Marikana funding case hints at larger problems with gaining access to justice

Most South Africans do not have effective access to justice. Without adequate legal representation, which few people can afford, not many litigants or criminal defendants will truly savour the sweet taste of justice. While banks, other large corporations, the very wealthy and organs of state will have the funds to employ an army of lawyers to exploit every legal loophole and to pursue every legal argument to win their case, most ordinary persons of moderate means will not. Unless the legal system is substantially reformed or the state pumps billions of rands into the Legal Aid system, this will not change – despite the quixotic court victory of the survivors of the Marikana massacre to legal representation at state expense.

The Marikana massacre, in which the South African Police Service (SAPS) killed 34 striking mine workers, may well turn out to have been a watershed moment in South African politics. From where I sit, it looks suspiciously as if the ruling elite (ab)used its control of the SAPS (or its political access to those who control the SAPS) to teach miners taking part in a violent and unprotected strike a “lesson”, because these striking miners threatened its financial and class interests. As a result, 34 striking and protesting miners were killed by the SAPS and more than 78 people were injured.

The Farlam Commission of Inquiry into the massacre, and the events that led up to it, may not come to the same conclusion. Commissions of Inquiry – even Commissions that do a good job – are usually better at determining the small truths than at uncovering the larger political truths of a tragic event like this. It is also not yet clear to what extent the alleged SAPS cover-up of the event and the possible protection of political principals and mine company executives will succeed.

This does not mean that the work done by the Farlam Commission is not important. Like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission it might uncover at least part of the truth, creating a factual matrix within which, over time, we will come to understand the political significance of the events on 16 August 2012. For that reason it is essential that the Commission must be seen to be acting fairly: if its findings are not trusted by everyone, it will be difficult to rely on these findings as a springboard for more searching analysis of the political import of the Marikana massacre.

The Commission’s legitimacy was threatened by the withdrawal of the legal teams representing the families of the killed miners as well as of the injured and arrested miners because of a dispute about the funding of the lawyers of the injured and arrested miners (led by Adv. Dali Mpofu). It therefore came as a great relief when the North Gauteng High Court (in a legally daring judgment by Makgoka J) in the case of Magidiwana and Another v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others ordered Legal Aid SA to fund Adv. Mpofu and his team.

I am delighted that Legal Aid SA has now agreed to fund Adv. Mpofu’s team. However, Legal Aid SA may still appeal the judgment because of the potentially far-reaching consequences the judgment poses to the continued financial viability of Legal Aid SA and it will not at all be surprising if such an appeal succeeds.

The bulk of the judgment focuses on the right of surviving miners to be represented by legal representatives and does an admirable job of showing why section 34 of the Constitution – which states that everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing – entitles miners to such legal representation.

What the judgment fails to do convincingly, in my opinion, is to show that this right must translate into a right to have those lawyers funded at state expense through Legal Aid SA.

As Legal Aid SA eventually conceded, its CEO does have the general discretion to fund the lawyers of interested parties who appear before a Commission of Inquiry. In fact, Legal Aid SA funded the lawyers of families of the deceased miners in accordance with this general discretion. The question is whether its decision to fund the lawyers representing the families of deceased miners (but not the injured and arrested miners) could be declared unconstitutional on the basis that it was irrational to fund the former but not the latter.

The court found that the injured and arrested miners did have a right to state funded legal representation in general, given their substantial and direct interest in the outcome of the commission; their vulnerability and financial position; the complexity of the proceedings and the capacity of the applicants to represent themselves; the procedures adopted by the commission; the need for an “equality of arms” between the parties; and the potential consequences of the findings and recommendations of the commission for the injured and arrested miners.

In a wonderful passage that could easily apply to the vast majority of litigants and accused persons of modest means who need legal representation in South Africa, the court stated:

The fact that they [the miners] are poor should never be a basis to summarily dismiss their potential substantial prejudice. It is unthinkable and deeply offensive to basic fairness and the rule of law in a democratic state that the poor and vulnerable be left to their own devices, in a manner that will deny them exercise of their constitutional right in terms of s. 34 of the Constitution.

Moreover, the court pointed out that the SAPS legal team is said to comprise five advocates (three senior counsel and two senior-junior counsel). In addition, the SAPS also use the services of a private firm of attorneys in Rustenburg, instead of State Attorney. Furthermore, the Minister of Police, whose interests should ordinarily coincide with those of SAPS, for some reason maintains a separate legal team on a so-called “watching brief” at the Commission (a fact that raises its own set of questions about the possible political involvement in the events of 16 August 2012).

According to the court, the State parties’ legal representation costs approximately R2 million to R3 million per month.

The judgment therefore concludes that considerations of fairness and the need for “equality of arms” between the parties require the state to fund the legal representatives of the miners. The interests of justice and the rule of law would be undermined by a failure to fund their lawyers.

It would be difficult to argue with the court that it would be fundamentally unfair for one party to be represented by lawyers to the cost of up to R3 million a month while another party with a direct interest in the outcome of the Commission have no legal representation at all. After all, those involved in the killing and injuring of the miners are represented by an army of lawyers, ever alert to protect the interest of their clients, who would obviously like to pin the blame for the massacre on the miners themselves in order to absolve the SAPS and its political principal from any blame. It seems extremely unfair that the one side is so well protected while one of the other parties is not.

However, apart from the profound political importance of the case, this situation is not fundamentally different from that faced daily by many litigants or potential litigants who wish to go to court to enforce their legal rights or to challenge the abuse of power or the flouting of the law by big banks, other large corporations, wealthy individuals or the state. Legal Aid SA very seldom provides funding for such litigants due to an acute shortage of Legal Aid funds. It is mandated by its rules and by the Constitution to fund lawyers for indigent criminal defendants “if substantial injustice would otherwise result”, but the Constitution does not explicitly impose a duty on the state (and hence Legal Aid SA) to fund civil matters (nor matters relating to Commissions of Inquiry).

Because of a lack of funds to pay good lawyers capable of taking on the “big boys” (and the difficulty of securing the services of such lawyers, given the financial interests many lawyers have in representing the “big boys” instead), ordinary people – both poor people and middle class people – often face insurmountable hurdles in securing justice in court.

There are no quick fix solutions to secure better access to justice for most South Africans. It would help if the state pumped additional billions of rands into the legal aid system – but that is not going to happen. Funds are needed for other “important” state matters – like upgrading the private residence of the president.

Establishing a system in which recent law graduates do one year of community service – similar to medical graduates – to assist indigent litigants may also help to secure better access to justice, but that would require a gargantuan administrative effort from the Department of Justice. The Department currently probably does not have the financial and human resources to pull this off successfully.

Simplifying legal rules and moving away from the absurdly rigid application of these rules by some courts, will also help. Many procedural rules unnecessary complicate litigation and increase costs – often to the advantage of those litigants with the deepest pockets and hence the best lawyers. It goes without saying that litigants without lawyers are often unfairly disadvantaged by these rules or are precluded from benefiting from access to the legal system at all because of their lack of knowledge of the rules.

But because of the formalistic legal culture – often inculcated and perpetuated by untransformed legal training provided at Law Schools – and because lawyers often benefit financially from the complicated and formalistic legal rules, there seems to be little appetite among elites in the legal profession to champion the streamlining and simplification of procedural rules.

It is judged against this background that the ultimate decision of the court in the Marikana case gets to look a bit shaky. This is so, not because it would have been fair to deny the injured and arrested miners legal representation at state expense, but because it is not clear that the decision of Legal Aid SA not to fund the lawyers can be said to have been irrational, given its many other commitments and the almost infinite demands on its limited funds.

Legal Aid SA provided three reasons for funding the legal team representing the families of the killed miners but not the legal team of the injured and arrested miners. First it claimed that the former group had a “substantial, proximate, and material interest in the outcome of the commission” to a degree that the latter did not. Second, it claimed that the latter group’s interests would be adequately protected by labour unions, NUM and AMCU. Third, it claimed that due to budgetary constraints it could not fund both parties.

The court (seemingly confusing or conflating the requirements for legality contained in section 1 of the Constitution and the test for a breach of section 9(1) of the Constitution) affirmed, correctly, that the exercise of public power by the executive and other functionaries should not be irrational. The court, more controversially, concluded that the refusal by Legal Aid SA to provide legal aid to the injured and arrested miners was not rationally related to the purpose of the Legal Aid Act, (as far as I can tell) because it found that this was not done to pursue a legitimate purpose.

The court did not really explain why this was the case. If the purpose of the decision was to manage Legal Aid SA’s funds properly, it is unclear why it would be irrational for Legal Aid SA to fund the one group but not the other. There is also clearly a difference in the position between the two groups: the loved ones of one group were killed, while the members of the other group are still alive.

Rationality review does not allow the court to set aside a decision of a public body because that body acted unwisely or because another decision would have resulted in a fairer outcome. It only allows the court to interfere if it can be shown that there was no rational reason for its decision: in other words, when the decision is arbitrary or capricious. In this case one can argue about the wisdom of the Legal Aid SA decision, but I am not sure one can say with confidence that it was irrational. To hold otherwise would have potentially catastrophic consequences for the financial viability of Legal Aid SA.

Despite the shaky legal argumentation, the judgment must be welcomed. Hopefully the clear injustice illustrated by the case may well spark a broader debate about the lack of access to justice and about what steps can be taken by the government and by the legal profession to provide ordinary people with a better chance to access the skills of competent lawyers.

Source: Constitutionally Speaking

FNB: You Can Help campaign is regrettable

FNB met with the leadership of the ANC, led by its secretary general Gwede Mantashe on Thursday. The bank apologised to the ANC on Friday.

"The CEO of FirstRand, Mr Sizwe Nxasana, agreed that the research clippings that were posted online were regrettable; he apologised for the posting of the research clippings online," the ANC said in a statement.

"He then assured the meeting that this regrettable incident will not be repeated."

The FNB campaign features a number of videos of children in school uniform reading their hopes for the country. Opposition parties and activist groups said the ANC's criticism of the campaign showed its intolerance.

During the meeting, the ANC pointed out that the video clips were a deliberate attack on the ANC.

The clips fed into the opposition narrative that sought to project the ANC and government in a negative manner, it said.

The ANC said the clips had a negative impact on business confidence and could undermine the promotion of investment into the country.

"The ANC indicated that its leadership and membership were strongly raising a question why the organisation should continue to bank with a bank that has adopted an oppositional (sic) stance to it."

Nxasa explained to the ruling party the objectives of their youth campaign and stressed that it was meant to inspire all South Africans to work together by helping one another.

FNB expressed its commitment to the National Development Plan in addressing the areas of poverty, inequality and unemployment, the ANC said on Friday.

Source: Mail & Guardian

Police accused of looting during Sasolburg protest

A security guard has said that police also looted shops during the violent protests in Zamdela. "If I had a camera, I would have taken photos. They took stuff in one Chinese shop and the community followed," said a security guard at a municipal office. "At Save Right [a local shop near the police station] they even advised us not to injure each other, and when the ATM was robbed, their van was nearby."

The 32-year-old man claimed that Sasolburg police were also unhappy about the proposed merger of the Ngwathe and Metsimaholo local municipalities.

He said this was evident in Tuesday's shooting, in which two people died and others were wounded when police from other provinces were deployed.

"We protested on Sunday [and] no one was wounded or died; we did it again on Monday ... [there were] no injuries we heard about. So why are people being shot at when there is police from other provinces?"

Earlier in the week, police from Gauteng and Welkom were deployed in the area to help control the situation.

Criticism

Police spokesperson Colonel Motantsi Makhele said he was aware of the allegations that police were among the looters. "People must come to the front if they have information," he said. "We welcome anyone who has information so that we can investigate this."

Resident Nthako (47) said he was happy Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs Minister Richard Baloyi had announced that the process of merging the municipalities had been stopped.

However, Nthako criticised government officials for not arriving at Moses Kotane Stadium where residents had expected to be addressed on the matter at 10am on Tuesday.

Residents ran out of patience and left the stadium at 11am.

"If they came to the stadium and addressed people, no one would have died or got injured," Nthako said. A protester was shot dead at the Zamdela police station during a clash with protesters on Tuesday.

Sticks and stones

Earlier in the day, police said another protester was shot dead by a motorist after a group of protesters tried to block his way. Nine people, two of them police officers, have been injured since the protest started on Sunday.

A Jacaranda radio journalist's car was pelted with stones and a South African Press Association cameraperson was threatened with a knife, also on Tuesday. The situation was quiet on Wednesday and police were seen patrolling the area and taking photographs of damaged properties on the main road.

Three police nyalas [armoured vehicles] were seen driving around in the area while a helicopter hovered overhead. Lucky Malebo, a community leader, said people had gone to hospital to check on the wounded.

"A list of those who were injured and those who died is being compiled, and we might get it around 3pm," he said. Malebo said the residents had wanted to hold a meeting at the stadium on Wednesday, but could not apply for permission as no one was on duty at the council.

Source: Mail & Guardian

Reaction to FNB advert like Lady Macbeth’s guilty rants

It is never a good sign when an organisation or individual completely overreacts to perceived criticism. As the simmering discontent of South Africa’s underclass boils over into open revolt and violence and as corrupt shoot-to-kill cops are increasingly deployed in places as far flung as Marikana, De Doorns and Sasolburg to protect the old and new elites from the wrath of the dispossessed, some politicians are increasingly resembling Lady Macbeth, driven by their guilt and shame to commit ever more heinous misdeeds. The hysterical and often undemocratic response of various ANC and SACP structures to the silly First National Bank (FNB) advertising campaign is a case in point.

In Shakespeare’s “Macbeth”, Lady Macbeth urges her husband to kill Duncan, the king, to allow Macbeth to satisfy his ambitions of becoming king. She overrides all of her husband’s objections by challenging his manhood and he relents and kills Duncan. Later Lady Macbeth becomes racked with guilt and sleepwalks through the palace, haunted by the murder of the former king. In this trance she tries to wash off imaginary bloodstains from her hands, shouting: “Out, damned spot! Out, I say!—One, two. Why, then, ’tis time to do ’t. Hell is murky!—Fie, my lord, fie! A soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?—Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him.”

The response of the ANC, the ANC Youth League and the SACP to the FNB campaign resembles the attempts of Lady Macbeth to clean imaginary bloodstains from her hands.

“What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?”

The FNB campaign includes videos of young South Africans apparently speaking their minds. In one of the videos a participant says: “Stop voting for the same government in hopes for change – instead, change your hopes to a government that has the same hopes as us.”

The ANC Youth League and SACP joined the ANC in slamming the campaign, with the league saying it was “deeply angered and disappointed” by the bank’s “treacherous” campaign. On Sunday, Youth League spokeswoman Khusela Sangoni-Khawe said FNB had failed in trying to “recreate an Arab Spring of some sort in South Africa” and said it “uses children to make unproven claims of a government rife with corruption. We call upon South Africans to close ranks against what is a treacherous attack on our country.”

ANC spokesperson Jackson Mthembu said the ANC (who is never directly mentioned in any of the videos) was “appalled” by the campaign in which the ANC, its leadership and government were “under attack” the campaign was an “undisguised political statement that makes random and untested accusations against our government in the name of discourse. While we believe that people are entitled to their views, we don’t accept that young kids should be used as proxies to articulate political views espoused, as in the case of the FNB advertisement.”

“Out, damned spot! Out, I say!”

These vehement reactions to what appear to be rather mild criticisms of the government and platitudes about one’s right to vote for the party of one’s choice (widely accepted in any functioning democracy) are curious for several reasons.

First, whatever one might think of FNB and its advertising campaign (and I am not a fan of the campaign or of the lily-livered manner in which the bank caved in to political thugs), the manner in which several ANC and SACP spokespersons conflated the ANC with the state and with the country is worrying. The ANC is not the state. Neither is it the sole representative of the South African people. South Africa, in the words of the Freedom Charter, belongs to all who live in it – it does not belong to the ANC. Like any political party, the ANC deserves to be praised when it does something well and deserves to be criticised when it abandons the poor that it professes to love and serve.

Second, the statement that the FNB campaign is treacherous and tries to recreate the Arab Spring, is anti-democratic and – I am sorry to have to use such an emotive term – proto-fascist. There is nothing wrong with telling people that they should refrain from voting for the governing party. Voting for whomever one pleases is at the heart of political freedom in a democratic state. Every democratic election is based on a fair and free contestation between political parties in which we are all allowed to express our preferences.

We are also all free to try and convince others to vote for the ANC, to vote for the DA, or to vote for the TP (Tender Party), for that matter. It is probably not a great business model for a Bank to get involved in an advertising campaign that might alienate the majority of voters, but if it does, there is nothing treacherous about it. If FNB had not pulled the adverts I might even have lauded the bank for putting its principles (which one may agree or disagree with) before naked profits.

The Arab Spring refers to various uprisings organised by oppressed populations in countries where citizens did not enjoy political rights and where democratic contestation and free and fair elections could not be held. To refer to an advertising campaign in which a teenager urges people in South Africa to vote for the party of their choice as an attempt to recreate an Arab Spring, suggests the ANC Youth league believes that South Africa is not a democracy, that its citizens are oppressed and do not enjoy political rights and that they will never be allowed to change the government by using their vote. Like Lady Macbeth wandering in a trance and trying to wash off imaginary bloodstains from her hands, the ANC Youth League is revealing rather more than it intended about its own undemocratic tendencies. Pity Jackson Mthembu will not display the same sense of outrage about this full-frontal attack on our democracy.

Whether one is a staunch ANC supporter or a supporter of the right wing Freedom Front Plus, if one supports democracy one will not be appalled by the fact that an institution has dared to criticise a political party. Only proto-fascists would be appalled by the fact that a bank has dared to broadcast statements criticising the government.

One might, of course, disagree with the sentiments expressed by the youngsters in the FNB produced videos, and the ANC has every right to express its disagreement with some of the statments made by the youngsters. But claiming that the sentiments are treacherous or that it is not legitimate to criticise the party displays the kind of undemocratic intolerance that cannot be associated with a party who supports democracy.

Personally I find that it is better to ignore attacks that are far-fetched or motivated by racism, hatred or a complete lack of information. That is what I do when I am criticised for something I have written. “Don’t feed the trolls,” I tell myself every time I read the unhinged invective of faceless loonies on my Blog. If the criticism is serious, one either responds to it by pointing out why and how it is wrong, or one takes it on board and changes one’s behaviour. Just a thought: use it, don’t use it.

One does not tell those who criticise that they are committing treason or that they are attacking the state merely because one happens (for the time being) to be the party of government.

I was reluctant even to enter this discussion, not because I am fearful of repercussions, but because what I have written here is so obvious and because all this fuss about a bank’s advertising campaign detracts attention from the far more important social and economic issues facing the country.

Maybe that is why the campaign has attracted such hysterical responses from the ANC and its partners. Like Lady Macbeth, whose paranoid dreams symbolises the fact that she is haunted by her guilt, the ANC reaction is perhaps a symptom of the fear and guilt that stalks the political class in South Africa. As Marikana, De Doorns and Sasolburg have shown, the poor, economically excluded and marginalised members of society have not benefited as handsomely from the end of apartheid as the members of the old (mostly white) and emerging (mostly black) middle classes.

While those in the chattering classes squabble about silly adverts made to promote the commercial interests of a big bank and argue whether these adds exploit children, many of those same children are dropping out of school or receiving a third rate education because of the cowardice of politicians who are too scared to take on a powerful union. While I write about the nature of democracy, members of social movement are harassed and tortured by the police. While Helen Zille spends her days on twitter, blaming the poor for the lack of services in their communities in Cape Town, millions of South Africans go to bed hungry, wondering whether this wonderful democracy will ever guarantee them a full stomach.

Source: Constitutionally Speaking

FNB launches "You can help" campaign

South Africa is rich in values, tradition and culture, a truly wonderful country, and one that is admired around the world. Yet, as South Africans, we sometimes forget what our great nation has achieved and remains capable of achieving. It is in times like these that we need to be reminded of the greatness inside all of us, and what is possible when help is joined to common purpose and courage to necessity.

At 18:57, on 17 January 2013, FNB launched a new brand campaign with a live broadcast to South Africa. The broadcast carried a message from the voices we don't often hear, the children of our great country. A message we believe will inspire the nation.

In September 2012, we undertook what is likely the most current snapshot of the opinions of the youth, their views on our country and the role of help. Help, not in terms of coordinated interventions, but little, everyday help; and the power help has to make a big difference. The survey was completed by HDI Youth Marketeers, an independent research firm.

In assembling these views and opinions, we spoke to over 1300 learners and students (ages 10 to 22) from around the country and from all walks of life. We learnt that today's youth are losing their innocence, not to apartheid, but to the many social ills and tragedies that came after it. One child said, "If I was President for a day, I would make South Africa safe for children, women and teens who are abused." Another 10-year-old boy added the following, "I get scared when people are killing each other."

But though some of what they had to say was hard to hear, we learnt too that our youth carry inside them a fire that burns with hope and positivity. Their sense of identity is astounding, and they have an unprecedented interest in working as a community to improve our society and environment. A 12 year old said, "When we help people, we make them feel like they're somebody". Another child said, "If we help each other, we raise our country". Yet another student, aged 10, said "In the future I want to live in South Africa... I know South Africa is full of crime, but if I didn't live here I don't know who I would be." A 15 year old said, "We help each other because we are one blood, one soul, with a 13 year old saying, "If we don't help each other, who will help us".

"The intention of the campaign is not to talk about ourselves, but rather to be a brand for betterment by providing the youth of our country with a stage to voice what impacts the daily reality of many South Africans through the lens of our brand's core positioning of 'Help', says Bernice Samuels, FNB Chief Marketing Officer.

"FNB is a brand of high ideals and has a long history of leading from the front, not just in terms of product and service innovation, but also in terms of its social focus on building a stronger, unified and values-based nation, referring to our Praise Singer, Anthem, and Dog ads to mention a few" adds Samuels.

The chosen venue for the live advert, Naledi Secondary School, played an integral role in the events of 1976, a time when the youth of South Africa sent a message that could not be ignored, and in doing so, helped change the future of our country.

Jason Levin, Managing Director of HDI Youth Marketeers said; "The survey provided a good overall snapshot of the South African youth opinion and was hugely rewarding as it helped us gain insight into how the youth view South Africa. The research was truly inspiring. It is only through projects like this, that true feelings are clearly reflected."

FNB also created a dynamic online portal to support the campaign and everyone is encouraged to visit the blog site, youcanhelp.co.za to participate in the ongoing national discussion we believe will be triggered by the campaign. The campaign is integrated across all platforms, including TV, OOH, digital (youcanhelp.co.za) and social media on Facebook and Twitter (#littlehelps).

"All of the great things we've done, we've done together by helping each other. Perhaps it's time for us to listen to the voices we seldom hear, the youth of our country, because it is the South Africa we build today that will be the country they will inherit tomorrow," concludes Samuels.

In Nelson Mandela's words, "If there are dreams about a beautiful South Africa, there are also roads that lead to their goal. Two of these roads could be named Goodness and Forgiveness." Let us join hands in helping to build this beautiful South Africa we all dream of.

Issued by FNB, January 18 2013


Source: Politicsweb

Mthethwa fails to stop Zille's police inquiry

A high court has dismissed an application by the police minister for an interdict against a commission of inquiry into Khayelitsha's policing.

On Monday the Western Cape High Court announced its dismissal of Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa's urgent interdict against the commission set up by Premier Helen Zille last year. The commission – headed by advocate Vusi Pikoli and retired Constitutional Court Judge Catherine O’Reagan – was tasked with investigating allegations of police inefficiency and the breakdown of the relationship of the police after public lobbying by organisations such as Equal Education, the Social Justice Coalition and the Treatment Action Campaign.

In response to arguments by advocates representing Zille, the Social Justice Coalition and the commission itself last year, Mthethwa's legal team argued Zille's decision to appoint the commission would have an impact on the independence of the South African Police Service. Advocate Peter Hawthorne, acting for the coalition, on Monday told the court Mthethwa's legal team failed to prove the commission would cause irreparable harm to the SAPS. The commission was meant to hold public hearings from November 12 to December 14, which was since suspended pending the outcome of Mthethwa's application.

Last year the M&G reported that there had been more than 18 vigilante killings in Khayelitsha in 2012 – which activists related to the community’s lack of trust in the police’s ability to maintain order – as well as a spate of gang violence in the area.

"The rationale behind the setting up of such a commission, which, at a strategic level, only focuses on the South African Police Service and not the Western Cape metro police, is suspicious if not questionable," Mthethwa said in November after the commission was set up.

"Despite the engagements we held with the premier over the past weeks, it is evident that she is determined to continue with the commission by hook or crook, which leaves us with no option but to challenge the matter through the legal framework," said Mthethwa when he challenged the validity of the commission.

Following Mthethwa’s urgent interdict in November, many residents of Khayelitsha and activists – including Social Justice Coalition founder Zackie Achmat and its workers – gathered outside the Western Cape High Court last year to protest against the police minister's attempt to stop the commission of inquiry.

Outside the court on Monday residents took part in the “people’s commission of inquiry into crime in Khayelitsha” where they shared stories about their experiences with the police in the township, and Achmat used a loudspeaker to call witnesses to the "stand".

Source: Mail & Guardian

Land redistribution proposals to be implemented

Proposals for the redistribution of land found in the government's land reform green paper would come into effect as early as March next year.

"All these new land reform policies will come into effect during the first quarter of the year next year", Rural Development and Land Reform Minister Gugile Nkwinti said.

He was speaking to the Transformation of Certain Rural Areas Act and the Rural Areas Act (Trancaa) consultative workshop in Cape Town.

The new policies included a four-tier land tenure system, which accounted for leased land to farmers, land redistribution, foreign ownership of land and the implementation of a democratic communal land system.

Nkwinti said cabinet had approved the proposal to establish the office of the valuer-general, which would control land prices involving government land purchases for public interest.

He emphasised that the willing-buyer-willing-seller principle would continue for individual citizens who would be selling land to each other.

A land rights management board along with its district committees would also be set up next year to protect farm workers against unfair evictions.

The land management commission would be responsible for all registration of private and public land. – Sapa.

Source: Mail & Guardian

FBI probe grant firm in SA

The American Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is looking into the rot that has plagued South Africa’s country’s social grant payouts in recent months.

In the Western Cape, 1.3 million people alone depend on grant payouts every month.

But the system has descended into chaos since new operators, Net1 UEPS technologies took over.

Net1 is jointly listed on the American Stock Exchange, the Nasdaq and on the JSE.

The US Department of Justice Criminal Division and the FBI have now teamed up to investigate possible corruption in how that company secured a R10 billion tender to issue grants here.

In August, the North Gauteng High Court ruled that the process of awarding the tender was illegal and invalid.

Despite this, the South African Social Security Agency (Sassa) was allowed to continue using Net1 through its subsidiary Cash Paymaster Services (CPS).

The judge decided that although the process was flawed, cancelling the contract would be disastrous and the social service would collapse.

If the American investigation is successful, Net1 could be out of business and senior managers could face arrest.

Sassa and the Social Development Department say they have not been contacted by the FBI or the US Department of Justice Criminal Division.

Social Development spokesperson Lumka Oliphant says by law, government has a constitutional duty to make sure grant monies are paid.

“We have a five-year contract with CPS and we don’t forsee any problems,” she said.

“We have not had any contact with anyone from America, everything we [are] hearing is from the media.”

Meanwhile, the previous grant payout company AllPay, a subsidiary of ABSA, is also still going ahead with its legal appeals.

They want CPS to be replaced after the court ruling that the tender awarded to them was invalid.

This case will resume next year on the Supreme Court of Appeal’s roll.

This double court action has raised concerns that Sassa must have a back-up plan to continue paying grants if Net1 is found guilty of corruption.

The Western Cape government says it is out of their hands because the money is paid by the national authority.

Western Cape Social Development spokesperson Samatha Fourie says they also had no idea about the possible payout crisis: “We have not been informed of any developments pertaining to the issue raised.”

Source: IoL

Time to raise the bar on Africa’s integration

MUCH has been said about African trade and the continent’s integration into a range of forums. It is the policy of African governments, and plenty of implementation is under way.

Africa’s leaders have long recognised the importance of economic integration as a remedy for the continent’s fragmentation. At the past two African Union summits, much was discussed regarding intra-African trade. We know the problems, the diagnostics and even the cure.

More than half of Africa’s 54 countries have a gross domestic product of less than $10bn, and a population of less than 10-million. Sixteen are landlocked, with all the challenges associated with small size and small markets. All of this is known.

Most African countries struggle to achieve the economies of scale required to become competitive internationally. That is why, through successive agreements, African governments have committed themselves to the pursuit of greater integration.

These commitments have not always proved easy to implement. In practice, national priorities have often trumped regional needs — a phenomenon not unique to Africa, of course.

As a result, the opportunities of regional integration have not been fully exploited. Yet today, as yesterday, trade still holds tremendous unrealised potential as a driver of growth and a way of improving food security, creating jobs and reducing poverty.

In short, while intra-African trade has more than doubled over the past five years, it remains far below potential. Most people would agree there are four pervasive challenges:

• a lack of adequate hard infrastructure, in particular transport, connectivity and energy;

• problems with ‘soft’ infrastructure — the institutions and regulations to facilitate trade links, which includes the overall business environment, and impediments to the free movement of goods, capital and talent;

• myriad company-level challenges that affect the private sector and the emergence and sustainability of exports, such as quality and meeting standards; and

• access to finance, trade finance and the financial infrastructure that supports trade.

These are issues we know well. Of growing urgency are railways and maritime port capacity. Much of our railway network dates back to the colonial era, and the costs of ageing systems with multiple gauges are now a real impediment. Few railways have been built since independence.

At our ports, crucial for regional integration and international trade, capacity has become a major obstacle. The volume of freight that they handle has increased dramatically in recent years. Most of these ports were not designed with a regional market in mind, and many are rapidly running out of capacity, especially as mineral exports increase.

As a result, they operate well below international norms, resulting in higher costs and longer processing times.

We know what has to be done, including the financing gap. Today, we need to ask a different question: since we all seem to agree on the principles and even the road map, what keeps us from faster progress? And how can our legislatures help?

Of late, many African countries have celebrated their golden jubilees. There has been much celebration, indeed, but also soul searching. There has been acknowledgment of progress and of disappointments.

However, as with all celebrations, there is the morning after. Where did we go wrong? Could we have charted a different path?

While we are all wiser in hindsight, there is no doubt we could have made better progress. And the new global environment dictates we do better.

As Africa enters this new era, we have only two options: a paradigm shift or a new period of muddling through, pleading some sort of African exceptionalism.

Our founders laid the basis: political liberation. They achieved much, including the epic struggle to rid Africa of the last vestiges of colonialism and apartheid. Like all pioneers, they often made mistakes — sometimes costly ones — that led to military dictatorships, one-party states and economic experimentation. In between, often economic meltdown, mayhem and even genocide.

There is much unfinished business politically: building peace, security and rule of law. However, most people would now agree the colossal struggle in Africa must be that of economic liberation through integration. There is also now near unanimity that this outcome is not possible with 54 balkanised states, economically speaking.

Nations develop through trade and investment. Of course some develop by exploiting other nations’ wealth and labour, and by imposing on other nations economic policies that they did not follow themselves at earlier stages of their development.

I am not saying Africa should also explore the second option. That would be absurd. What I want to suggest is different, an affirmation that many of the regions also grew by integration. By delaying economic integration in Africa, therefore, we are almost by default making it possible for others to continue exploiting our wealth and potential.

Former president Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, one of the founding fathers of the Organisation of African Unity, had this to say in Accra at Ghana’s 40th independence anniversary: "The confession is that we of the first-generation leaders of independent Africa have not pursued the objective of African unity with the vigour, commitment and sincerity that it deserved ...

"So this is my plea to the new generation of African leaders and African peoples: work for unity with the firm conviction that without unity, there is no future for Africa.

"My generation led Africa to political freedom. The current generation of leaders and peoples of Africa must pick up the flickering torch of African freedom, refuel it with their enthusiasm and determination, and carry forward Africa’s integration."

These are powerful words. The case he makes was valid yesterday and remains so today, more urgent than ever given recent developments in the global economy.

• Kaberuka, who holds a doctorate degree in economics from the University of Glasgow, is serving his second five-year term as president of the African Development Bank. He was the architect of Rwanda’s economic reforms and growth, having served there as finance minister from 1997 to 2005.

Source: Business Day

Where is the grace? Where is the compassion?

I am haunted by this picture. It is of a woman unsuccessfully trying to stop a bulldozer from demolishing her home in Lenasia. No one seemed to have thought of asking the woman her name. The newspapers said she was “unidentified”: Like so many other black woman in South Africa she is literally treated as being without an identity, without a history, without a personality. Why did the Gauteng government want to demolish this woman’s home and why did a court grant an order allowing the demolition?

The bulldozing of people’s homes is an emotionally laden issue in South Africa. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the apartheid past must recall the horrible images of bulldozers wrecking people’s homes in Fietas, Sophiatown, District Six and in many other parts of the country. It therefore came as a shock to hear that our government sought, and a South African court ordered, the demolition of houses in Lenasia.

The Gauteng local government and housing department began destroying the houses two weeks ago because the land they were built on was intended for government housing, and had been sold illegally. About 50 houses had been destroyed and another 113 were in line to be demolished before the South African Human Rights Commission went to court to try and stop this. The plots of land were apparently sold fraudulently for amounts ranging from R2500 to R95 000. The buyers were given forged deeds of sale with the department’s logo.

On 29 September last year, the South Gauteng High Court ordered the relevant residence of Lenasia to vacate their homes and to demolish the homes or structures erected on the property. In the event of failure to remove or demolish within the time period given, the City was granted the right to demolish the homes. The Order did not require the City to provide those evicted with alternative accommodation.

Given the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence on forced evictions and the provisions of the Prevention of Illegal Evictions from and Unlawful Occupation of Land (PIE) Act, it is difficult to agree with the court for granting this court order – which in any case the Gauteng Government should never have asked for. I guess if one does not live at Nkandla, one’s home is not seen as either private or sacred by our government.

In terms of section 26(3) of the Constitution, when considering whether to order the forced eviction of unlawful occupiers from their homes, a court must take into account all relevant factors. As the Constitutional Court stated in Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers, our Constitution “acknowledges that a home is more than just a shelter from the elements”. A home “is a zone of personal intimacy and family security” and the forced removal from a home “is a shock for any family”. It does not make any difference whether that home is lawfully or unlawfully occupied.

It is not only the dignity of the poor that is assailed when homeless people are driven from pillar to post in a desperate quest for a place where they and their families can rest their heads. Our society as a whole is demeaned when state action intensifies rather than mitigates their marginalisation. The integrity of the rights-based vision of the Constitution is punctured when governmental action augments rather than reduces denial of the claims of the desperately poor to the basic elements of a decent existence. Hence the need for special judicial control of a process that is both socially stressful and potentially conflictual.

The PIE Act confirms that a court must take into account all the relevant circumstances under which people occupied the land. In the PE Municipality case justice Albie Sachs warned that a court should be slow to order the eviction of its citizens from state owned land as “the state generally has further land to meet its obligations”. The degree of emergency or desperation of people, who have sought a spot on which to erect their shelters, would always have to be considered. And persons “occupying land with at least a plausible belief that they have permission to be there” can be looked at with far greater sympathy than those who deliberately invaded land with a view to disrupting the organised housing programme and placing themselves at the front of the queue.

It is settled law that a court should be reluctant to grant an eviction against relatively settled occupiers unless it is satisfied that a reasonable alternative is available. In City of Johannesburg v Blue Moonlight Properties the Constitutional Court found – in slightly different circumstances than the present – that the City’s housing policy was unconstitutional to the extent that it excluded some people evicted from privately owned property from consideration for temporary accommodation. It found that such an exclusion was unreasonable. This does not mean that the City would always have to provide alternative accommodation, but if it failed to do so in circumstances where people would be left homeless the eviction would almost never be granted.

In the end a court must consider all relevant factors but should not do so in a mechanical way or in a way that gave too much weight to the bureaucratic needs and plans of the Municipality and too little weight to the needs of those who might be affected by the eviction. In PE Municipality Sachs explained the approach as follows:

The Constitution and PIE require that in addition to considering the lawfulness of the occupation the court must have regard to the interests and circumstances of the occupier and pay due regard to broader considerations of fairness and other constitutional values, so as to produce a just and equitable result. Thus, PIE expressly requires the court to infuse elements of grace and compassion into the formal structures of the law. It is called upon to balance competing interests in a principled way and promote the constitutional vision of a caring society based on good neighbourliness and shared concern.

In this case, the residents were defrauded. They built structures on government owned land believing that they had bought the plots. They built solid structures, using their own money, believing they had a right to do so. They did not do so because they wanted to jump the queue for land or housing. Those who committed the fraud are being prosecuted, but it is unclear why those who were duped must be punished for their crime.

It is unclear what constitutionally permitted purpose is being served by the eviction of such innocent people from their homes. How does the bulldozing of their homes demonstrates the Gauteng government’s commitment to a caring society, one which is animated by the principle of Ubuntu, which holds that we are all demeaned if some among us are treated without grace and compassion – all in order to pursue a coldhearted and bureaucratic housing plan without any consideration of the feelings of those affected?

I wonder if the Gauteng Premier and the judicial officer who granted the eviction and demolition order have had time to pause for a moment to consider the feelings of the unnamed woman in the picture. Have they asked themselves what must have gone through her mind as she desperately threw her body in the path of that bulldozer? Do they wonder about all the hopes and dreams she had about her new home and how these have now been shattered by the greedy fraudsters who sold these plots to innocent citizens, abetted by the Gauteng Government and by the court who ordered the eviction?

Where is the grace? Where is the compassion? Where is the common decency? Or are these feelings only reserved for one “special” person, a person who might bleed and sleep and eat and have sex and defecate like the rest of us, but who somehow is viewed as more important and more worthy of concern and respect than the unnamed woman in Lenasia who planted her body in front of that bulldozer?

Why is it that we are told (in expensive adverts in the Sunday papers) not to care that the homes of some citizens are bulldozed, while we are also told that it is none of our business that more than R250 million of public funds are being used to upgrade the private homestead of our king, our leader, our father in chief – all while some of our people who contributed to the upgrade of the President’s house do not have a roof over their heads and will be forced to sleep under a bush or in a ditch tonight and for many, many, more nights to come?

Source: Constitutionally Speaking

Scramble to raise farm wages amid Cape havoc

THE government on Wednesday announced an immediate review of minimum wages for all farm workers as part of a deal in which trade unions representing striking Western Cape farm workers agreed to return to work on Thursday.

The development came after a day of unprecedented and frequently violent protest action by farm workers in the Western Cape, in which one worker was confirmed dead as a result of police action in Wolseley. Other towns in which protesters clashed with police and public roads were barricaded included: De Doorns, Ceres, Prince Alfred Hamlet, Robertson, Ashton, Bonnievale, Villiersdorp and Piketberg. Amid the chaos, Western Cape Premier Helen Zille warned that the province was "heading for anarchy", and that thousands of jobs could be on the line.

The promised wage review will have profound implications for the agricultural sector, for which the labour minister has set a minimum wage of R70 a day. It could also push up food prices and inflation, and have a knock-on effect on other minimum wages. Western Cape farm workers are demanding R150 a day. If they find the new minimum wage, expected to be announced within two weeks, unacceptable, they will resume striking on December 4. At a press briefing in Cape Town on Wednesday, acting labour minister Angie Motshekga — Labour Minister Mildred Oliphant is out of the country — said a notice will be published in the Government Gazette within a week "indicating the intention to call all interested parties to comment on the possibility to review the sectoral determination". A notice will also be published announcing the cancellation of the existing wage determination, affecting all agricultural workers.

The Employment Conditions Commission, the statutory body which advises the labour minister on minimum wages, was meeting from Wednesday to begin determining a new minimum wage. Employer and worker representatives will have an opportunity to make representations to the commission on appropriate wage levels. There was some uncertainty over whether a single minimum wage for all agricultural sectors will again be set, or whether there will be differentiation according to different province’s products.

Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) Western Cape secretary Tony Ehrenreich is advocating that there should be differentiation within the sector as some products — such as the table grapes grown in the De Doorns area where the strike began — are more profitable than others.

Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson said on Wednesday that the commission would have to make recommendations on whether new minimum wages should be set for all provinces, or whether the higher wages would apply only in the Western Cape. However, the cancellation of the existing determination necessarily implies that wages in all provinces be reviewed.

Cosatu, which led the brokering of the deal between the government and the strikers, was confident on Wednesday that workers would return to work, despite the strike spreading across towns and farms in the Western Cape over the past two days. Although not initially involved in the labour action, Cosatu and a coalition of independent unions and nongovernmental organisations active on the farms were "invited" by strikers to represent them in the negotiations. Cosatu subsequently assumed a leading role in the action among workers, of whom only 6% are unionised. Co-ordination of the strike across the towns was achieved largely through the relatively small networks of organisations, which spread word by SMS.

Mr Ehrenreich said the agreement contained three key elements: an urgent review of the national minimum wage; that no disciplinary action be taken against strikers; and that an interim minimum of R80 apply until the new wage is agreed.

Wednesday was the second day of unprecedented and frequently violent protest action by farm workers in the Western Cape. One worker was confirmed dead as a result of police action in incident in the town of Wolseley. Other towns in which protesters clashed with police and public roads were barricaded yesterday included: De Doorns, Ceres, Prince Alfred Hamlet, Robertson, Ashton, Bonnievale, Villiersdorp and Piketberg.

Premier of the Western Cape Premier Helen Ms Zille wrote to President Jacob Zuma on Tuesday, asking him and Ms Oliphant to set a new minimum wage for farm workers. On Wednesday, Ms Zille made a desperate appeal for co-operation to Western Cape African National Congress leader Marius Fransman. "We are heading towards anarchy. Thousands of jobs will be lost and an industry potentially destroyed," she said in an SMS to Mr Fransman. "I am receiving horrific reports of farm worker intimidation. It is essential that we remove politics from this matter and stabilise the situation. I am extremely worried that lives are in danger and that people will retaliate."

Presidency spokesman Mac Maharaj said yesterday that Ms Zille could ask for the South African National Defence Force’s assistance to quell the violence as Mr Zuma had already authorised its deployment until January to assist with public violence nationwide after the Marikana tragedy in September. Mr Maharaj said Ms Zille had to engage with Ms Oliphant and Defence Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula. "There is no need for the president to micromanage everything. Ms Zille should approach the channels available," he said.

Employer body Agri SA said the setting of minimum wages was the sole preserve of government. Agri SA president Johannes Möller said farmers were free to negotiate with workers on pay. "Agri SA has encouraged farmers, where possible, to pay above the minimum wage."

Cape Chamber of Commerce president Fred Jacobs said the government should return to "an empirical methodology" rather than "sucking a number out of the sky to determine what should be paid".

Source: Mail & Guardian

Land Reform in South Africa: An Unfulfilled Obligation

The question of land and agricultural reform in South Africa remains largely unresolved as we head towards the end of our second decade of democracy. It is remarkable that a democratically elected government, enjoying such an overwhelming parliamentary majority and popular support, has failed so spectacularly, in such an important area of governance, for so long.

It is equally remarkable that the government is still, this late in the day, touting concepts as vague as the five-step programme on land reform recently outlined by President Zuma. Something certainly has to be said about this hot button issue. What with leadership under review, even vapid brainstorms may be interpreted as leadership!

The fact is that land reform, tenure and security has not yet been tackled sufficiently robustly by the democratic government. The early iterations of the land reform process bumbled along with good intentions but with little impact.

The new post 1994 political leadership appeared unable or unwilling to grasp obvious solutions like tapping into the vast collection of state owned land as a starting point. A major roadblock was that the dysfunctional Department of Public Works was unable to quantify state land ownership. This problem remains unresolved. A separate national audit of all private land ownership, meant to be completed in 2010 also awaits completion. No wonder land reform remains so fraught.

We are now in the anomalous position of decreasing numbers of white commercial farmers owning increasingly large farms. This has occurred through the government continuing to support an industrial farming model dependent on high input, energy intensive farming using genetically modified seed. This is the antithesis of farming practice required for land and agrarian reform. Land reform and agricultural practices are inextricably connected if transformation is to succeed.

A global consensus has emerged amongst ideologically disparate organisations like the World Bank, the UN Global Environment Facility and various other UN bodies that diversified, smallholder led, sustainable farming practices are required to feed a growing global population in the face of climatic and economic uncertainty.

The failure to achieve land and agricultural reform has negatively impacted food security. National levels of mal- and under nutrition remain a disgrace in a food exporting nation like South Africa. Land reform, food security, market reform and access to a balanced diet are each distinct aspects of the same problem, none of which have been adequately addressed, let alone resolved.

While the government has made the right noises about land reform during the previous 18 years, little more has been achieved than placating investors while alienating the political support base. The land reform programme started by the 1994 Restitution of Land Rights Act has largely failed key constituencies such as women and marginalised communities who voted the ANC into power.

A green paper on land reform took six years to compile. When it was released in 2011, it said nothing new and was arguably counter-productive. Rural Development and Land Reform Minister Gugile Nkwinti has attempted to fix a broken system but clearly lacks an over-arching vision. There is little work being done on the Land Tenure Security Bill. The Communal Land Resources Act of 2004 was declared unconstitutional in 2010, in a judgement, which turned on technical details yet left the substantiative problems related to communal land ownership unaddressed.

The Extension of Security of Tenure Act, meant to protect vulnerable farm workers and dwellers, has not been adequately enforced. So land tenure and security, both within traditional structures and on conventional farms, remain unresolved.

Agricultural extension and support programmes such as the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP), Micro Agricultural Financial Institutions of South Africa (MAFISA) and the Land Care Foundation have been criticised by both parliamentary committees and by farmers. The present Minister of Agriculture is clearly out of her depth and would not be there except for her obsequious support for the President. Previous Ministers have fared little better.

Neither have supposedly neutral arbiters been much help. Recent proclamations by the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) assumed a particularly tactless stance by claiming “populist” calls for land reform, particularly for agricultural land, were misplaced. The IRR opined that these calls were unrealistic, suggesting that people rather aspired toward middle class, urban lifestyles than toward a return to unglamorous, agrarian roots. While increased urbanisation and the middle class dream may be relevant, this is only one facet of a complex land debate.

Despite a promise to transfer 30% of agricultural land by 2014, only 8% has been transferred to date. Even this is problematic as extension services to newly settled farmers are inadequate and failure rates of new land claimants are high. State extension services can cost more than R40 000 per visit. Smallholder farmers are seldom assisted and extension quality is rated below par.

On the other hand NGO’s and private entities are providing extension services at a fraction of this cost. In KwaZulu Natal a full time extension officer provides support at less than R40 000, to extended communities, per month. There are clearly ways to fix the problems of agrarian reform, more efficiently, flexibly and productively than is presently being done.

Land reform is an undeniably political process. Yet the piecemeal, fragmented and un-coordinated solutions of land and agricultural reform have signally failed to achieve the desired results. The recently released New Growth Plan recognises the importance of the agricultural economy, yet its proposals echo the ASGISA programme, which failed to achieve any significant progress. It is fine and well for the New Growth Plan to propose creation of a million farming jobs by 2030 but how realistic is this given prior delivery experience?

The string of examples cited highlight an overriding reality: That we have attempted to fix a broken system of land and agricultural reform without a suitable overarching vision or template. We have never achieved anything approaching a national consensus on how we should achieve what is clearly urgently required.

It seems obvious that a national summit on land reform should be held. Practical and academic studies and models must be presented, discussed, and a focussed, overarching policy hammered out. The CODESA template would provide a suitable way forward. It may be an expensive exercise but the alternative is to continue to waste billions of Rands, attempting to fix a broken system with broken tools. Some degree of constitutional and legal reform may be required to solve land and agrarian issues, but broad consensus must be gained and then acted upon.

The reality is that the world is rapidly changing. South African agricultural policy has failed to reflect this. Industrial agriculture remains the dominant voice, echoing the past but devoid of a suitable vision for the future. While the old agricultural extension model may have worked in the past, it is increasingly irrelevant.

Extension to large commercial farmers is provided by seed and chemical companies while small and emerging farmers are left in the cold by extension officers incapable of helping them because of poor foundations - agricultural colleges perpetuate outdated practices. Small and emerging farmers need constant, innovative and hands on assistance, not a visit every year or two by extension officers trained in irrelevant methodology.

There are numerous experts with excellent proposals to achieve the required changes. The Programme for Land and Agrarian Reform (PLAAS) at the University of the Western Cape has studied many of these and proposed numerous solutions to various aspects of these systemic problems. The Sustainability Institute at the University of Stellenbosch has implemented several courses examining food production systems at Masters and higher levels.

There are numerous small scale NGO-run schemes, which can be scaled up, just as there are indeed some successful programmes initiated by the government, which can be replicated. Equally, we can learn as much from our failures as from our successes. We should also take some lessons from land reform programmes in South America and elsewhere in Africa.

A broad body of relevant international experience exists, including agricultural programmes devised to withstand the impacts of climate change and water constraints. These are particularly suited to smallholder and emerging farmers. The UN FAO runs regular international dialogues on food security from which our policy makers are notably absent. Most of our systemic shortcomings can be addressed.

We also need to reduce staff turnover with every change of political administration, especially in portfolios like agriculture where institutional memory is so important.

The solutions for land reform are certainly more complex than those related to agricultural solutions, because of the political baggage. However land reform can never succeed if there is not an over-arching model to enable the productive use and resettlement of the land.

It is fruitless to hand over huge parcels of land to new, emerging farmers with inadequate capital resources and no means to leverage land for capital collateral. Most of the land presently being transferred to new owners is not even transferred, but leased, almost setting the system up for failure.

We urgently need to move away from the failed dialogue of the deaf between government and commercial farmers. We need wider expertise, broader buy-in and the involvement of grass roots farmers if this system is to succeed. All of the interests and experts in this field must co-operate to solve this problem for once and for all.

Or we can just muddle along, floating woolly concepts until the fuse for the powder keg is lit by circumstance or a Malema clone, placing expediency above the collective interest.

Source: by Glenn Ashton: SACSIS

Lonmin shootings will change SA labour relations

THE emergence of a rival union in the platinum space must be the most worrying event in the 30-year history of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM). The union is one of the biggest and certainly most politically powerful under the blanket of the Congress of South African Trade Unions, representing close to a fifth of its entire membership and has an important place in the African National Congress (ANC) alliance.

Given the importance of mining in the South African economy, support from the union is integral to the ruling faction in the ANC. It is this political role on which its leaders may have placed too much focus because of populist nationalisation rhetoric as well as the succession battle, to the detriment of its core mandate.

Straying from that focus on the interests of its workers has opened up space on its shop floors for a rival union, the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (Amcu). This happens as the situation remains dire for miners in the platinum sector as prices for the metal remain weak and costs keep rising because of poor management and other factors.

The NUM lays the blame for the unfolding violence in North West on mining houses for making unilateral salary adjustments that undermine existing wage agreements. Amcu may have been opportunistic in using those grievances from the disparities in pay to muscle in, but where has the NUM been? The union should have been alert and ready to react to the grievances.

You’ve got to think the union, which once had held sway over the entire mining industry, has taken its eyes off the ball in a big way. After the warning shots at Impala Platinum, the world’s second-biggest miner, the battle is playing out at Lonmin, the third biggest.

For the first time in the course of the Lonmin dispute, which has caused a number of fatalities, platinum prices have responded. In late afternoon trade, it had its biggest percentage gain in a month.

Anglo American Platinum, the world’s biggest miner, could well be the next explosion point in this festering battle. The NUM has warned that the turf war could spread to other mineral segments too.

The 30-year old NUM monopoly has certainly been challenged and it looks likely that it will continue to be unless its leadership gets focused on the matters at hand, instead of who occupies Luthuli House and the Union Buildings.

The deaths of the Lonmin workers yesterday have changed labour relations in the mining industry forever. Miners and the government may have to invite another party to the negotiating table, further complicating an already complicated mining regime.

...

FOR the average Chinese citizen without access to international markets, there are very few places to go to grow their wealth. The stock market in the world’s second-biggest economy has underperformed all its emerging market peers as well as other major equity markets, with the Shanghai Stock Exchange index down almost 20% over the past 12 months.

In that time, the JSE all share has gained 19%, London’s FTSE 8,9% and the S&P has rallied 18%.

The only alternative is to invest in property and that has been quite the story over the past 10 years. In the country’s major cities, house prices are about 30 times the annual salary and in the smaller metros 10 times. Compare that to five times the annual salary in the US at the height of its housing bubble.

Realising the risk posed by this growth in housing prices, last year the Chinese government raised rates to both cool the housing market and to combat inflation.

Inflationary pressures have eased this year, unfortunately so has growth.

So much so that foreign direct investment in what was once the golden goose in terms of investment destinations has seen the biggest drop in two years.

Data out of China yesterday showed investment slid 8.7%, the eighth drop in nine months and the smallest inflow since July 2010.

China has now come under pressure from investors, much like the US and Europe has over the past four years, to look at measures to boost economic growth — either by cutting rates or lowering the reserve margin required by banks.

But just how far can China go to boost its economy without further fuelling concerns over its property market? It must be keeping the political powers in that part of the world awake at night, especially as there will be a change of guard by the end of the year.

As for other central banks in the global economy, there’s not much room to manoeuvre.

Source: Business Day

Knobkerries, sangoma as Lonmin workers vow to stay on hill

Striking miners vowed on Tuesday to stay at the top of a hill in Wonderkop, near Lonmin's Marikana mine, until their pay was pushed up to R12,500 a month. They claimed they were being paid R4000 per month, and those living outside the hostel R5000. "We want money. We have kids to take care of," said one worker, Alfred Makhaya, from the Eastern Cape.

He had been working for Lonmin for over eight years and was being paid R4000 a month. He was forced to leave the hostel to rent a room so he could have an extra R1000. "This money is too little, I am working hard and I'm being paid so little." He said if he was not going to be paid R12,500 per month, his children would end up being thieves, because he would be unable to pay for their education. Another worker, Lichaba Pafkalasi from Lesotho, said the R12,500 would enable him to support his family. He claimed the mine's staff shot at him at the weekend, killing two of his group.

They then decided to move to the mountain to discuss their next move. They claimed the mines sent the police to shoot them.

Earlier, about 500 men gathered on top of the mountain, armed with knobkerries and iron rods. Local residents said an inyanga (herbalist) or sangoma (traditional healer) would perform a ritual on the mountain top and sprinkle the men with muti (traditional medicine) to "make them brave". Nine people -- two police officers, two security guards, three protesters and two other men -- have been killed during protests at the mine, which began on Friday.

Source: Times Live

The euro bailouts and the crisis of democracy in Europe

Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti said Monday that Europe would fall apart “if governments are completely bound by the decisions of their parliaments.” Every government has “a duty to educate the parliament,” he added in an interview with the news magazine Der Spiegel.

Monti’s statement amounts to an admission that the numerous bank bailouts organized to rescue the euro in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crash, and the austerity programs launched to make the working class pay for them, have strained European bourgeois democracy to the breaking point. The responsibility of the government to parliament, and parliament’s control over the government—which Monti is questioning—is a basic principle of parliamentary democracy.

Monti attacks parliament, but his real target is the working class. For the vast majority of the population, it has already become impossible to influence politics through the ballot box. Major political decisions are made ​​by the financial markets and their henchmen in Brussels, Berlin and the other European capitals.

In the recent elections in Greece and France, parties that appeared to promise an end to, or at least a moderation of, brutal social cuts received broad popular support. In France, the Socialist Party won the presidential election for the first time since 1988. In Greece, the Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA) emerged as the second largest party. But nothing has changed.

The new French president, François Hollande, is continuing the anti-working class policies of his predecessor, Nicolas Sarkozy, offering no opposition to mass layoffs in the auto industry. In Greece, Syriza has assumed the role of loyal opposition, while the government coalition of the conservative New Democracy, social democratic PASOK and Democratic Left is imposing even more brutal austerity measures.

Monti gave his interview after a week in which anti-worker austerity measures were intensified throughout Europe. The Greek government has decided on further cuts of €11.5 billion, which will deepen the suffering of already devastated workers and pensioners. The Spanish government has increased its previous deficit-reduction target by 60 percent and now aims to cut the massive sum of €102 billion from the budget, throwing the country back to the poverty of the Franco era.

The European Central Bank has decided to support countries—through the purchase of government bonds—only if they have previously made an application to the European emergency aid fund and submitted to EU-dictated austerity measures.

This is provoking widespread opposition. In Spain, hundreds of thousands took to the streets against the government's austerity measures. The trade unions are finding it increasingly difficult to keep this anger under control. Neither in Spain nor Greece, nor in any other European country, are the workers willing to accept the destruction of all their gains without a fight.

Under these circumstances, Monti’s comment underscores the basic class agenda of the European bourgeoisie: to press ahead with the policies of the banks, whatever the outcome of elections or the size of street protests and strikes against austerity measures.

Monti knows well that the social counterrevolution demanded by the international financial markets is incompatible with democratic methods. He leads a government of technocrats that has no democratic legitimacy. Monti—an economics professor, advisor to Goldman Sachs and member of several conservative think tanks (Bruegel, Bilderberg Conference, Trilateral Commission)—is a trusted representative of international finance capital. At its behest, he succeeded the Berlusconi government last November without the holding of an election because Berlusconi had failed to cut the budget quickly and deeply enough.

Since then, the Monti government has systematically attacked the social gains and rights won by Italian workers since the fall of the fascist dictatorship of Mussolini at the end of World War II. It has reduced pensions, increased consumption taxes and eliminated legal protections against dismissal and other social rights.

Political conclusions must be drawn from Monti's statement that the break-up of Europe can be prevented only if governments repudiate democratic procedures. The working class cannot defend its rights and social gains within the reactionary framework of the European Union.

The views of Monti’s immediate opponents on European financial policy—German politicians who have criticized his remarks as an attempt to “weaken democratic legitimation,” in the words of Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle—are equally hypocritical and reactionary. Berlin has consistently sought to impose devastating cuts, notably on the Greek government, in total defiance of popular opinion in Greece and other European countries. It has, moreover, led the campaign to establish a de facto EU dictatorship over the fiscal policies of euro zone governments.

This underscores that the EU, as a whole, is an instrument for the subjugation of Europe to the dictatorship of competing cliques of finance capital. It can be neither reformed nor pushed to change course by protests and negotiations.

Only the independent mobilization of the working class based on the perspective of the United Socialist States of Europe can halt these attacks. The World Socialist Web Site calls for the abolition of the European Union and its institutions, and links this demand with an international socialist programme.

We fight for the unity of the European and international working class. The workers in Italy, Germany, France, Spain and Britain must take up the struggle for the overthrow of Monti, Merkel, Hollande, Rajoy and Cameron and establish workers' governments to expropriate the wealth of the super-rich, the banks and big business and reorganize the economy to serve society as a whole, not the profit interests of the financial aristocracy.

World Socialist Web Site

Cash-strapped home owners on the rise

Cash-strapped homeowners in Kwa-Zulu-Natal are opting to let their properties go through bank-approved forced sales, rather than their being repossessed.

Estate agency Chas Everitt said sales of this type accounted for 30 percent of its sales between June last year and July this year.

Another estate agency reported selling at least 30 “distressed” properties in the past three months as desperate homeowners battled under the strain of a global economic recession, job losses and high debt levels.

In a recent judgment involving applications by Absa against three defaulting homeowners, Durban High Court Acting Judge Peter Olsen noted that national statistics provided by Absa “indicate the extent of the problem with which the bank is confronted”.

The figures showed that more than 5 000 section 129 notices – notifying consumers they were in default – had been sent out between December and May. The average amount of debt involved in each month was R532 million.

Nedbank said the number of homes being repossessed had decreased as clients took up other options, including reduced instalments. Those who could not pay had taken advantage of the bank’s assisted sales programme which entailed marketing and selling their homes through estate agents.

Standard Bank spokesman Erik Larsen said while the number of repossessions had decreased, they remained at historically high levels and consumers were under pressure.

Durban estate agents said areas such as Kloof, Hillcrest, Queensburgh and Pinetown and the North and South Coasts were particularly hard-hit, with dozens of home-owners having to sell through bank-assisted sales or risk repossession.

Clint Ellice, principal of the Chas Everitt International Upper Highway office, said he had been taken aback by the volume of distressed sales, and expected the number to increase.

“The average prices are between R800 000 and R1 million. The highest was R3.6m.”

Annatjie Angelo, owner and principal of Harcourt Tops, based in Pinetown, agreed that distressed sales were becoming prevalent. In the past three months, the agency had sold 30 such homes.

Greg Wilson, of Claudine Hickman Properties, said 20 percent of sales by the group’s Queensburgh office were distressed sales.

“It is more widespread than that and is occurring in a lot of areas.”

An employee at auction company Peter Maskell Auctioneers said many people were selling their second homes or holiday properties, especially on the South Coast.

The company had carried out several valuations in Kloof, which was the first step when a bank intends to take legal action against the homeowner.

Pam Golding Properties’ national general manager, Richard Day, said distressed sales were occurring across the province and high-value properties in the traditional greater Durban North and Highway areas were not immune to lifestyle changes.

Ecomomist Mike Schussler, of economists.co.za, said the property industry was expected to remain a buyer’s market for five years.

The judgment by Acting Judge Olsen puts more barriers in place for banks to overcome before they may apply for a default judgment against homeowners.

He suggested that the practice of sending Section 129 notices by registered mail was not enough. Ordinary post could also be used, with multiple letters being sent to the owner’s home address, work address and any other provided.

Greg Allen, of law firm Easton-Berry Inc, which acted for Absa, said the three cases had been adjourned indefinitely and the judge had asked that the section 129 notices be sent again by registered mail and by fax, e-mail or in person.

Allen said the acting judge had also ordered that in similar cases where summons had been issued, the banks would be required to bring applications so the court could give a directive setting out the steps that needed to be followed to conform to National Credit Act requirements.

Source: IoL

South Africa: The Culture of Corruption and Intolerance in the ANC

South Africa's ruling party, the African National Congress (ANC), will hold its elective national conference this December in Mangaung.

Given that the scourge of corruption in the country has derailed the realisation of ideals such as a better life for all and access to justice, it is critical to reflect on the growing culture of corruption and intolerance to dissent within the ruling party.

As an organisation the ANC strived for the realisation of democratic values, but it is these same values that are under threat in the current dispensation.

Divisions within the ANC became apparent after the Polokwane conference and these divisions have fuelled vicious disagreements that have in some instances resulted in violence and even murder.

Although several officials from the time of former President Thabo Mbeki have been found to have misused their power and engaged in corrupt activities, there is a widespread perception that high-level corruption has become more overt and blatant under President Jacob Zuma.

Numerous high-ranking officials within the ANC and individuals working in a variety of institutions have been suspected of corrupt activities, but in most of the cases these officials have yet to stand trial. The integrity of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) is called into question regarding allegations of corruption given that this entity has been found to selectively prosecute individuals.

On 17 July the former Mayor of the Rustenburg municipality, Matthew Wolmarans, was found guilty of orchestrating the murder of Moss Phakoe, who was a councillor in the local municipality.

Phakoe had compiled a dossier containing evidence of Wolmarans's corrupt dealings. Prior to his death he had submitted the dossier three times to the office of Gwede Mantashe, the secretary-general of the ANC, but the allegations were not investigated. He also met with President Zuma regarding the allegations, but the matter was considered an internal political dispute rather than a criminal matter that should be settled by the court.

Two days before he was killed he had met with the former minister of co-operative governance and traditional affairs, Sicelo Shiceka, and Wolmarans. At this meeting he handed the document to the minister and said to Wolmarans, 'Hurt me, but don't kill me.' Wolmarans and his bodyguard were sentenced to 20 years in jail and life imprisonment respectively, but if the allegations had been taken seriously and Phakoe had been provided with sufficient protection his death might have been averted.

The fact that Phakoe's calls for an investigation into corrupt activities implicating the former mayor and his cronies were ignored by those in the top echelons of the ANC is a poignant example of how corruption, specifically involving those seen to be loyal, is condoned in the party. This raises questions about the integrity of the current crop of leaders.

The issue of the integrity of individuals holding powerful positions has again come to the fore in the case of suspended prosecutor Glynnis Breytenbach.

At the time of her suspension by the NPA, Breytenbach was the regional head of the specialised commercial crimes unit and had relentlessly pursued the corruption case against former crime intelligence boss Richard Mdluli.

Breytenbach took the NPA to the labour court in an urgent bid to have her suspension lifted. Judge Hamilton Cele dismissed her case, noting that, 'The applicant has not shown the existence of any extraordinary or compelling, urgent circumstances to justify a final declaration of the unlawfulness of her suspension.' However, Cele went on to state that the proceedings in the dismissal challenge had demonstrated that if the NPA was to exercise its right to discipline her for the charges she had been suspended for, it may actually be 'flouting' and 'frustrating' the investigations ordered by the North Gauteng High Court into the suspension of Mdluli, in which Breytenbach would likely be 'vital'.

The judge further noted that, '[i]f she is found guilty and dismissed, she will be handicapped from utilising the tools of the trade that she might need in these investigations' and, 'the justice sought to be striven for in the matter of General Mdluli would have been seriously compromised'. This gives some credence to her assertion that her suspension was meant to deter her from charging Mdluli.

Connected to the issue of corruption is a culture of intolerance and impunity that is splintering the party. The implication of high-level officials in the assassinations and attempted assassinations of whistle-blowers and other dissenters is a worrying trend in the political culture of the current administration.

In 2010, there was an upsurge in politically motivated killings in KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga with some of them linked to corrupt 2010 Soccer World Cup tender awards. The media has also reported that political intimidation is especially rife in KwaZulu-Natal.

There are many other examples of abuse of power and the failure of the current administration to hold those responsible accountable. The culture of corruption and impunity within the ANC is worrisome and it is crucial to expose these practices in the interest of guarding the ethos of democracy and accountability.

Increasingly, it is becoming clear that those institutions that have the responsibility to hold every citizen accountable, including the political elite, have failed in the case of the powerful and the well-connected, who disregard the rule of law without regard for the possible consequences. This has contributed to undermining the effectiveness and legitimacy of a range of social and legal institutions.

In the long term, the erosion of the legitimacy of a range of institutions such as the police, the NPA and others will be an obstacle to the consolidation of democracy and the strengthening of these entities.

A vibrant democracy with robust institutions is pivotal to the betterment of the lives of all South Africans, particularly the poor, and when such institutions fail in the realisation of their mandate the ideals of equity and justice aspired to in the constitution are under severe threat.

Source: all Africa

World social inequality more pronounced than ever

The super-rich are currently hiding away wealth estimated between $21 trillion and $32 trillion in tax havens such as Switzerland and the Cayman Islands. This is the conclusion published last weekend by the Tax Justice Network, an NGO based in London. The author of the study is James Henry, a former chief economist at the McKinsey consulting firm and an expert on tax havens.

Henry bases his projections on data from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the United Nations and various national central banks. His study was limited to financial assets, and excluded tangible assets such as real estate, gold, jewellery or other possessions.

The figures reveal that “high net worth individuals” (defined as those with assets of over $50 million) have stashed away much larger sums in tax havens than previously thought. The report also shows that the concentration of global wealth in ever fewer hands has rapidly accelerated.

In 2005, the estimated offshore assets of the super-rich amounted to $11.5 trillion. Since then this total has doubled or tripled. Today the top 10 percent of the world’s population control 84 percent of assets, while the bottom 50 percent have access to just 1 percent. According to the study, the top of the pile—92,000 people who constitute an infinitesimal fraction of the world’s population—have hidden financial assets amounting to more than 9 trillion dollars, an average of nearly $100 million apiece.

The rapid growth of these assets during the past seven years shows that the global crisis of capitalism has been by no means disadvantageous for the financial elite. On the contrary, while more and more people in advanced countries are suffering due to government austerity programs and millions in developing countries are condemned to dire poverty, the super-rich have used the financial and economic turmoil of recent years to massively increase their wealth and hide their money beyond the reach of tax authorities.

They are assisted by a tax code that permits them to move huge amounts of money to offshore tax havens utilising legal loopholes and professional help.

While those on low incomes are strictly monitored by the state and are badgered for their tax payments, the super-rich are able to rely on a globally operating group of highly paid asset and investment advisers employed by the major international banks, which charge considerable sums in return for their tax fiddles. The four largest UK banks alone—HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland—have over 1,200 branches in tax havens.

According to Henry, the world’s 10 largest private financial institutions, including Deutsche Bank, moved more than $6.25 trillion offshore in 2010. Prior to the crash of 2007 the equivalent sum amounted to $2.34 trillion.

Those hit hardest by tax avoidance and tax evasion are developing countries. In the past 40 years the wealthiest citizens from 139 developing countries hid away non-declared assets estimated at $7.3 trillion to $9.3 trillion in tax havens. Their offshore assets are often greater than the national debt of their respective countries and play a major role in the lack of money to finance urgently needed public health and education programs in their home countries.

The top three in the list of countries with the most super-rich individuals are the US, China and Germany. A study by the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) recently revised upward its estimate of the fortune of the country’s top 1 percent, from 23 percent to 34 percent of national wealth, conceding that the incomes of ultra-wealthy households had not been included in its previous investigations.

Based on the findings of the enormous scale of hidden assets, Henry argues in his study that the previously applied standards for inequality, which are generally related to household income, have “dramatically underestimated” the real divide between rich and poor.

The author of the study agrees with the British economist and journalist Stewart Lansley, who writes in his recently published book, The Cost of Inequality: “There is absolutely no doubt at all that the statistics on income and wealth at the top understate the problem.”

Global social inequality today is not only much more pronounced than all the official statistics show. It has, in global terms, reached levels unprecedented in human history.

Source: World Socialist Web Site

Bridging the African Union's divides

Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma's success at the AU will be measured by her ability to gain consensus among heads of state, writes Liesl Louw-Vaudran.

When the late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was trying to cajole the rest of Africa into accepting his grand idea of a United States of Africa, it was rumoured that he offered Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma the job of prime minister if she would back him. At the time she was South Africa’s minister of foreign affairs.

A lot has changed since that summit in Accra, Ghana, in 2007 when a number of smaller African states gave in to Gaddafi’s bullying and buying of votes. Yet Dlamini-Zuma was duly elected as chairperson of the African Union Commission by a majority of heads of state at its 19th summit in Addis Ababa on July 15.

In effect, she will be the prime minister of an institution that aims to be the continental decision-making body. Of course, things are complicated because she will not be reporting to one executive president but to 54, give or take a few, depending on how many coups there have been on the continent.

The way South Africa lobbied for votes since the last unsuccessful bid for the position in January will not make her job any easier. Some countries are accusing South Africa of using the same tactics of which Gaddafi was guilty.

When she takes up office in Addis Ababa in three months’ time, her first task will have to be an attempt at some radical improvements at the commission – an institution bogged down by inefficiency, understaffing and underspending. Only 52% of posts are filled and the average underspending is 37%.

On this score she will probably do very well, or at least better than her ­predecessors. Walking into the AU Commission cannot be much worse than walking into the portfolio of home affairs in 2009.

For a while, Addis Ababa has been considered by diplomats to be a hardship post – a perception reinforced by the strain of working in a country with terrible phone infrastructure, restrictive laws and very little to offer expats.

The Anglophone and Francophone divide at the commission is also a reality – the men in boubous (robes) do not sit at the same lunch table as the East Africans in suits – but she will be able to use her skills as a South African to convince bureaucrats from diverse backgrounds to work together.

Despite what the rulebooks say, she will probably have to define her role and relationship with the heads of state as things go along. This she has to do with the rotating head of state who gets the position of AU chairperson for a year – a title often confused with that of the commission chairperson. Benin’s President Yayi Boni has this job at the moment and is doing it relatively well, but sometimes the AU chair is largely symbolic, especially when it is occupied by leaders such as Equatorial Guinea’s Teodoro Obiang Nguema, who filled this post last year.

Following the extensive battle to get Dlamini-Zuma elected, many are claiming that she will raise the profile of the AU. Certainly the drama between her and her predecessor, Jean Ping, has captured imaginations, but it will take much more than this to restore the credibility of the commission and of the AU. This is true of the union’s image internationally and among ordinary Africans.

Dlamini-Zuma will have the power and influence of South Africa behind her, but it will not always be an advantage given South Africa’s much-criticised Africa policy. Ping, also a former foreign minister, was unable to get heads of state to agree on almost anything and was decried for being weak.

Still, heads of state are unclear about how much power the commission chairperson should have. Former Mali president Alpha Omar Konaré clashed with many of his peers when he had this position. After his term ended the commission chair was again occupied by a minister, just as it was during the time of the Organisation of African Unity.

Consequently, when half of Africa’s heads of state at last year’s summit in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea, decided to recognise the fledgling Libyan National Transitional Council and the other half – led by South Africa – refused to do so, Ping could not do much about it. The AU’s road map for Libya was completely ignored by Nato – a huge embarrassment for Africa.

Earlier this year, when some agreed with Malawi’s president that the International Criminal Court arrest warrant against Omar ­al-Bashir of Sudan should be respected and the other half wanted the 19th AU summit (that just took place) to be moved to Addis Ababa, Africa again looked hopelessly divided.

These divisions and the stalemate that preceded Sunday’s election made some analysts fear a total breakdown of the institution. Some advised that the AU should abandon efforts to model itself on the European Union, but rather look at a loose structure, such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, leaving integration up to the regions.

For now, the AU’s reputation has been salvaged and there is real hope for a more efficient commission with Dlamini-Zuma at the helm.

A huge advantage for her is that she knows the AU commission very well. After all, she helped to implement its constitutive act in the early years after its creation in 2002.

“Your foreign minister doesn’t take no for an answer,” I remember a West African foreign minister telling me at an AU summit in Addis Ababa in 2003. It was during a marathon session on getting a resolution on gender parity pushed through the agenda.

At the time Dlamini-Zuma showed the same unwavering determination and work ethic she has become known for at home. It was not unusual for the media to be called to press briefings by Dlamini-Zuma at 2am or 3am to explain the latest AU decisions.

Ten years after its creation, things at the AU have not moved as quickly as what she and Thabo Mbeki, then her commander in chief, had envisioned. Funding remains a huge problem. More than half ($160-million) of its budget of $275-million for 2012 is paid for by external partners, mostly the European Union. An audit of the commission finalised in 2007 recommended vast reforms of it, but little of this has been implemented by Dlamini-Zuma’s predecessor.

An efficient AU will hugely improve its relations with international donors, especially now that this kind of money is getting scarce. Real action in solving peace and security issues will also improve the AU’s standing in the eyes of its citizens. But achieving credibility and raising the profile of the AU will ultimately depend not on the commission chairperson, but on the quality of leadership in its member states.

Source: Mail & Guardian