 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
If you want to contact us,
please email info@insidepolitics.org.za
|
16 May 2008
|
|
 |
|
|
|
COUNTING THE COST
The DA recently used a parliamentary question to ask the minister of transport how big the country’s road infrastructure backlog was - nationally and by province. The answer that came back was a staggering R72 billion, and little or no hope (on the part of the state) of it being eradicated in the near future.
Remember that there is a broader context when it comes to questions about the state of the country’s infrastructure. Eskom CEO Jacob Maroga has estimated that the power utility will have to spend R1.3 trillion on new capacity up to 2025, much of which is due to years of neglect and under-spending by the state. Elsewhere, the Railway Commuter Corporation recently told the transport portfolio committee that it needed R25 billion to overcome its infrastructure backlog. In short, almost every element of South Africa’s physical infrastructure has been grossly neglected by the ANC government. And we are only now beginning to count the cost.
| | Posted on 08/05/2008 |  | |  | MEASURING INFLUENCE
It is a common accusation, dished out now and again without much consideration: ‘the opposition has no influence’. It’s also palpably untrue. In fact, the DA’s influence is far reaching and powerful, not just in terms of the municipalities where it governs but, more pertinently, with regards to how it influences the policy and practice of government and the ruling party.
There are many such examples, which often go unacknowledged. Last year, Finance Minister Trevor Manuel used the tabling of his medium term budget policy-statement to berate national departments for their excessive expenditure: “National Department’s will be asked to find efficiency savings of about R2.3 billion over the next three years by limiting spending on unnecessary entertainment, travel and hotel accommodation, misplaced branding and communications initiatives and poorly managed consultancy services and related frills.”
In large part, this move was a reaction to the coverage generated by the DA on this issue (most of which was bad for the government). Every year, the party asks a series of parliamentary questions about the amount spent in these various categories by the state; the information is then compiled and a press conference is called. Every year, the numbers paint a picture of excess and unjustified increases in expenditure. As a result, those stories and the DA’s position on them have featured prominently in the media. In turn, this negative coverage transforms into pressure on government. And the effect of that pressure, over a number of years, has now resulted in a change of government policy.
But that is not the particular example on which I would like to focus in this article. Rather, a more recent - and just as significant - development has taken place; one for which the DA, in large part, should also be given credit.
| | Posted on 07/05/2008 | | | | INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY: DE VOS VERSUS ZILLE
It is very unusual for an academic (and certainly a law academic) to make as many logical errors as are committed in this particular piece and it is for that reason I have decided to use it to illustrate some of the (logical) shortcomings often involved in constructing a coherent argument. Because, if a senior academic can make these mistakes, anyone can, and it is useful to identify and explain them.
The piece in question is the third in an exchange between DA leader Helen Zille and Pierre de Vos, Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of the Western Cape (and part-time political commentator). And I would recommend reading it in full, before continuing with this article. It is not my intention to involve myself directly in that exchange, rather to simply analyse the logic used in the piece to illustrate some broader problems (for Zille’s side of the argument, see here).
Nor is this response meant to be comprehensive, there are numerous other mistakes in De Vos’s piece, which I have not identified here, as space does not allow. Here then are four logical errors from De Vos’s response to Helen Zille.
| | Posted on 25/04/2008 | | | | THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
As a result of apartheid, South Africa’s workforce was skewed disproportionately in favour of minorities (particular whites). Thus, with a new dispensation, came a systematic drive to redress this disparity and, in 1998, the Employment Equity Act was promulgated in order to force South Africa’s various institutions - both public and private - to become broadly representative of the country’s demographics (and, ostensibly, to enforce “fair” employment practices).
Affirmative action has now been part of South African law for a decade and its consequences have been far-reaching. Much has been made of the fairness of those principles which underpin the legislation but, more recently, there is another development worth examining: as a result of affirmative action, a number of institutions are demographically representative and the question becomes - what now?
| | Posted on 22/04/2008 | | | | SOUTH AFRICA: CHALLENGES TO DEMOCRACY 14 YEARS AFTER LIBERATION
This speech was to be delivered by Sandra Botha to the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, Pacific, Africa and the Caribbean at the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats meeting held in Brussels on 16 April 2008.
Friends in liberty and democracy, ladies and gentlemen,
I would like to open my address to you tonight by stating upfront and categorically that choosing democracy in 1994 was the best choice that the people of South Africa could have made then, for now and for all posterity.
Millions of South Africans, both those so-called “beneficiaries of apartheid” as well as those who were discriminated against by South Africa’s former system of government, today enjoy freedoms which they could only have dreamt of prior to Nelson Mandela’s inauguration as our country’s first democratically elected President.
South Africa is a nation of brave and resilient people who have shown great courage in the face of adversity – this undoubtedly bodes well for our future as a country and as a democracy.
With courage and optimism in hand, the people of South Africa:
-believe in the surmountability of the challenges that they face;
-refuse to be held hostage by a criminal minority; and,
-believe that they can win the fight against the crushing effects of poverty and corruption.
Economically speaking, South Africa has not been immune to what is popularly referred to as “the global credit crunch”. Yet, it is worthwhile to remember that a mere decade ago, South Africans had to make ends meet despite interest rates of 25% and more, while the prime lending rate during the current challenging round is but only 15%.
It was just twenty years ago, the South African government was unable to make its debt repayments, when the stock market was sent spiralling down and the rand had sunk to unknown lows.
Over the past seven years we have seen encouraging levels of growth in consumer confidence, in investor confidence, in important sectors such as tourism and manufacturing and in the economy as a whole. We have also seen billions of rands paid back to taxpayers annually since 2006.
While these positive developments and achievements are not to be disregarded or diminished for one minute, the fact that South Africa, fourteen years after liberation, faces grave challenges to its status as a democracy, should not escape us.
| | Posted on 15/04/2008 | | | | NO ARGUMENT, NO CONTENT, NO CLUE
The point has been made a number of times, but it is worth repeating: as a general rule, the ANC and its alliance partners consistently refuse to argue on the facts, relying rather on character assassination and misdirection instead.
More particularly, whereas Thabo Mbeki and his acolytes often used quite complex logical fallacies and the manipulation of language to misdirect debate, Jacob Zuma and his confidants rely on more brutal ad hominem attacks, along with far less complicated and far more direct language.
Both are equally dishonest and both say something about the character of the relevant individual.
| | Posted on 04/04/2008 | | | | THE ANC IS MAKING A MOCKERY OF PARLIAMENT
Last month, the ANC accused the DA of “making a mockery of parliament”. This came after Public Protector Lawrence Mushwana recommended that parliamentary action be taken against DA MP Mike Waters, and the DA’s subsequent refusal to do so.
Mushwana was of the opinion that a complaint made by Waters - that President Thabo Mbeki had abused his office by demanding that Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang be prioritsed on an organ-transplant list and that her alleged alcoholism be concealed - was without foundation or substance and that Waters had acted unconstitutionally, in a manner unbecoming of an MP, and had abused the Office of the Public Protector for political gain.
In response, the DA accused Mushwana of acting with a political agenda that of – attacking DA – rather than pursuing his mandate. After all, the DA had long since withdrawn its request for an investigation (following a meeting with Mbeki) and, given Mushwana’s dubious track record on investigating all things ANC, his decision seemed to fit a rather partisan pattern of his. Nevertheless, the merits of his decision aside, it is worth responding to the ANC, whose hypocrisy in accusing the DA of abusing Parliament is as spectacular as it is hypocritical.
| | Posted on 31/03/2008 | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|