politics

Do we live in a world where powerful men in government, powerful men in business and powerful men in army uniforms conspire to smash popular dissent to the growing inequality?

When the Forbes magazine - not the representative of the world's poor - quotes an Oxfam report, released at the World Economic Forum (WEF) Davos meeting this year, that raises the obscenity of inequality - then it is time the world’s rich and powerful stand up and answer some serious questions.

Is this just a cyclical crisis or is it a systemic one? Are the following statistics driving the crises we face today, from economic to ecological, from financial to food and burgeoning youth unemployment and to the many resource conflicts and corruption scandals that plague our world?

• Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population;
• The wealth of the top one percent – the richest people in the world – amounts to US$110 trillion. That is 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population;
• The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world;
• Seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the last 30 years.
• The richest one percent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for which we have data between 1980 and 2012.

There is a growing consensus that the concentration of wealth in the world in the hands of fewer and fewer people is untenable. Thomas Piketty, the world-renowned economist, in Capital in the Twenty-First Century, calls it the second Gilded Age-defined by the incredible rise of the 'one percent'.

Where does the remaining 99 percent feature in this new age?

I am struck by the ferocious reaction to the  National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa  (NUMSA) strike. It is described as irresponsible after the economy contracted 0.6 percent in the first quarter after it was alleged that it was caused by a five-month long platinum miners’ strike. Forgotten is that collective bargaining, which includes the right to strike for a living wage, is enshrined in the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) constitution and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In South Africa, it is in the Constitution and has been a cornerstone of the institution of democracy.

Forgotten is the latest employment data, which indicates an unemployment rate of 25.2 percent in terms of the narrow definition and 35.1 percent if the broad definition is used. So is the fact that youth unemployment in the 18-35 range is today over 60 percent. So how has the ratio of dependents to a single breadwinner changed since 1994? I am sure that a single worker is supporting many more dependents than in the 80s.

Forgotten is the fact that many of our public health facilities are in a state of collapse, with civil society organisations like the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) reporting in provinces like the Free State that the crisis means some facilities have no equipment and supplies to conduct life-saving tests and monitoring of conditions such as diabetes, hypertension and heart disease; stock-outs and shortages of drugs for many chronic conditions such as tuberculosis (TB), HIV, diabetes and epilepsy are the order of the day.

The same applies to many of our township and rural schools. The collapse of public services in many areas means that the extended families of workers incur more expenses going to private health facilities or sending their children to former model C schools in cities.

I can empathise when the NUMSA president, Andrew Chirwa, says that “NUMSA has an obligation to ensure a better standard of living for its members. We have no intention to send South Africa into a recession… but workers are permanently living in a recession even today.”

Similarly, a demand to Eskom for a salary increase of 12 percent should be seen in a context where there is great speculation on how the budget for the Medupi power station has burgeoned from R52 billion in January 2007 to an estimated R145 billion with an overall delay of 48 months today.

How have the companies such as Parsons Brinckerhoff, providing engineering and project management support; Hitachi, supplying the boilers; Alstom, providing the steam turbines; construction companies Murray and Roberts, Basil Read and Aveng; ThyssenKrupp Materials, handling contractors of the coal stockpile yard, benefited?

Can we have a public audit of all these companies, including those whom they have paid, and the names of the shareholders? Many want to know how public money is spent and whether part of that could have gone into improving the workers' wages and working conditions.

Workers in South Africa live in townships like Bekkersdal or Alexandra, in the heart of the richest real estate in Africa. I have been there. It will break your heart: the poverty, the overcrowding, the battle for survival. These residents feel left behind by democracy, surrounded by piles of garbage, exploding slums and dysfunctional schools and clinics.

Families of the poor do not want charity. They do not want a scenario of one in three South Africans living on a social grant. They want the dignity of their labour. Their desperation, as they fail to meet the obligations of a breadwinner, drives wage pressure and is reflected in high levels of alcohol, drug abuse (which leads to high levels of interpersonal violence), the spike in youth delinquency, among other indicators.

We have to redefine our growth path, our governance and our democracy. True democracy must be built through open societies that embrace the rule of law and where public institutions protect the interests of citizens. Our struggle for freedom was a struggle to have a voice. If avenues to free and open dialogue and meaningful participation are closed off and people lose trust in public institutions, then collective bargaining will become politicised.

That is what happened in the past. I see it happening again. The strikes and protests we see sweeping South Africa reveal a fault line in our society - between a small insider elite and the majority. Our new battle is against inequality, lest we forget the fact that the Gini Coefficient (a measure of inequality) reports the stark statistic that South Africa is today the one of the most unequal countries on Earth.

This is the time for a new dialogue in South Africa. A roadmap back to the contract we made with our people in 1994 to ‘deliver a better life’ to all our people, based on our Constitutional commitment to human dignity and justice.

There are tough choices we need to make, before it is too late.

- Jay Naidoo is founding General Secretary of Congress of South African Trade Unions, former Minister in the Mandela Government and Chair of the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN). You can follow him on Twitter, or visit his Facebook Page or www.jaynaidoo.org. 

Following the elections and President Jacob Zuma's recent cabinet appointments, South Africa has missed its last opportunity - so tantalisingly close - to achieve gender parity in politics ahead of the 2015 deadline.
 
The 50 percent target for women's representation in all areas of decision-making is enshrined in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Protocol on Gender and Development adopted in South Africa in 2008.
 
South Africa came under the spotlight at the SADC Protocol@Work summit on 27 May 2014, under the theme, ‘50/50 by 2015, and a Strong Post- 2015 Agenda’. The summit brings together 350 activists and government officials from across the region in the final countdown to 2015 - the deadline for the 28 targets of the Protocol.  
 
Women's representation in parliament dropped from 44 percent in the 2009 elections to 40 percent in the 7 May 2014 polls, while that of women in provincial legislatures dropped from 41 to 37 percent. Following the announcement of the new cabinet at the weekend, women in cabinet remain at 41 percent. The proportion of women premiers dropped from 55 percent in 2009 to 22 percent in 2014. In the 2011 local elections, women's representation dropped from 40 percent to 38 percent.
 
"South Africa is the one country that should have hit the bull's eye," said Gender Links chief executive officer, Colleen Lowe Morna. The reason for the drop, she noted, "is that South Africa has steadfastly refused to adopt a legislated quota, leaving this to the whims of political parties." 
 
The relatively high numbers owed to the ruling African National Congress' [ANC] 50 percent quota. "But the ANC has not always stuck to its quota. And as its majority has declined, both at national and local level, so has the representation of women," Lowe-Morna noted. "We rest our case: the issue is too important to leave to the fate of political parties."
 
The ANC adopted a voluntary 30 percent quota for women in 2002, and upped this to 50 percent in 2009. However, the party did not live up to this quota nor did they stick to the zebra proportional representation on the party list, since the first three people on the ANC party list are men.
 
Out of the 249 ANC seats at national level, 115 (46 percent) are held by women. This is a four percent decline from 2009.
 
The main opposition Democratic Alliance (DA) has always been averse to quotas. Helen Zille came under fire for appointing an all-male cabinet in the Western Cape in 2009. Women hold only 27 of the 89 seats (30 percent). At provincial level, women's representation in the DA declined by four percentage points from 35 percent in 2009 to 31 percent in 2014.
 
In her Western Cape cabinet, Zille boasted that she had increased women's representation by 200 percent as she now has two women in cabinet. She added that she would not discriminate in favour of women because they have X chromosomes or against men because they have Y chromosomes.
 
"This is simplistic and it is disappointing, coming from a woman leader," commented Lowe Morna. "Zille completely ignores the historical imbalances between women and men. Nowhere in the world have these been corrected without deliberate measures to do so."  
 
The new kid on the block, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) got a whopping 25 seats in parliament of which only nine (35 percent) are held by women. At provincial level, the party has 38 percent women. During Women's Month last year, the EFF said they "view the deplorable condition of the majority of women as a slap in the face for women who sacrificed so much for our liberation". With that in mind, although higher than many other parties 35 percent of women is still a slap in the face to gender parity.
 
In another show of blatant gender blindness, the Inkhatha Freedom Party (IFP) continues to demonstrate a disturbing decline after each election. Out of the 10 seats in parliament, only two seats (21 percent) are held by women. This is a one percent decline from 2009, and a 14 percent decline from 2004. The decline also extends to the provincial level, down from 35 percent in 2009 to 20 percent women in 2014.
 
Agang, led by a woman, only got two seats. However party leader Mamphela Ramphele, said she is not going to Parliament because she wants to reflect on her party's disappointing performance, and is putting forward two male MPs.
 
In the 2009 elections, the ANC managed to get 50/50 representation of premiers. In 2014, of the eight provinces that the ANC won, men lead seven, while one province is led by a woman (13 percent). Nationally, there are seven (78 percent) male premiers and two female premiers (22 percent).
 
Cabinet is where women's representation should be equal to that of men as the President has absolute control. But women now constitute 15 (41 percent) of the 37-member cabinet, and 16 (44 percent) of the 36 deputy ministers.
 
Just before the elections, the national assembly passed the Women Empowerment and Gender Equality Bill. If approved by the National Council of Provinces, the bill will oblige both public and private entities to ensure gender parity. South Africa could have made a head start with its just ended elections. "Missing the mark at this place and time sends out the sad message that patriarchy is still alive and well," noted Lowe Morna.
 
- For more information about the Gender Summit underway as well as the figures of women in government, contact Katherine Robinson on 076 227 6517. A multimedia newsletter with pieces suitable for online radio, video will be sent out for your usage shortly.

In the wake of the Public Protector’s report on Nkandla, opposition parties have been doing all they can to make this an election issue and keep the tale of excess and waste of R250 million fresh in the minds of citizens.

Yet, the jury is out as to whether corruption really was an election issue, and whether citizens had been sufficiently angered by the expenditure on Nkandla to shift their voting preferences.

South Africa has a strong anti-corruption framework and has signed a raft of international treaties and conventions on preventing and combatting corruption. Despite this, South Africa is increasingly struggling to implement legislation on corruption. This is due to various factors, including a lack of capacity and political will.

The Afrobarometer survey on public perceptions of corruption, which was released last year, provides some insight regarding attitudes towards corruption. It found that 66 percent of South Africans believe the government is failing in ensuring a society free of corrupt and unethical conduct. Only 33 percent believe that the government is succeeding in the fight against corruption, and one percent indicated that they are not aware of its performance in this regard.

The most recent Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) 2012 South African Social Attitudes Survey (SASAS) shows that 74 percent of South Africans believe that corruption has increased. A small minority of 10 percent believed it had decreased, and 12 percent felt that the situation remained static. It also showed that public awareness of corruption is increasing.

In 2003, only nine percent of South Africans identified corruption as a key challenge - in 2011, this percentage had increased to 26 percent. More specifically, the survey revealed that 66 percent of South Africans believe that South African Police Service (SAPS) officials engage in corrupt activities, while 38 percent believe that Home Affairs officials participate in corrupt activities.

It also showed that 37 percent felt that politicians on the national level of government are involved in corruption, while 37 percent suspected that officials managing tender applications were involved in unethical conduct; and 36 percent believed the same of officials employed in judicial services.

The survey also covered perceptions of the causes of corruption, with 63 percent of South Africans attributing it to the national government and Parliament’s inability to effectively deal with corruption, while 33 percent said that corruption is the result of ineffective and lax punitive measures on the part of the judiciary.

Some 30 percent assigned corruption to poor transparency in the management of public expenditure processes, while 29 percent believed close links between business and politics is the primary source of unethical conduct in the public sector. Finally, 28 percent indicated that public tolerance of corruption is responsible for the persistence of this problem in South Africa.

However, South Africa is not alone: the perception that corruption is on the rise is consistent with global trends. For instance, Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer 2013 revealed that 53 percent of people globally believe that corruption has increased, while 29 percent said that the levels of corruption remained unchanged and only 18 percent felt that they had decreased.

The findings of the various surveys show that South Africans are concerned about corruption: but to what extent have the election manifestos of the major parties spoken to these concerns?

In its manifesto, the African National Congress (ANC) indicated its intention to prohibit public officials from conducting business with the state; commit itself to realising and maintaining a high standard of professionalism in the public administration; focus on both public and private sector corruption; enhance the capacity of anti-corruption agencies to educate the public on corruption and to reform the tender system.

It is not surprising that the ANC has focused on the public service given the ‘revolving door’ between the private and public sector, which has often led to conflicts of interest and has been the basis of several government scandals in recent years.

The Public Service Commission recently confirmed that there has been a sharp increase in financial misconduct in the public sector. Its findings show that money lost to financial misconduct grew from R100 million in the 2008/2009 financial year to R346 million in 2009/2010; and increased to R932 million in the 2010/2011 financial year. It also predicted that this figure could soar to R1 billion in the following financial year.

The ANC in government has already passed the Public Administration Management Bill through Parliament, which places a ban on public servants doing business with the state. In addition, President Zuma’s State of the Nation Address this year mentioned the establishment of a Central Tender Board to deal with all tenders across the country, and the appointment of a chief procurement officer to adjudicate on issues of pricing and ensure procedural fairness.

The Democratic Alliance (DA) manifesto is quite similar, but it seeks to undergird Chapter 9 institutions with greater budget allocations - which have always been a bugbear and stumbling block to these constitutionally mandated bodies to do their work effectively.

The DA also promised to prohibit public officials from conducting business with the state; commit itself to realising and maintaining a high standard of professionalism in the public administration; protect and invest in the independence of Chapter 9 institutions of the constitution and dismiss corrupt officials. It also said it would enhance accountability in government by reforming the electoral system; promote transparency in tender processes; prohibit the appointment of officials convicted of corruption, violent crime, fraud and theft; and implement lifestyle audits of politicians and public officials.

The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), the ‘new kid on the block,’ has been causing a stir and focused on two key areas, though with little detail. These are to prohibit public officials from conducting business with the state, and to protect and invest in the independence of Chapter 9 institutions of the constitution. Among others, it also undertakes to increase, harness and enhance the efficiency of government institutions to avoid all forms of corruption, and abolish the use of private companies in fulfilling functions and duties government has to fulfil.

Both Agang South Africa and the United Democratic Movement (UDM) ran campaigns with a heavy focus on issues of corruption. Agang SA indicated that it would implement legislation to protect whistleblowers, while the UDM said it would establish a court specifically designed to deal with corruption.

At the end of the day however, the voters decided which parties best represent their interests. The results of the 7 May elections will in many ways be revealing of South Africans’ attitudes towards current levels of corruption, and parties’ commitment to transparent and accountable governance.

- Judith February is senior researcher and Wilmont Gertse is an intern at the Institute for Security Studies’ Governance, Crime and Justice Division.