Walking the unemployment walk
By Stef Terblanche
(This column appears every week in Leadership magazine (online) under the title "Out of Africa".)
In the beautiful Mara Region of north-western Tanzania, between Lake Victoria and the Serengeti National Park, live the Ngoreme people who have a saying: “If you refuse the elder’s advice, you will walk all day”. The implicit meaning of that should be quite clear to anyone. Well, to most.
Why then ask for advice if you are going to refuse it and end up walking all day? Perhaps certain members of the South African government – and many members of South Africa’s vocal labour unions – should be sent to the Mara Region to consult with the Ngoreme elders in the hope of getting an answer to that age-old question. Perhaps it will also help solve South Africa’s unemployment crisis.
For this is the kind of anomalous contradiction with which South Africa is again faced regarding its critical inability to create jobs.
Just this week Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe woke up to the fact that we are all sitting on a ticking time-bomb – a threat of frightening proportions that we have been writing about for quite some time. After a somewhat denialist South African government had ignored or down-played this threat for years, Molanthe this week boldly held up the Arab spring of youthful uprisings as a dire warning for South Africa.
"Our country is not insulated from these challenges especially because we have close to 2.8-million young people between ages of 18 and 24 who are unemployed and not in any institution of learning. This statistic represents the ticking time bomb that threatens to inflame pent-up emotions within the youth if not urgently addressed,” said the Deputy President in an address to the conference of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies in Johannesburg. Perhaps that is why the ANC Youth League loves him so much.
Nonetheless, next (and this is not a Youth League trait) the Deputy President did the sensible thing: he asked the Jewish Board of Deputies for advice on how to create jobs and thus defuse this dreaded ticking time bomb.
"I believe that the South African Jewish Board of Deputies is well positioned to help us answer some of these challenges because of the skills, knowledge and influence your members wield in the South African economy," Deputy President Motlanthe said.
Just a week ago we wrote about the storm in a teacup that had developed around the hapless Minister of Finance, Pravin Gordhan, when he was seen to be offering advice on this question. The mainstream media, business and others on that particular side of the fence went into a frenzy when Gordhan spoke the words they loved to hear: South Africa must introduce a youth wage subsidy in order to stimulate employment of the youth, and, South Africa may have to reconsider its labour legislation if it hoped to achieve the government’s job-creation targets. And National Planning Minister gave a cautious and qualified nod of approval.
Predictably Gordhan was attacked most vitriolically by labour, even if it was all a little over the top, his remarks having formed only a minute and mostly off the cuff part of his speech to a conference of internal auditors. It was offered as little more than a vague suggestion, a stone in the bush type of thing. Nonetheless, good advice is still advice.
But it was not the kind of advice the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) wanted to hear. It was enough to make the labour leaders choke on their workers’ breakfasts, shouting that Gordhan’s intentions were “reactionary”, that he had joined a right-wing campaign to “expose the workers to more exploitation” and that they would fight any right-wing attempts to weaken existing labour laws.
This elicited some defence of Gordhan from the ANC when spokesman Jackson Mthembu said it was “disrespectful and contemptuous” of Cosatu to characterise Gordhan as such.
National Union of Metalworkers of SA (Numsa) general secretary Irvin Jim threatened to call on President Jacob Zuma to fire Gordhan for his “neo-liberal anti-worker" policies and said workers would meet the minister "in the streets" as they now considered him to be the new "enemy". All of this was to be expected from labour.
But what was perhaps not quite expected was the next move coming from Gordhan’s very own colleagues in the Cabinet, when, by way of a statement made by the very irrepressible Cabinet spokesman, Jimmy Manyi, Gordhan was given a dressing down of sorts. Stopping short of issuing a reprimand, Manyi said Cabinet had resolved to remind the public that the Department of Labour alone would lead the way on labour matters. Why then, Mister Deputy President, bother to ask anyone for advice?
Not that advice on how to solve South Africa’s unemployment problem has been in short supply. Apart from Gordhan’s cautious whisper in that direction, South African business leaders, would-be foreign investors, economists and business analysts, the World Economic Forum, the UN Conference on Trade and Development, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank have all been giving the same advice to the South African government: change your restrictive labour laws to stimulate job creation and economic growth.
The latest Global Competitiveness Report - produced by the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Switzerland - saw South Africa slipping eight places from 46th most competitive nation to 54th amongst the world’s top 139 countries as measured by $US GDP. One of the big reasons for its tumble was labour market efficiency and poor labour relations. The report put South Africa at a dismal 131st out of 139 nations for lack of flexibility in wage determination.
The UN Conference on Trade and Development came to pretty much the same conclusion in its World Investment Report. This past week the IMF’s Staff Report for the 2011 Article IV Consultation with South Africa also said South Africa's unemployment challenge is "significantly higher than in other emerging markets".
So, in the words of one exasperated opposition politician: what will it take for the government to take good advice and commit to a "pro-growth and pro-jobs" economic policy? If not, and if it continues refusing advice, it will surely end up walking more than just all day as envisioned by the Ngoreme people. The unemployed youth of South Africa, on the other hand, may stop walking altogether. Instead they may ominously start stomping their feet in a toyi-toying war dance.
Notes from Africa
There are other ways to say it...
Stef Terblanche
(This column is published weekly in Leadership magazine's online bulletin.)
I had better be careful what I say here this week.
These days in South Africa people like me are getting skinned alive, or worse even, they are being fired, their columns shredded and their ideas and thoughts bagged, zipped up and buried as if it were nuclear waste. All because of what they say, or rather write.
Problem solved? Wrong. Only one person’s particular articulation of a problem or issue has been done away with. And the sensibilities of only one party to what should have been a civilised debate among different parties have been soothed by what sometimes seems to be little more than a kneejerk reaction.
Such considerations, however, did not stop the hapless columnist of the The Sowetan, Eric Miyeni, from joining a number of (previously) esteemed colleagues like Jon Qwelane, David Bullard, Deon Maas and Kuli Roberts in journalism’s outer Siberia. It also did not prevent a minor shake-up in the South African media this past week with one editor departing and two new ones being appointed.
Snakes in the grass. People without front teeth. Eish! Nonetheless, journalism has always been a dangerous profession, if one can give such title to the doings of the Fourth Estate.
Messengers have always stood first in the firing line – poisoned or fed to the lions in Roman times; scalped by the Apache and other Native Americans; cooked and eaten by cannibals in the Congo; assegaied by the Zulus; shot, lynched or quartered by European settlers in Africa and the New World; banned and placed under house arrest by the apartheid rulers; hanged in Nigeria; and chased out of press conferences for being a “bloody agent” with “that white attitude” by Julius Malema, the Little King of the ANC Youth League.
Only three years ago the former editor of Egypt’s Al-Dustur newspaper, Ibrahim Eissa, was jailed for six months for the crime of speculating about then President Hosni Mubarak’s health. Yesterday the paper could finally take revenge when it gloated “Egypt’s revolution has won” in response to an ailing Mubarak dressed in prison clothes being wheeled into a courtroom cage on a hospital stretcher to stand trial for murder, corruption and other charges. The wheel turns, and the pen grinds...
And yet, while people like Malema frequently profess to hate and despise the scribes of the modern world who prise into their affairs and lay bear what they would rather keep hidden, they cannot live without them. Just imagine how insignificant Malema, or Bob Mugabe, or the Queen of England for that matter, would have been without any media to affix them firmly in the public mind.
That is not to say that journalists, and particularly columnists, have unlimited licence to say what they like about anybody that meets their fancy. Everybody knows – or should know – that the pen is mightier than the sword. But when its tip has been dipped in an overdose of poison ink, it takes on a deadly and self-destructive menace.
While South Africa’s much hailed Constitution is widely seen as one of the most liberal in the granting of freedom of speech, this freedom, like any other, is balanced by certain obligations, or limitations. In South Africa’s case Section 16 of Chapter 2 of the Bill of Rights extends freedom of speech to the press and other media; freedom to receive or impart information or ideas; freedom of artistic creativity; and academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
It limits this freedom not to include propaganda for war; incitement of imminent violence; or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm. To this should have been added “or when it transcends the reasonable bounds of common decency”.
Just like Malema was once willing to die for Jacob Zuma, I am willing to die – well, maybe – for the right of everyone, including especially journalists, to share freely their thoughts, information, knowledge and ideas. But it is the way in which one presents those ideas and thoughts that is the issue here.
One can roast a turkey to cinders and it will leave a bad taste in the mouth and churn the stomach; or you can cook it with care and consideration, and it will be appreciated by most, even those who don’t necessarily like its taste. (That is not really an African saying, it’s just something I sort of made up...but the reader will get my drift.)
In Miyeni’s case he called City Press editor Feriel Haffajee a black snake in the grass and an agent of white capitalists who, if it were the 1980s, would have been “necklaced” with a burning tyre around her neck. Harsh stuff and all because Miyeni disliked Haffajee’s paper having had the audacity to expose Malema’s money-spinning private trust that requires a few questions to be answered. Not unlike Malema’s own song-and-dance call to the youthful masses to kill the Boer, you might say.
In a homophobic attack Qwelane stomped heavily on gay toes. Roberts said coloureds were violent people without front teeth who “breed as if Allan Boesak sent them on a mission to increase the coloured race”. Bullard made a few unflattering statements about Africans and colonialism. And Maas included Satanism in a call for tolerance when writing for a largely conservative, God-fearing readership. All could probably have said it differently, and their points would still have been taken...minus the hullabaloo and them losing their jobs or columns.
Whether it was really necessary to fire journalists or have the resignation of an acting editor, who was not even on duty when Miyeni’s column went to print, is another matter. Perhaps clearer guidelines and better editorial supervision would be the answer.
Nonetheless, these days the line between what is appropriate and inappropriate has become extremely blurry, worsened by the ascendancy of citizens’ journalism, social media, bloggers, and free-for-all debates and online comments by readers of news stories. While this may arguably make it more complicated to determine the merits and bounds of a case like Miyeni’s, it should be the responsibility of the formal media and its professional journalists to set the example and standards in this world of instant exchanges of thoughts and opinions.
There are certain moral obligations such as standards, decency, sensitivity and responsibility that should weigh heavily on all journalists, in addition to reporting truthfully, balanced and without favour or fear. Which brings me to something else.
When clearing out some news clippings and notes left over from the recent local government elections, I came across the following jewel. Commenting on SABC TV on the incoming election results, Eusebius McKaiser, political commentator and radio talk show host among other things, reported at one stage that the Democratic Alliance had won 68% of the counted vote in the Western Cape, followed “closely” by the ANC with 24%.
Well, one man’s yard is another man’s inch. Ask any fisherman!
Stef Terblanche
(This column is published weekly in Leadership magazine's online bulletin.)
I had better be careful what I say here this week.
These days in South Africa people like me are getting skinned alive, or worse even, they are being fired, their columns shredded and their ideas and thoughts bagged, zipped up and buried as if it were nuclear waste. All because of what they say, or rather write.
Problem solved? Wrong. Only one person’s particular articulation of a problem or issue has been done away with. And the sensibilities of only one party to what should have been a civilised debate among different parties have been soothed by what sometimes seems to be little more than a kneejerk reaction.
Such considerations, however, did not stop the hapless columnist of the The Sowetan, Eric Miyeni, from joining a number of (previously) esteemed colleagues like Jon Qwelane, David Bullard, Deon Maas and Kuli Roberts in journalism’s outer Siberia. It also did not prevent a minor shake-up in the South African media this past week with one editor departing and two new ones being appointed.
Snakes in the grass. People without front teeth. Eish! Nonetheless, journalism has always been a dangerous profession, if one can give such title to the doings of the Fourth Estate.
Messengers have always stood first in the firing line – poisoned or fed to the lions in Roman times; scalped by the Apache and other Native Americans; cooked and eaten by cannibals in the Congo; assegaied by the Zulus; shot, lynched or quartered by European settlers in Africa and the New World; banned and placed under house arrest by the apartheid rulers; hanged in Nigeria; and chased out of press conferences for being a “bloody agent” with “that white attitude” by Julius Malema, the Little King of the ANC Youth League.
Only three years ago the former editor of Egypt’s Al-Dustur newspaper, Ibrahim Eissa, was jailed for six months for the crime of speculating about then President Hosni Mubarak’s health. Yesterday the paper could finally take revenge when it gloated “Egypt’s revolution has won” in response to an ailing Mubarak dressed in prison clothes being wheeled into a courtroom cage on a hospital stretcher to stand trial for murder, corruption and other charges. The wheel turns, and the pen grinds...
And yet, while people like Malema frequently profess to hate and despise the scribes of the modern world who prise into their affairs and lay bear what they would rather keep hidden, they cannot live without them. Just imagine how insignificant Malema, or Bob Mugabe, or the Queen of England for that matter, would have been without any media to affix them firmly in the public mind.
That is not to say that journalists, and particularly columnists, have unlimited licence to say what they like about anybody that meets their fancy. Everybody knows – or should know – that the pen is mightier than the sword. But when its tip has been dipped in an overdose of poison ink, it takes on a deadly and self-destructive menace.
While South Africa’s much hailed Constitution is widely seen as one of the most liberal in the granting of freedom of speech, this freedom, like any other, is balanced by certain obligations, or limitations. In South Africa’s case Section 16 of Chapter 2 of the Bill of Rights extends freedom of speech to the press and other media; freedom to receive or impart information or ideas; freedom of artistic creativity; and academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
It limits this freedom not to include propaganda for war; incitement of imminent violence; or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm. To this should have been added “or when it transcends the reasonable bounds of common decency”.
Just like Malema was once willing to die for Jacob Zuma, I am willing to die – well, maybe – for the right of everyone, including especially journalists, to share freely their thoughts, information, knowledge and ideas. But it is the way in which one presents those ideas and thoughts that is the issue here.
One can roast a turkey to cinders and it will leave a bad taste in the mouth and churn the stomach; or you can cook it with care and consideration, and it will be appreciated by most, even those who don’t necessarily like its taste. (That is not really an African saying, it’s just something I sort of made up...but the reader will get my drift.)
In Miyeni’s case he called City Press editor Feriel Haffajee a black snake in the grass and an agent of white capitalists who, if it were the 1980s, would have been “necklaced” with a burning tyre around her neck. Harsh stuff and all because Miyeni disliked Haffajee’s paper having had the audacity to expose Malema’s money-spinning private trust that requires a few questions to be answered. Not unlike Malema’s own song-and-dance call to the youthful masses to kill the Boer, you might say.
In a homophobic attack Qwelane stomped heavily on gay toes. Roberts said coloureds were violent people without front teeth who “breed as if Allan Boesak sent them on a mission to increase the coloured race”. Bullard made a few unflattering statements about Africans and colonialism. And Maas included Satanism in a call for tolerance when writing for a largely conservative, God-fearing readership. All could probably have said it differently, and their points would still have been taken...minus the hullabaloo and them losing their jobs or columns.
Whether it was really necessary to fire journalists or have the resignation of an acting editor, who was not even on duty when Miyeni’s column went to print, is another matter. Perhaps clearer guidelines and better editorial supervision would be the answer.
Nonetheless, these days the line between what is appropriate and inappropriate has become extremely blurry, worsened by the ascendancy of citizens’ journalism, social media, bloggers, and free-for-all debates and online comments by readers of news stories. While this may arguably make it more complicated to determine the merits and bounds of a case like Miyeni’s, it should be the responsibility of the formal media and its professional journalists to set the example and standards in this world of instant exchanges of thoughts and opinions.
There are certain moral obligations such as standards, decency, sensitivity and responsibility that should weigh heavily on all journalists, in addition to reporting truthfully, balanced and without favour or fear. Which brings me to something else.
When clearing out some news clippings and notes left over from the recent local government elections, I came across the following jewel. Commenting on SABC TV on the incoming election results, Eusebius McKaiser, political commentator and radio talk show host among other things, reported at one stage that the Democratic Alliance had won 68% of the counted vote in the Western Cape, followed “closely” by the ANC with 24%.
Well, one man’s yard is another man’s inch. Ask any fisherman!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)