements; nationalisation of water resources; inflexible labour legislation; deliberate interventions to make private health care progressively unaffordable so has to impose NHI; erosion of the powers of school governing bodies; building  dependency on social grants – up from 2,2 million in 1998 to 18 million;  inherent hostility towards free market enterprise; refusal to privatise state-owned enterprises; endorsement of expropriation of land without compensation.

The objective of NDR is to engineer progressive subservience to the state and to organs aligned to it. Influences outside of that hegemony have to be demonised and marginalised. As was the case in the Soviet Union, rank and file ANC supporters are ignorant of the finer details and totalitarian end product of the NDR.

There is nothing democratic about the ANC’s national democratic revolution. Patterned on Lenin’s formula of social transformation – ending a society before it can be mended – the ultimate objective of the ANC’s NDR is a politically servile dystopian state presided over by an obscenely affluent communist elite as was the case in the USSR and remains as such in Cuba and North Korea.

All that is required for the finalisation of NDR is continued complacency, ignorance and naivety on the part of the electorate and the media.


The Mercury


When the details of the 2019/2020 eThekwini budget are considered within the context of metro history and prevailing economic circumstances, it should be apparent that the tipping point has been reached.

In 2000, when the unicity model was proposed, its motivation was premised on the claim that the consolidation of more than ten local municipalities into a single metropolitan administration would reduce the duplication of services and prove cost effective.

The history of eThekwini budgets since 2003 proves otherwise. The metro staff complement grew from 16,000 to in excess of 24,000, proving Parkinson’s law, that bureaucracy begets bureaucracy, is thriving in eThekwini. In tandem with that bureaucratic bloat, the size of the budget has increased by nearly 500%. In 2003 it totalled R9,75 billion. By 2008 it had grown 240% to R23,4 billion. Now it stands at R50,6 billion.

Yet service delivery has neither improved nor matched the costs involved in providing it. Indeed, at best it ranges from patchy to poor. But the most critical aspect of the eroding state of eThekwini metro is its rates base. It has never grown in proportion to the ever-increasing budgets thrust upon ratepayers, languishing at never more than a 1,5% growth rate.

Thus, a situation has arisen where 19% of eThekwini subsidises 81%. Yet in cavalier fashion, the so-called mayor boasts of the extent to which free services are extended to non-payers.

Although there is no drought and the dam levels are satisfactory, water tariffs for those who actually pay, are to increase by 15%. What is not disclosed, it that 40% of water bought by eThekwini is either stolen or lost through leaks, a situation that has been on-going since 2001.

Despite the critical condition of the economy (growing at a mere 0,9%) and the faltering state of local government, the so-called mayor calls for “action” in order to “broaden service delivery and attract investors.” It’s the same claptrap we have heard for nearly 20 years.

The only action that can salvage Durban from the tipping point is to dis-establish the metro and, piecemeal, re-establish municipalities like Pinetown, Umhlanga and Amanzimtoti. The metro is no longer affordable or sustainable. From an economic point of view, less is more. Smaller municipalities competing for business and offering investors and residents competitive rates would stimulate economic growth in a way the unwieldy metro has shown it cannot deliver. The province needs to re-establish development service boards so as to take care of the vast rural area that constitutes 68% of eThekwini municipality.

Across the country, local government has become bloated and dysfunctional because it is seen as a convenient cash cow for the politically connected. As such, it has proved beneficial only to them and their comrades. By reverting to smaller, sustainable municipalities, as the Freedom Front Plus advocates, the concomitant of improved governance would be improved service delivery. 




In unpacking the multitude of instances concerning discrimination in the workplace, it is significant that Michael Bagraim (Daily News, June 5) fails to note the unconstitutionality of demographic representivity and the fact that the Byzantine nature of labour legislation is in itself the major factor retarding the expansion of employment opportunities.

Nowhere in relevant sections of our constitution (9, 195 and 217) is the phrase “demographic representivity” used regarding employment and procurement. Instead the emphasis is on individuals – not groups. As such, the constitution does not state that employment must reflect the demographics of a region.

Yet adherence to demographic representivity is enforced thereby tragically illustrating the law of unintended consequences, namely,  the emigration of skills as minorities are effectively barred from employment, reluctance on the part of employers to expand employment opportunities and mediocrity in the workplace.

Thus, Bagraim’s article is a monument of contradiction.  While noting the removal of “barriers” for “categories” of those previously disadvantaged and the stringent measures against unfair discrimination, elsewhere he states that “employment practice which discriminates against race….would be unfair.”

The contradiction not only in Bagraim’s account but in the legislation is that discrimination is discrimination and when it is applied against individuals from minority groups, particularly whites, it is absolute hypocrisy.

This is especially the case where individuals who are white and who either came on the job market since 1994, or who were born since that date, are marginalised and discriminated against in terms of employment, promotion and procurement. Labour policies premised on history instead of market realities do not promote economic growth. Our sputtering economy attests to that.

The bald reality is that despite all the blandishments about non-racialism, job reservation, once again, is legally in vogue.  The only way to end racial discrimination, as US Chief Justice John Roberts has stated, is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. And the only way to do that is to embed merit as the sole criterion in who qualifies for a post, a promotion or in procurement. Significantly, only one political party nailed the principle of merit to its mast in the recent election and that was the Freedom Front Plus.




It is refreshing to note that the concept of meritocracy is being ardently embraced by Kabelo Khumelo (Business Report, May 23) so as to improve and promote competence in governance. However, as long as the ideology of socialism serves as the premise, no degree of meritocracy will deliver a better life for all.

Citing China as an example of a booming economy and improved living standards premised on socialism is well and good but needs to be seen within a broader context.

Despite the bustle of its economy, China is a one-party state. The highly centralised communist bureaucracy is authoritarian. As a result the rule of law is weakened; there are no independent oversight bodies. Liberalisation is not tolerated. Labour is highly regulated. Price controls prevail. Corruption is endemic in the numerous state-owned enterprises. As such, China remains mostly unfree.

The terms and conditions of meritocracy in China are those laid down by the communist party which, first and foremost require obeisance to the party. Given South Africa’s diverse population and its  constitutional and  democratic character, apart from China’s work ethic, there is little worthy of emulating.

For meritocracy to thrive in South Africa, it must be unfettered.  That means abolishing restrictive labour practices, B-BBEE, affirmative action, demographic representivity and cadre deployment.  Only then can competence prevail. Significantly, the only party which advocates that direction is the Freedom Front Plus


The Mercury


The ignorance of the educated never ceases to amaze. The article by the trio of academics in the Mercury of May 9 advocating a wealth tax to reduce inequality is a case in point.

Inequality is a given in all societies and always has been the case. The idea that equality can be achieved is a pipe dream as history has shown.  Socialism and its extreme variant, communism, coerced millions into equality by denying them freedom. That totalitarian experiment in social engineering produced mass misery and ultimately failed.

Despite that, the modern Marx, French economist Thomas Piketty, advocates the redistribution of wealth by means of a wealth tax on the rich in pursuit of equality. Having learned nothing from history, Piketty and his followers propose legislative means to pursue their ideal. What they fail to appreciate is that such measures have two outcomes: they discourage economic growth and promote the flight of capital. That, in turn, exacerbates unemployment, inequality and poverty.

Of course, the big hole in their theory is their silence on how the wealth tax creamed off the rich would actually uplift the poor and reduce inequality. Only by increasing welfare programmes could such funds reach the poor – but at the price of bigger government and increased social dependence on welfare.

The only proven way to address inequality is by stimulating economic growth through tax reduction and deregulation as President Trump has shown in the US where he has reduced unemployment levels to their lowest since 1969.

Excessive wealth is an unavoidable outcome given the reality that human ambition and talent knows no equality. Seeking ways to control and to curb that reality, which is what socialism is all about, needs to be resisted and rejected because its consequences are disastrous.


The Mercury and Daily news

NO LEGAL BASIS TO FAVOUR MK VETS    - posted 30 April 2019

The doting preference given to so-called MK Vets which has led to union in-fighting and the partial paralysis of essential services in eThekwini municipality illustrates once again the abuse of public resources and funds by the ANC for purely political purposes.

A quarter of a century after the so-called MK ceased to have any relevance, it is simply unacceptable that it is given any sort of priority recognition in job allocation. Besides, how old are these so- called MK Vets? Twenty five years on, most of them must be approaching retirement age if not older. What qualifications do they have to warrant consideration in the first place?

If so-called MK Vets can enjoy employment priorities, what about SADF Vets? Why should they be ignored?  After all, they were following orders just like those in the MK.

This deplorable situation would not exist if governance was based purely on merit irrespective of race and affiliation. From that premise, competence would prevail which would safeguard public resources and services from abuse and neglect.

If, as the constitution states, we all equal, then there is no moral or legal basis for preferment of any particular group in either the allocation of employment or the grade to which that group is promoted. Yet, in that respect, the constitution is being defied at all levels of government which is why South Africa is embroiled in a crisis of competence.

The abolition of demographic representivity, cadre deployment and affirmative action is the only way out of this shambles.


The Mercury, Cape Argus, Star, Witness, Daily News


 The myth that threatens our multi-party democracy is that only a big party can wrestle down the ANC. But the promoters of this myth ignore the fact that South Africa’s social and political landscape is a very diverse one. Thus, it is politically naïve to embrace the view that one size fits all and to project an image of all things to all men.

As a consequence, the broad church the DA claims to be is actually fraught with fissures and fractures as it attempts to juggle the disparities and differences between communities, minorities and interest groups. The momentum of the DA thus depends on compromise which means satisfying one group comes at the expense of another.

The crucial issue to appreciate is that opposition to the ANC is neither an exclusive nor a single issue cause. DA policy, for example on abortion and LGBT is not shared by parties which emphasise Christian values. The DA’s support for B-BBEE and affirmative action is opposed by the Freedom Front Plus which calls for the abolition of those policies in the interests of genuine non-racialism, merit and fairness towards minority groups.

Differences on land reform, trade unions, tertiary education policy, language usage, interpretation of history are among the many issues which clamour for expression and address. Such issues are best represented in coalitions.

Voting, therefore, is about showing preference for one’s principles and values. It is not an exercise in manoeuvring  in which size is given preference over values and principles in an attempt to order a political outcome.

As inter-party debates have shown, the collective strength and range of opposition voices to the ANC demolishes the argument that opposition is best served by one big party. 


The Witness,The Mercury, Daily News, Star

RAMAPHOSA IS A HOSTAGE OF THE ANC LIST   - posted April 26, 2019

One of the sad illusions in circulation is that a vote for Cyril Ramaphosa is the only way to rectify the state of the country.

Clearly, the proponents of this logic have failed to examine the list of ANC candidates who accompany Mr Ramaphosa and to appreciate that the criterion of competence has not been applied in the compilation of that list.

Within the top 30 positions on the ANC national list are individuals who have excelled only in corruption, abuse of state resources and in promoting state capture – Nomvula Mokonyane in tenth position, Bathabile Dlamini at No. 14 and Malusi Gigaba at No. 23.

The most competent and principled member of the current cabinet, Pravin Gordhan, is placed only at No. 73. What an outrage and an insult to him! Veteran member and a competent minister, Derek Hanekom, merits only No. 95 on the ANC list.

Ramaphosa may be talented and competent, but those who accompany him guarantee that all the ANC can deliver will be more of the same. The reality is that Ramaphosa is no more than a hostage of the ANC list.

The only criterion that voters should consider it that of merit and competence


Business Report

ROOTS OF THE JOBS’ CRISIS  -  posted 16 April 2019

Sadly, Moegammad Nackerdien and Derek Yu’s insights on the job crisis that has been worsening for the past 25 years (Business Report, April 15) fail to touch on the chief underlying cause of unemployment.

Like so many others who have attempted to discuss this subject, they tip-toe around the elephant in the room. Inflexible, restrictive labour legislation along with unbridled union influence constitute the greatest stumbling block to the expansion of the job market.

Race-based policies which coerce business to prioritise skin pigmentation ahead of competence, serve only to limit employment opportunities on the grounds that once hired, the difficulties posed in dismissing personnel discourage an open approach to employment.

Then there is the Byzantine thicket of regulations regarding B-BBEE. Independent research by Moeletsi Mbeki and John Kane-Berman of the Institute of Race Relations has shown that B-BBEE has not only failed to reverse the unemployment trend but that it has added up to 30% more in costs for  tendering with B-BBEE compliant businesses, enriched an elite to an obscene degree and discouraged foreign direct investment.

It’s time academics like Nackerdien and Yu extended their thinking beyond the economically stifling parameters in which the ANC government has bound our economy. Only by abolishing the above noted strictures will the crisis of unemployment be eased.


The Witness; also The Mercury


It is difficult to perceive a sentiment of sincerity in local government MEC Nomusa Dube-Ncube’s  lambasting of her comrades for their part in the municipal meltdown of Pietermaritzburg (The Witness, April 10).

After all, the governance shambles in the capital city is precisely the result of ANC policies which prioritise cadre deployment and demographic representivity in place of competence. For months the mismanagement of Pietermaritzburg has been obvious, yet Dube-Ncube and her ilk denied the situation.  Given her position as the overseer of local government and as a former Speaker of the eThekwini council, the question that should be asked is why she took so long to intervene.

Pietermaritzburg’s plight is reflective of the state of the majority of municipalities in South Africa, all of which have been hobbled by ANC misrule. Placing Pietermaritzburg under administration may serve to rehabilitate the city but it will not cure it of the flaw in its governance. The fact that it is the second time in less than ten years that it has been placed under administration is proof of that.

Unless cadre deployment, B-BBEE and demographic representivity are abolished and merit is made the sole criterion of employment, shoddy governance and corruption will return to afflict municipalities like Pietermaritzburg.


The Mercury, Star, Daily News, Witness


In claiming that a vote for a smaller party is a wasted vote, the DA simultaneously displays contempt for multi-party democracy as well as political amnesia.

To date our electoral history shows that through coalitions, opposition parties, irrespective of size, have succeeded in wresting power from the ANC. Famously, Helen Zille became mayor of Cape Town in 2006 with a one seat majority. That single seat was provided by a councillor representing the Freedom Front Plus.

In questioning the worth of a party with only one or two elected representatives the DA conveniently forgets that in many areas its representation is no greater than a single, solitary councillor – lone rangers, as the DA calls them – who acquit themselves well.  The DA's predecessor, the DP, had only two representatives in the 81 seat KZN legislature until the 1999 election.

Therefore, it is politically irresponsible  to rubbish smaller parties by claiming they are spoilers which deny a larger opposition party like the DA a clear run in opposing the ANC. Opposing the ANC is a cause that is not exclusive to one party. Thus, coalition-building among opposition parties with fairly common policies is the sensible and democratic way to challenge the ruling party. Helen Zille proved that in 2006.

The Editor

The Mercury   [also sent to STAR, DAILY NEWS, WITNESS]


In ruling that Julius Malema’s advocacy that white people be “slaughtered” at some future time does not legally qualify as hate speech, the Human Rights Commission has made a mockery of sections 10 and 16 of the constitution.

With reference to human dignity, section 10 states that “everyone” has “the right to have their dignity respected and protected.” By advocating death to white people, Malema flagrantly violated section 10.

Regarding freedom of speech, section 16 (2) (b) declares that freedom of speech “does not extend to incitement of imminent violence.” Section 16 (2) (c) prohibits “advocacy of hatred based on race….that constitutes incitement to cause harm.”

The constitution is clear and unambiguous on those issues. Yet the HRC claims that its ruling on Malema is based on a “societal and historical context” which takes into account “hundreds of years of marginalisation and exclusion based on race.”

Nowhere in the constitution is there any such provision made. On the contrary, the constitution is very clear (section 9) that everyone, irrespective of race, has “the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.” The HRC ruling, therefore, defies the constitutional rights of white people and sets a wrong and dangerous precedent.

Equally ludicrous, shocking and inept is the statement by HRC so-called legal expert, Shanelle van der Berg, that what constitutes hate speech depends on the racial identity of the person. So much, then, for equality before the law and the principle of non-racialism. Not only is the HRC’s credibility now worthless, but by allowing Malema to get away with his incitement to violence against whites, the HRC's ruling has exasperated race relations.


DA POLICY PREMISED ON RACE   -  posted Feb 22, 2019

DA national spokesman Solly Malatsi’s attempt to defend his party’s B-BBEE  policy (Business Day, February 15) fails to discredit the assertion made by Frans Cronje of the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) that there is little to distinguish between the DA and the ANC on B-BBEE.

Although Malatsi is at pains to point out that the DA favours a bottom up approach to B-BBEE rather than the ANC’s  top-down one, the fact remains that while the DA  may have different means, the end objective is no different, namely “to grow black equity.”

Equity has no place in the hierarchy of competence. Thus the unadulterated emphasis on a particular population group is blatantly at odds with the DA’s motto of “freedom, fairness and opportunity.” It is also at odds with its election slogan to” build one South Africa for all” when one considers who is being left out of the building process.

By unpacking the details of the DA’s B-BBEE, Malatsi amply vindicates the IRR’s assertion that the ideology of race has become the premise of the DA. That is obvious from how the DA would implement its B-BBEE policy. Blacks would be the beneficiaries of mentoring, internships, training and bursaries; black entrepreneurship would be identified, incubated, financed and nurtured.

After 25 years it is unacceptable that other populations groups are denied such benefits. Never slow to condemn the job reservation of apartheid, B-BBEE is no different. Thus, Malatsi’s claim that the DA’s version of B-BBEE is a “credible alternative” to that of the ANC is nonsense. It’s merely a fine-tuned variation of the same thing that is discriminatory in the extreme.

he Editor

The Mercury

ORWELLIAN  PROPAGANDA   - posted February 17, 2019

Commissar Sihle Zikalala’s remarks eulogising 25 years of ANC rule  (Mercury, February 15) mirror the brand of propaganda  readers of Pravda had to endure extolling the virtues of totalitarian communism in the USSR.

In true Orwellian style, Zikalala presents failure and neglect as achievements. First off, he boasts how the debt ratio to GDP of 69% in 1994 has been reduced to 53%. What he omits to disclose is that thanks to ANC –inspired international sanctions, disinvestment and its policy of making the country ungovernable, South Africa’s economy in 1994 was in a parlous state.

Citing the fact that employment has increased is meaningless when unemployment has tripled to almost ten million since 1994. Significantly he ignores that reality because it exposes the failure of the ANC’s socialist policies and BEE.

For Zikalala to proclaim the restoration of dignity is a gross insult. More people are mired in poverty than at any time in South Africa’s history. Having 18 million people on social grants reflects economic failure. Since the onset of ANC rule, informal settlements have mushroomed across the country. Impoverishment is a reality for all because of the reduced buying power of the Rand. At its worst before 1994, the Rand traded at R2.25 to the US dollar. Now, on a good day it manages just under R14 to the dollar.

Under ANC rule, not a single state department is capable of consistent, competent service delivery. Crime and corruption are rampant. Two thirds of municipalities are bankrupt. Thanks to connections within the ANC over R500 billion has been siphoned out of the country as part of state capture.

Tourism prospers only because of the weak Rand which enables foreign tourists to afford a cheap holiday and to visit heritage sites and game reserves that were established long before 1994.

In premising his harangue on the claim that  Mandela would have been proud of what has transpired under ANC rule, Zikalala is sorely mistaken. For Mandela is on record as saying “while poverty persists, there is no true freedo

The Witness

STUDENT ANARCHY - posted 10 Feb 2019

Nicola Jones’ scathing review of the demands and conduct of those who call themselves students (The Witness, February 8) must resonate positively with all bona fide students and graduates.

A tertiary education is not an unqualified right. The halls of higher learning are not the place for hooligans and arsonists. Having a degree is no guarantee of a job or of a particular lifestyle. Yet the seeds of such expectations have been politically sown and are now fomenting violence and anarchy.

The root cause of all that is wrong in this country is excessive tolerance. Perpetrators are seldom punished for their wrongdoing. The result is that an ‘anything goes’ culture has evolved which is headed in one direction – anarchy.

The situation calls for draconian action to salvage appreciation for the culture of learning on our campuses.


The Star,  Mercury, Witness, Daily News


International indifference to the brutality of the Mnangagwa regime in Zimbabwe invites comparison with the international condemnation and sanctions which were applied more than 50 years ago to what was then Rhodesia. The glaring difference between the two is double standards and hypocrisy.

Whatever criticisms one could make against white rule of Rhodesia, it never resorted to the following: indiscriminate shooting and beatings by police, arbitrary arrests and a complete media shutdown. People were not subjected to jackboot repression for protesting against conditions which included no fuel, no medical supplies, unaffordable and unobtainable food supplies, a worthless currency, irregular electricity and water supplies and rampant unemployment – which runs at 90% in Zimbabwe.

Yet world sanctions, disinvestment and political pressure drove Rhodesia into submission by 1980. In the years that followed, despite the ethnic cleansing the Mugabe regime inflicted on the Ndebele, the demonization and marginalisation of opposition and the violent expropriation of white farmers, international opinion never mobilised against black human rights oppression in Zimbabwe to the extent that it clamoured for the termination of white rule in Rhodesia.

If international opinion was consistent, it should declare the Mnangagwa regime outlawed, despatch an international caretaker administration – like the British did when they sent Lord Soames to Rhodesia in 1980 – prosecute the Mnangagwa regime along with Mugabe and the rest of the ZanuPF human rights violaters, institute a Marshall Aid programme and set a date for properly monitored elections within a year.

Unless matters are remedied in that sort of fashion, there is no hope for the people of Zimbabwe. With the army fully backing Mnangagwa, repression and tyranny will prevail indefinitely. The question is: does international opinion give a damn? Oppression of blacks by blacks apparently is not an issue.

The Mercury


Articles like the one by Brian Mahlangu (Mercury, January 22) proclaiming radical transformation as the key to job creation, serve only as an attempt to divert attention away from the ANC’s inability to shrink the ten million-strong army of unemployed.

In trotting out the myth of monopoly white capitalism, which he blames for the high unemployment rate, Mahlangu seems oblivious of the fact that money knows no colour. Thirty eight percent of the stocks on the JSE is foreign-owned; 46% is owned by corporates. Only 16% is owned by private individuals.

As with other experts on our sputtering economy and its high unemployment, Mahlangu carefully avoids mentioning the role of stringent job-inhibiting labour laws and BEE prescriptions along with the demands of militant socialist trade unions in hobbling economic growth and employment opportunities.

In appealing for radical transformation, Mahlangu claims it will lead to non-racialism. But as most informed people are aware, transformation is simply a cover term for majoritarianism. The only way non-racialism can be achieved is by the application of the principle of merit which ensures that competence prevails rather than demographic representivity.

Equity has no place in the hierarchy of competence which is crucial in the generation of wealth and its corollary, job creation.

he Mercury


It is difficult to have any sympathy for the DA’s chagrin over being denied the use of the Mandela capture site to launch its election campaign details.

Already sharing the ANC’s views on affirmative action, BEE and demographic representivity, which the DA semantically terms ‘diversity,’ its attempt to appropriate the aura of the Mandela legend is shabby but not surprising.  For no matter how the DA chooses to spin its commonality with Mandela, historically he belongs to the ANC.

In claiming that it shares Mandela’s values, the DA would do well to appraise them more closely. Much is made of Mandela’s conciliatory role, yet he never renounced violence during the negotiating years leading up to the 1994 election. In his book titled The Prince and I, the late IFP MP, Mario Oriani Ambrosini, listed the following  in his deconstruction of the Mandela myth (pages 265-268):

·        Although a civil war raged in KZN, Mandela delayed meeting Chief Buthelezi for a year after his release from prison. When they did meet, Mandela failed to implement the agreement to hold joint meetings to pacify violence-torn areas. As a result a further 1,000 lives were lost.

·        In 1995 Mandela admitted giving the order to shoot unarmed Zulus gathered outside the ANC’s Shell House HQ in Johannesburg on March 28, 1994. Fifty Zulus were killed and 180 injured.

·        Mandela allowed the ANC to defy a court order on behalf of the families of those killed in the Shell House massacre.

·        While Buthelezi was a minister in his cabinet, Mandela requested former SADF General Constand Viljoen to prepare a plan for the army to take military control of Ulundi and impose martial law in KZN. Viljoen declined the task.

·        The controversial arms deal began during Mandela’s presidency.

·        He never presided over a single cabinet meeting. They were run by Thabo Mbeki.

So much, then, for Mandela’s style of politics and values.



In lamenting the fact that unemployment stands at almost ten million, it is amazing that Kabelo Khumalo (Business Report, January 9) fails to question the reasons unemployment has tripled since 1994.

Down the years numerous studies have pointed to ANC economic policies as being the root cause of unemployment and sluggish economic growth. BEE in all its evolving forms has failed to generate meaningful employment prospects and instead produced a small elite at the expense of the working class. Along with affirmative action, BEE  has deterred foreign investment and hobbled economic growth.

Prescriptive labour laws allied with politically powerful trade unions have further discouraged economic growth and investment. Of course, ideology is the bedrock of the hobbled state of our economy. Socialism is historically unregenerative, yet the ANC  adheres to it by way of bloated government and rising national debt. Indeed the only answer the ANC has produced to unemployment is social grants on which 18 million people now rely. As the saying goes, “subsidise poverty and you get more of it.”

It does not say much for Business Report’s objectivity that it  can publish an article which claims to address unemployment yet ignores the fundamental causes of the situation and tamely suggests that the panacea of our woes is simply to make a “concerted effort to lend a hand and make a difference.” What a load of pathetic humbug!


The Mercury
If the response of the minister for Rural Land Reform, Maite Mashabane, to a question tabled by Freedom Front leader Dr Pieter Groenewald MP was widely published, then distortion of the facts concerning land reform and ownership, which is serving to fuel emotions and populist agendas, would diminish.
Central to the highly-charged debate on the issue is the claim that whites still own 72% of agricultural holdings and that only four percent are in black hands. But as an analysis in Politcsweb on January 8 points out, those statistics are disingenuous because of the context in which they are presented.
The contrast of 72% to 4% holdings refers to individually owned, non-urban classes of land. As statistics they exclude all state-owned land, community-held former homeland territory and land privately purchased by blacks through trusts, companies and closed corporations.
The minister’s response noted that 12,1 million hectares had been transferred in terms of land restitution – 3,5 million directly to beneficiaries; 2,9 million concerned those who opted for financial compensation; 4,9 million acquired by the Government for distribution along with a further 822,388 hectares. What is missing from that statement is that, at the outset, the ANC inherited 16 million hectares of the former homeland territories.
Thus, the extent of land restitution and redistribution between 1994 and 2017, although pedestrian- paced, is actually greater than what is commonly believed.