COSATU Media Monitor, 09 April 2013

[Norman Mampane]

COSATU Media Monitor 

Tuesday, 09 April 2013

 

COSATU National Collective Bargaining, Organizing and Campaigns Conference Special Declaration

 

http://www.cosatu.org.za/show.php?ID=7062

 

COSATU has served a Section77 Notice at Nedlac on the 11^th December 2012

http://www.cosatu.org.za/show.php?ID=6785

 

COSATU E-toll Campaign goes ahead in 2013.

http://www.cosatu.org.za/show.php?ID=6793

 

Stop Commodification of public goods!

 

The articles in the Media Monitor do not represent the views of COSATU. They are selected because we believe they deal with topics of interest to our readers, who will then be informed on how the media is reporting and commenting on these topics. It will enable them, if necessary, to respond to inaccurate, misleading or biased reports or comment.

If we have excluded other articles which readers wished could have been picked, this was not intentional but because of tight time-frames. If you have seen article worth to be shared email it.

 

COSATU is on Twitter and also has a Facebook Page!

 

To participate and follow the Federation debates hashtag on Twitter #cosatu and/or search for Cosatu Today after logging.

 

 

Contents

 

Workers’ Parliament

Ø  SA workers ‘losing faith’ in strife-torn trade unions

Ø  The NUM/AMCU Cold War moves to bargaining councils

Ø  ‘Labour fragments’ as big unions bleed

Ø  10% of SA workforce now self-employed

Ø Statutory council: how it is established, its jurisdictions, what the LRA says about it

 

COSATU

Ø  On Thatcher and society, Vavi and the market

Ø  Trust in trade union dropping: report

Ø  Cosatu issues child labour warning

 

South Africa

Ø  Harmony Gold shares fall

Ø  Absa reorganisation approved

Ø  Minister says state to push ahead with e-tolling

Ø  JSC tight-lipped over ‘robust’ debate on transformation document

Ø  Closing the education gap

Ø  Telkom predicts 20% drop in profit

Ø  Commission finds cartel in glass sector

Ø  FIVE MINUTES: South Africa

 

Alliance

Ø  JZ approves interim SABC board

Ø  Derby-Lewis 'is very sorry'

Ø  NEWS ANALYSIS: ANC could change the image of youth league

Ø  Zuma and ANC tactful about Thatcher legacy

 

International

Ø  Six million jobs lost in EU since 2008

Ø  Coal miners greet news of Thatcher's death as 'great day'

Ø  Thatcher Legacy Sees Employment Rising Amid U.K. Slump

Ø  Margaret Thatcher, an enlarger of British freedom

Ø  Margaret Thatcher, The Iron Lady, mortal after all

Ø  SA soldiers in another central African country: this time it’s different

Ø  Weakening US, EU data destroy recovery hopes

Ø  US economy 'still far' from desired state

Ø  ‘Greek banks to be recapitalised’

 

Comment

 

Ø  COSATU E-toll Campaign goes ahead in 2013

Ø  COSATU Section77 Notice served at Nedlac on the 11th December 2012

Ø  Wrong on Southern Africa, but incorruptible and brave

Ø  Money can’t buy a moral compass

Ø  EDITORIAL: Send Eskom packing

Ø  Madiba: What will be, will be

Ø  Bidvest’s 60% offer suggests backroom negotiating

__________________________________________________________

1.          Workers’ Parliament   

SA workers ‘losing faith’ in strife-torn trade unions

 Carol Paton, Business Day, 09 April 2013

 

PUBLIC trust in trade unions, especially among black and working class South Africans, has plummeted in the past year, a survey carried out by the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) has found.

The poll was conducted in the wake of labour turmoil last year in which workers abandoned traditional trade unions and embarked on wildcat strike action.

The survey, which is based on a representative sample derived from census information and is carried out annually, found that among the public in general, trust in trade unions dropped from 43% in 2011 to 29% in 2012.

Among black and working class South Africans, who have formed the backbone of the labour movement, there was a significant growth in distrust of unions. Thirty-five percent of black South Africans said they distrusted trade unions, compared with 21% the year before; while 53% of coloureds said they distrusted them, compared to 37% in 2011.

Among those who consider themselves to be part of the working class, distrust increased from 21% in 2011 to 37% in 2012, the survey found.

The HSRC survey findings indicate that events of last year on the mines and farms are a sign of a deeper malaise within the trade union movement, and point to a broader credibility crisis.

The author of the survey, HSRC PhD intern Steven Gordon, said the findings were "surprising" and should raise alarm in the trade union movement.

"Our analysis clearly shows that trust in unions has declined overall, also among those groups historically most supportive of the organised labour movement — full-time workers, the working and lower classes, and black and coloured South Africans. Given that working class consciousness was one of the central themes of the SA labour movement, the growth of active distrust among these groups should be a cause of deep concern for the labour movement," he said.

Mr Gordon said the survey did not delve into reasons, or whether it was a temporary loss of faith or a more long-term decline.

"You would assume that trust would be so much higher, but now that we know that trust is not high we need to go about finding out why," he said.

The HSRC findings resonate with those of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) itself, whose own survey of worker attitudes conducted by labour policy think-tank Naledi last year detected growing negative perceptions among organised workers. The Naledi survey found, for instance, that one in three members believed there was corruption in their unions and one in seven said they had actually experienced it.

Cosatu general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi said while he could not comment on the HSRC survey he had no doubt the union movement faced challenges. The collective bargaining conference last month had been held for this reason and had frankly identified the problems and a programme to tackle them, he said.

"Our own survey last year also revealed some very negative perceptions, for instance, about corruption in unions.

"This survey tells me one thing: improve. In our collective bargaining conference last month we used the phrase: ‘Pull up your socks,’" he said.

Cosatu president Sdumo Dlamini said while Cosatu was aware it faced challenges, survey results were often used to attack the union movement.

Prof Steven Friedman, the director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy, said the survey reflected separate processes, involving union members on the one hand, and non-members on the other.

"Among those who are not in the movement there has been a strident assault on trade unionism over the last number of years. Among those who are part of the trade union movement there are clearly workers who feel trade unions are not representing them effectively."

Prof Friedman said it was not a rejection of unions in principle, but a sense that existing unions were not as effective as they should be. Last year’s labour turmoil was reflective of this sentiment.

Most seriously affected by waning trust was the National Union of Mineworkers, which in the past year haemorrhaged members in the platinum and gold sectors.

Another example was this year’s Post Office strike, where workers who belonged to a union had chosen not to be represented by it and had appointed a lawyer instead.

___________

The NUM/AMCU Cold War moves to bargaining councils

Sipho Hlongwane , Daily Maverick, 09 April 2013

 

The tension between the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union and the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) may have subsided of late, but the two unions are locked in a battle for the control of bargaining councils. The NUM is now for a sector-wide, statutory council, while AMCU is dead set against it in its current form, believing it to be a veiled attempt to claw back the victories it has made in winning bargaining rights at operational level at the big platinum mining companies. Frighteningly, the negotiators seem to have forgotten to invite the workers to the negotiating table. By SIPHO HLONGWANE.

The wildcat strike at Marikana in August 2012 had its roots in a similar set of incidents that happened at Impala Platinum from 2011 onward. Rock-drill operators at the company went on an unprotected and violent strike to demand a R9,000 per month wage. After the company initially reacted by sacking 17,000 workers, it chose to rehire most of them and give them certain wage increases. The success of that unprotected strike would go on to inspire the rock-drill operators at Lonmin to launch their own, which eventually led to the 16 August massacre when the police opened fire on the crowd, killing 34 and wounding 78 more. This is the version of events that the NUM has put forward in the aftermath of the shooting, most notably by the union's secretary for health and safety Eric Gcilitshana before the Marikana commission of inquiry.

AMCU has a different interpretation. Its president Joseph Mathunjwa has denied involvement in the unprotected strikes that threatened to bring the platinum mining industry to its knees last year before the Marikana commission. He put forward a picture of an NUM that had abandoned its workers and could not abide competition.

It was not surprising that the two unions decided to take contradictory (and self-serving) positions at the hearing, given the potential ramifications for anyone found to have stoked the flames that led to death at Marikana. There is more at stake, and the prize is immense: AMCU and NUM are locked in a struggle for membership numbers, which brings with it membership fees.

The initiative after Marikana has been left to AMCU. From a worker-relations perspective, the period has been a disaster for NUM, which has lost tens of thousands of members to its rival since the massacre. The union, its parent federation Cosatu and the ruling African National Congress party have all held rallies and meetings in the Rustenburg area to try to stem the bleeding.

On Sunday it was the turn of ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe, who invited workers to shun AMCU for NUM. He accused the new union of not serving the interests of workers in a political lecture delivered in Rustenburg, and also said that mining companies had an interest in weakening NUM.

"The attack on the NUM is an attack on us. We know the attack is on us. They want to hijack and steal our revolution. They see the mineworkers as a vehicle to hijack the revolution," Mantashe said.

"You are not being victims because of your membership to NUM but because you are a loyal member of the revolution."

The heated words are not a mistake - ANC Bojanala regional chairperson Louis Diremelo told the same meeting that the NUM had already lost 35,000 members to AMCU.

Unlike other industries, there is no sector-wide bargaining council in the platinum mines. Negotiations happen at operational level, and are haphazard and scattered. This is how Impala's rock drillers suddenly found themselves handsomely outstripping their Lonmin colleagues in wages. There is a move to end that: the department of labour pushed through a plan to establish a bargaining council under the auspices of the chamber of mines, and got companies and unions to sign an interim document to create a temporary structure for bargaining. It would replace the recurrent relationship of the majority union negotiating on behalf of all workers at a certain company, and would also institute sector-wide limitations on wage.

The NUM is in favour of this because the plan would grant it some rights at the table, even as a minor player. This did not previously happen under the negotiating rules it was instrumental in setting up.

AMCU does not want the interim bargaining council and does not approve of the negotiations currently taking place.

"We are not in favour of what is happening [at the chamber of mines] because it does not address our concerns with the industry," AMCU treasurer Jimmy Gama said in an interview. He complained that the deal would still allow for differences in salary between individual companies.

"We cannot move wage negotiations from the operations to a central system. What is happening is between government, labour and the companies. Where are the workers? They only hear in the media that something is happening but they are not a part of the process. It is extremely dangerous to try and change negotiating rights without consulting workers closely," Gama said.

AMCU recommends that everyone should wait until the situation in the sector has normalised, and workers can be brought into the chamber of mines negotiations. It also wants a statutory-backed council with powers to set minimum wages for all companies.

In the meantime the union has chosen to ignore the negotiations for a sectoral council and focus on negotiating and signing recognition agreements at Lonmin, Impala and Anglo American Platinum. According to Gama, AMCU now has a 70% membership at Lonmin, 50% plus one at Impala (the threshold set by NUM for majority bargaining rights) and 42% at Anglo. Recognition deals at Lonmin and Impala are set to be signed soon, while Anglo signed one at the beginning of last month. 

The NUM did not have any concrete reason to be concerned about AMCU aside from professional jealousy, Gama said. "Their frustration is based on the fact that employers are no longer recognising them. That's why they are going around telling workers that we are colluding with the employer."

Tebogo Mauwane, an AMCU shop steward at Anglo, said to Daily Maverick that NUM was almost gone at that company.

"The NUM is silent at Anglo," she said. "They tried to fight and toyi-toyi previously but they are quiet now. Most of the workers have joined AMCU."

The NUM regional secretary for the Rustenburg area, Richard Mohoa, said that while the tempers between AMCU and NUM supporters were not flaring like they used to, violence could yet return. He said that NUM-affiliated workers welcomed Mantashe's lecture.

"We understand that some carry the agenda of the employer. We workers are working to educate ourselves," he said.

Last year the wildcat strike at Lonmin ended after a deal was brokered. Crucially, workers were not represented by unions, but by their own chosen representatives. AMCU smartly distanced itself from any other type of deal, and that decision continues to pay dividends as more workers join. The mood may be less anxious this time, but the mistake of leaving out worker representatives could see new unprotected strikes spring up. Someone has apparently not learned last year's painful lesson. 

________

‘Labour fragments’ as big unions bleed

Carol Paton, Business Day, 08 April 2013

CONGRESS of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu ) general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi on Sunday expressed concern that South Africa’s labour movement was fragmenting, with 193 unions now in existence, the majority of which did not belong to one of the major federations.

Cosatu has 20 affiliates with about 2-million members, but faces increasing competition from independent break away and splinter groups. This is partly because of disillusionment with established unions and fractured internal politics, which leads to union splits and new formations.

Speaking to shop stewards in Durban on Sunday, Mr Vavi said of the 193 unions, 117 did not belong to one of the country’s four large labour confederations, namely Cosatu, the Federation of Unions of South Africa, the National Council of Trade Unions and the Confederation of South African Workers’ Unions.

Increased pressure on the union movement was also leading to "poaching wars", even between Cosatu affiliates.

The South African Democratic Teachers Union and the National Education, Health and Allied Workers Union often overlapped in the field of education, he said.

Tensions have also been high between the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) and the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (Numsa), which compete in various workplaces such as Eskom.

This has worsened internal tensions in Cosatu as the NUM and Numsa are on opposite sides of the federation’s factionalised politics.

Meanwhile, in what is clearly an attempt to arrest the decline of the NUM in the Rustenburg area, African National Congress (ANC) secretary-general Gwede Mantashe delivered a political lecture in the town on Sunday. The NUM has lost 35,000 members in the area, according to ANC Bojanala regional chairman Louis Diremelo, who opened the meeting.

In his address, Mr Mantashe blamed the NUM’s ailing fortunes on the managements of mining companies. He said they wanted to destroy the union and, along with it, the national democratic revolution led by the ANC, Cosatu and the South African Communist Party.

"The attack on the NUM is an attack on us. We know the attack is on us. They want to hijack and steal our revolution. They see the mineworkers as a vehicle to hijack the revolution.

"You are not victims because of your membership to NUM, but because you are a loyal member of the revolution," he said.

The Rustenburg area has been plagued by violent competition between the NUM and newcomer the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (Amcu). Amcu members have on many occasions closed NUM offices on mining premises by force. Mr Mantashe said to restore peace and stability at the mines, companies should not close the NUM’s offices, but rather leave them open, and open an office for the other emerging unions. "Leave the NUM to service its members and let the workers see the difference."

He said the NUM had a track record and all the other unions were fighting for what NUM had already achieved. "This is their blood and sweat. The new unions do not bring anything new. What new things are they bringing? They want all that NUM gains."

Mr Mantashe said the ANC had a responsibility to make sure conditions were improved in areas around the mines. "The ANC must make sure there is a road in Nkaneng. These conditions are being used to mislead people."

With Sapa

__________

10% of SA workforce now self-employed

Fin24, 08 April 2013

 

 

Cape Town - Self-employment is at the highest level since 2009 with 1.2 million self-employed business people, Absa Group [JSE:ASA] has announced in an index on Monday.

The Absa SME Index for South Africa rose by 1.4 index points to 93.4 in the second quarter of 2012, boosted by growth in self-employment.

The index showed an improvement on self-employment with a growth of 1.1% over the last quarter of 2012 and overall 2% growth over the last year.

Economist Mike Schüssler, who works on the index, said the number of self-employed on index is 1 253 000 or about 10% of all employed adults. 

"With nine out of the last 10 quarters indicating growth in self-employment it is likely that the longer term trend may now be upwards", he added.

SA had 707 000 employers during the fourth quarter of 2012.  

Schüssler said that employer numbers had a year-on-year decline of 2.1% in 2012 but the last quarter saw a slightly smaller decline of 0.2%. 

The effects of the worldwide economic crisis on self-employment has waned, but some smaller effects still remain, he cautioned, given that the figure was still 2.5% below its recent highs.

Schüssler also said that a tax breather would be a great advantage for small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

“The growth in self-employment shows that SMEs are also benefiting from low interest rates and would also benefit in future if tax relief for them was introduced as this could be positive for business formation and sustainability.”

The index data is based on various economic indicators gathered from Statistics South Africa, said Sisa Ntshona, head of enterprise development at Absa.

Ntshona said the index is crucial for policy makers regarding SME development, high unemployment and job creation.

Click here for a graph indicating the growth rate of self-employed business people in South Africa since 2008.

 - Fin24

__________

Statutory council: how it is established, its jurisdictions, what the LRA says about it

The New Age, 08 April 2013

This is part of a series of weekly columns about the workings of labour laws written for The New Age by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA).

In the previous articles on bargaining councils, we also spoke about statutory councils. What are statutory councils? A statutory council is an organisation that is similar to a bargaining council. The biggest difference is that a statutory council can be formed when only one party – either a trade union or an employer body applies to the Registrar of Labour to form such a council.

Section 39 of the Labour Relations Act (LRA) explains how a party can apply to establish a statutory council. For example, a representative trade union may request the registrar to register a statutory council for a specific sector and area.

However, such a union must be registered with the Department of Labour and must also represent at least 30% of the workers in the sector and area. Likewise, representative and registered employer organisations whose members employ at least 30% of the workers in a sector and area may request the registrar to establish a statutory council.

The registrar may only register a statutory council in a sector and area in which there is no other registered bargaining or statutory council. Generally, the same criteria and conditions to establish a bargaining council also apply to statutory councils.

The registrar must be satisfied that the party bringing an application to establish a statutory council meets the requirements set out in Section 39 of the LRA. Thereafter, the registrar must publish a notice in the Government Gazette and also invite other interested trade unions and employer organisations in that sector and area, as well as other interested parties to attend a meeting as required by Section 40 of the LRA. Such a meeting is always chaired by a Commissioner of the CCMA.

The purpose of such a meeting is to facilitate an agreement on which registered trade unions and employer organisations will be parties to the statutory council and to also facilitate a constitution of the council which meets all legal requirements.

Recently, a statutory council was established for the Fast Food, Restaurant, Catering and Allied Industries. This is a statutory council and the sectors and areas this council covers include the Western Cape, Eastern Cape, Northern Cape, Free State, KwaZulu-Natal, North West, Mpumalanga, Limpopo and the magisterial districts of Heidelberg, Nigel, Vereeniging, Vanderbijlpark, Oberholzer, Meyerton and Carletonville.

The “Fast Food, Restaurant, Catering and Allied Industries” means the industries concerned with “tearoom, restaurant, catering, coffee shop, pub, tavern, roadhouse, café, snack bar, fast food outlet, convenience store, industrial or commercial catering, function catering, contract catering, catering and associated activities, including establishments in which person(s) carry on the business for the purpose of preparing, baking, providing, supplying, serving, selling, processing and producing meals.”

There are however, business activities that are excluded from this council’s jurisdiction. These include casinos and hotels, catering facilities managed or operated by sports and recreation clubs and any convenience store or outlet which forms part of a petrol station.

The founding parties to the Fast Food, Restaurant, Catering and Allied Trades are the following employer organisations: Catering Allied Trade Association, Professional Caterers Association and Afrikaner Handels Instituut.

The trade union parties are: South African Commercial, Catering and Allied Workers’ Union, and Hotel, Liquor, Catering, Commercial and Allied Workers Union.

The powers and functions of a statutory council are: dispute resolution, to promote and establish training and education schemes, to establish and administer pension, provident, medical aid, sick pay, holiday and unemployment funds for the benefit of one or more of the parties to the council or their members, and to conclude collective agreement on such matters.

Once established, the statutory council may also agree to the inclusions of additional bargaining council-type functions, such as to negotiate collective agreements on wages and other conditions of employment.

A statutory council may also by resolution, decide to apply to the registrar to be registered as a bargaining council. This recently happened when the Amanzi Statutory Council applied to be changed and registered as a bargaining council. This council has as its jurisdiction all workers and employers and their workers who are bulk water suppliers in SA.

In addition, there are two other statutory councils. These are the statutory councils for the Printing, Newspaper and Packaging Industry of SA and for the Squid and Related Fisheries of SA. Both these councils are accredited by the CCMA for dispute resolution and their names speak to the sector they cover.

To check whether you are covered by the jurisdiction of a statutory council or for more information and/or advice on Bargaining Councils, their powers, functions and jurisdiction, see Chapter 3 of the LRA 199, visit the CCMA website at www.ccma.org.za or contact the CCMA on 0861161616.

_____________________________ 

2.    COSATU

On Thatcher and society, Vavi and the market

 Ivo Vegter , Daily Maverick, 09 April 2013

 

Surprisingly, Margaret Thatcher, who died yesterday at the age of 87, reminded me of something Zwelinzima Vavi recently said. In Thatcher’s case, it involved “society”, and in Vavi’s case, “the market”.

Something Cosatu general-secretary Zwelinzima Vavi tweeted a few days ago triggered a thought, a memory. I’m paraphrasing, but it was something along the lines that government and the market do not provide what citizens want. It seemed to invoke the democratic power of citizens as ranged against both government and the market.

It was that distinction, between government and market on one hand, and citizens on the other, that struck me. It reminded me of something buried deep in the back of my mind. That memory surfaced suddenly when I heard the news that Margaret Thatcher, one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century, had passed away.

Journalists more eloquent than I am will no doubt celebrate her achievements as Britain’s former prime minister, and enough critics will denounce the failures of the Iron Lady. Some will dance on her grave.

The American journalist Michael Dougherty remarked on the etiquette of commenting publicly about such events: “do not speak with nuance of the dead.”

I propose to tread dangerously by doing so. I wish to recall one of her more controversial pronouncements, which connects serendipitously with the thought Vavi’s remark provoked.

Many will recall the apology that David Cameron made in 2006, after meeting Nelson Mandela, for an off-the-cuff remark Thatcher had made in 1987 to the effect that the ANC was “a typical terrorist organisation”.

For the full context in which she made that remark, a glance at South African History Online may prove instructive. However, this isn’t the remark I propose to address, because this was uninteresting political theatre. Cameron merely got on the right side of history on a matter that had long been resolved by time and reconciliation, largely in the ANC’s favour. It was a cost-free apology.

On that occasion, he also apologised for another statement of hers, however. It is philosophically far more interesting, and Vavi’s remark reminded me of it.

You see, Cameron was uncomfortable with the fact that Thatcher had once declared: “There is no such thing [as society].”

He responded: “There is such a thing as society; it’s just not the same as the state.”

It was a masterful answer to a statement that offered a useful cudgel against advocates of capitalism and individual freedom. In important ways, they’re both right.

As with her remark about the ANC, it is important to consider her comment in its full, nuanced, context. The BBC quotes it in its obituary: “I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand ‘I have a problem, it is the government’s job to cope with it!’ or ‘I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!’; ‘I am homeless, the government must house me!’ and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society?

“There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families, and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first.

“It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations.”

In that context, is her view still so absurd? “Society” is an abstraction. Yes, it consists of all the people around us, but it is not an entity distinct from individuals that can be held responsible for their welfare. It has no powers, no offices, and no duties. It is merely a collective term for people living together.

Since only individuals can act to better their lives or the lives of those around them, there is little sense in talking of obligations on the part of society. That always implies obligations on the part of other individuals, enforced by the power of the state. If that is what you mean, you should have the political courage to say so.

That is why Cameron’s response was so clever. He acknowledged that the collection of individuals we call society does exist, but clarifies that society’s supposed obligations for the welfare of its members are not those of the state or its government. You might disagree, but he shrewdly avoided conceding to welfare statists and opponents on the left that society exists as a separate entity that owes its members anything.

And that’s how we get back to Vavi. That citizens in South Africa lack both political power and material means is not in dispute. In attributing responsibility for this, however, Vavi made a distinction between government and citizens, as well as between the market and citizens. This makes it seem as if the two pairs stand in a similar relationship to each other. They do not.

Government is indeed distinct from citizens. Its members are elected by citizens – in our case very indirectly by means of a vote for an organisation that in turn appoints government’s members. These appointees then exercise the powers delegated to the state by the citizens, who renounce their own right to these powers.

Thus, for example, the government has the unique power to exercise force against citizens who infringe on the person or property rights of others, while citizens can only do so in exceptional cases when the government cannot practically step in, such as in immediate self-defence. The government has the power, for better or for worse, to require citizens who wish to practise certain professions to seek its permission, or to decree how such a profession ought to be practised. Citizens have ceded their right to make their own choices in this respect. It has the power to limit the uses to which certain land may be put, regardless of the preferences of those who own it. Perhaps most importantly, the government has the power to tax, and tax is the only lawful debt for which a person may be imprisoned.

Ultimately, government exercises these powers by virtue of the armed power it wields over citizens. Try resisting arrest on tax charges, or escaping imprisonment if convicted, if you want a practical test of whether the ultimate power government wields is the power of life and death over citizens.

So, drawing a line between citizens and the government is a very valid distinction for Vavi to make. He is rightly concerned that their interests are aligned, and that the latter does not abuse the powers ceded to it by the former.

The same is not true for citizens and “the market”. There is no similarly disparate power relation, and citizens have not ceded any rights to an entity known as “the market”. What we call “the market” is merely the manifestation of all the voluntary interactions among free citizens.

Like Thatcher’s “society”, it does exist, but only as an abstract concept. It has no existence separate from that of citizens. It consists of citizens themselves, and all the individual actions that each of us take in the production of goods and services for the satisfaction of our wants and needs. It describes the increasingly fine division of labour, which have made our productive work more efficient, and raised prosperity for almost everyone. It describes how widely varied products get produced for an infinite variety of different customers. It describes the positive-sum system of voluntary trades that citizens enter into among each other, in which one person’s gain is not another person’s loss, but rather, in which both parties to a transaction believe that the exchange of time, effort, money or produce will leave them better off.

Unlike government, the market is closely aligned with the needs and wants of citizens, because it represents, acts upon, and responds to the collective needs and wants of all of us, as expressed in our individual choices. It is not centralised. It is not one-size-fits-all. If a need exists, some individuals among those who make up “the market” strive to fulfil that need, without any external direction or control.

The market, unlike government, but like society, is us.

Perhaps the confusion arises from old-fashioned class struggle rhetoric. Perhaps it comes from the belief that the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer, despite the fact that reality contradicts this political slogan. Or from the notion that “the market” caters only for “the rich”, despite plentiful evidence to the contrary, such as minibus taxis, inexpensive food, and cheap clothing made by hyper-efficient factories.

Whatever the reasons for distinguishing between “market” and “citizens”, it is a false dichotomy. It is important to make nuanced distinctions, for example between state and society, as Cameron did, or government and citizens, as Vavi did, or between state and government, or government and ruling party, as too many politicians fail to do.

But a notable feature of the market is that it is not distinct from society, nor is it distinct from our life as citizens. It is a phenomenon that arises spontaneously from the collective action of free individuals.

The “market” is an abstract concept, describing the economic facet of how we, free citizens, interact with each other, just as “society” is an abstract concept that describes the social facet of our voluntary interactions.

That society – or the market, if you like – is nothing more than the voluntary interaction between free people is an important realisation. It is far from the only legacy Margaret Thatcher leaves, but it is a worthy legacy of her refreshing readiness to speak her mind, however controversial an out-of-context quotation might turn out to be. It is a legacy of her courage to follow her principles with fearless integrity. May she rest in peace.

____________

Trust in trade union dropping: report

Sapa, The New Age, 09 April 2013

South Africans are losing faith in trade unions, according to research quoted in a report on Tuesday.

Trust in trade unions among the public in general dropped from 43 percent in 2011 to 29 percent in 2012, reported Business Day newspaper, quoting a survey compiled by the Human Sciences Research Council.

Thirty-five percent of black South Africans said they distrusted trade unions in 2012, compared to 21 percent the previous year, while 53 percent of coloured South Africans said they distrusted unions in 2012, compared to 37 percent in 2011.

The poll was compiled in the wake of several wild-cat strikes last year.

Cosatu general secretary Zwelinzina Vavi told Business Day: "Our own survey last year also revealed some very negative perceptions, for instance, about corruption in unions.

"This survey tells me one thing: improve."
       
-Sapa

_____________

Cosatu issues child labour warning

Luyolo Mkentane, The New Age, 05 April 2013

Labour federation Cosatu has appealed to the taxi industry to stop breaking the law by employing children.

Thursday marked National Child Labour Day.

Cosatu president Sdumo Dlamini said more than 850000 children in the country were involved in child labour. “It’s a crisis that needs to be stopped. Children are supposed to be at school studying and not working.

“Most of these children are employed in the taxi industry. We appeal to the industry to stop employing them,” he said.

Dlamini said the labour federation would “intensify” its campaign against child labour.

“It has not been that effective, hence we want to intensify it.”

____________      

3.    South Africa

Harmony Gold shares fall

Business Report, 09 April 2013

Johannesburg - Harmony Gold Mining Co. fell after Africa’s third-largest producer of the metal said output in the third quarter through March declined 15 percent from the previous three months.

The shares declined as much as 4.8 percent, the most since April 4, and were 3 percent lower at 54.50 rand by 3:33 p.m. in Johannesburg.

Safety concerns relating to weeks of strikes and violence led Harmony to suspend output at Kusasalethu, its biggest mine, the Johannesburg-based company said in a statement.

“More than half of the employees at Kusasalethu have returned to the mine to date and Kusasalethu is expected to return to normal production levels after June 2013,” the company said.

“Kusasalethu’s and Phakisa’s performance may further impact Harmony’s June 2013 production quarter.”

Gold output dropped 9 percent in the December quarter from the previous three months because of work stoppages and violence at Kusasalethu in Carletonville, west of Johannesburg.

Mining strikes that started at platinum operations and moved to gold, iron-ore and coal mines cost Africa’s biggest economy about 11 billion rand ($1.2 billion) in tax, Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan said on April 2. - Bloomberg News

____________

Absa reorganisation approved

iAfrica, 09 April 2013

Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan has approved the proposed reorganisation of the African operations of Barclays plc and the Absa Group Ltd (ASA). 

The application was considered by the Minister in terms of section 37 and 52 of the Banks Act, 1990, and the Currency and Exchanges Act of 1933. 

This approval follows a previous one in 2005 for Barclays to acquire a majority shareholding in Absa. This was the first phase of its restructuring, which was to be followed by this second phase being the current transaction for Barclays to transfer its African operations to Absa. 

Gordhan said the transaction was a testimony to South Africa’s attractiveness as a hub for companies to expand into Africa, and Barclays was one of many large international companies that had chosen to base their African operations in South Africa. The proposed transaction would bring benefits to the country, employees and shareholders of the group. 

"The transaction has been approved on recommendation of the South African Reserve Bank. It has been approved on condition that Barclays Africa Limited, which will house Barclays’ African assets, be incorporated in South Africa. 

"Barclays Africa Limited may in future apply for a Holding Company (HoldCo) dispensation which was announced by the Minister of Finance in the 2013 Budget. The HoldCo regime seeks to provide incentives for South African corporates to expand from a domestic base," the Treasury said.

________

Minister says state to push ahead with e-tolling

 Colleen Goko, Business Day, 09 April 2013

·          

TRANSPORT Minister Ben Martins warned motorists on Monday that the government remained committed to e-tolling, saying this would be implemented as soon as the National Council of Provinces passed the enabling legislation.

Mr Martins dismissed as "unfounded and baseless" speculation that the government could reconsider implementation of its unpopular e-toll programme to charge for the use of freeways. He said motorists should rather concern themselves with acquiring e-tags in order to qualify for discounted tariffs.

Last month, the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Bill passed through the General Assembly, and was roundly criticised by opposition parties and trade union federation the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu).

"E-tolling is on track. It has been to Parliament and now it’s waiting for approval by the National Council of Provinces and from there it will be implemented. I suggest you get your e-tags now so that you can get a discount," said Mr Martins on the sidelines of a media briefing meant as an update of road deaths recorded during the Easter weekend.

The minister’s spokesman, Tiyani Rikhotso, said there was no definite time line for how long it would take before e-tolling began.

"The National Council of Provinces will send the bill back to the National Assembly and from there it will go to the president.

"We can’t say how long it will take for the process to come to an end because the bill is not in our hands currently. Parliament runs its own processes and we can’t interfere," Mr Rikhotso said.

He said there would be no further public consultation concerning the proposed tolls.

One of the major criticisms levelled at the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project, as the main tolling project is called, has been the ability of the government to collect toll fees from users.

Addressing that issue, the minister said it would be the responsibility of the South African National Roads Agency (Sanral) to collect the tolls. He said he was satisfied with the agency’s ability to do so and despite the high number of daily transactions at road gantries, enforcement would not be a problem.

Sanral will use the Criminal Procedure Act to ensure that commuters on the roads that are part of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project pay their tariffs.

Commenting on traffic activity during the Easter period, Mr Martin said: "Preliminary statistics supplied by the South African Police Service indicate that 241 people died as a result of 201 recorded fatal crashes. The final figures will be released once the police and the traffic officials have reconciled the available information. Many of these deaths occurred in villages, townships and other residential areas."

Last week, it was reported that all nine provincial MECs who sit on the shareholders committee of the Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC) had unanimously decided that the corporation should be shut down for failing to fulfil its mandate.

Referring to this, Mr Martins said that nothing had been set in stone.

"We are discussing the matter. What we are looking at is how to make the RTMC work more effectively. We seek to maximise the expertise that the RTMC does.

"We seek to achieve greater excellence. As soon as there is finalisation on that process of discussion, we will make it known," Mr Martins said.

With Nicky Smith

__________

JSC tight-lipped over ‘robust’ debate on transformation document

 Franny Rabkin, Business Day, 08 April 2013

 

THE Judicial Service Commission (JSC) was tight-lipped on Monday about its transformation debate, with spokesman Dumisa Ntsebeza SC saying only it was "robust".

The JSC is gathered in Cape Town to interview candidates for the Supreme Court of Appeal and various high courts. Monday’s closed-doors meeting was to discuss other agenda items, including an internal discussion document by commissioner Izak Smuts SC, which had been commissioned by the JSC at its October meeting last year. In it, Mr Smuts suggested "an honest debate" about the JSC’s approach to the appointment of white men, as there was a "very real perception" that it was "set against" appointing white men except in exceptional circumstances.

The "robust" discussion continued way past the JSC’s scheduled 1pm lunch break, with the commission only breaking for a quick bite at 2.30pm, and was set to go on into the afternoon.

Mr Ntsebeza said Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng would address the media on the outcome of the discussion on Tuesday.

Related files

·         PDF: JSC discussion paper on transformation

"Transformation" has become a short-hand term for the constitutional imperative that, when choosing judges, the JSC must consider "the need for the judiciary to reflect broadly the racial and gender composition of South Africa".

However, what this means in practice is the subject of an ongoing, and passionate, debate in the legal fraternity.

Some, like Mr Smuts, argue that the injunction in the constitution is only that the need for a representative judiciary "must be considered". It does not require the promotion of black and women candidates as a matter of course, he said in his paper.

Others say the pace of change is too slow and that unless the judiciary quickly becomes more reflective of South Africa’s population, it will lose legitimacy in the eyes of the public. The JSC is routinely lambasted from both sides of this debate: there is outrage when there are no women short-listed for a post on the Constitutional Court, and also when certain white male candidates are overlooked. But the JSC commissioning Mr Smuts’s document signifies a willingness to engage with the criticism.

__________

Closing the education gap

Reuters, Fin24, 09 April 2013

 

Johannesburg - It's the last day of term at Curro Serengeti Academy in Johannesburg and students have swapped their blue uniforms for their own clothes, but as they escape for the holidays there is no rest for the builders. 

The school, which opened just over a year ago, is targeting 2 000 pupils in the next decade from around 900 now and is already building a huge auditorium and classroom extensions. 

A growing demand for private schools like Curro Serengeti from a burgeoning African middle class is creating the ideal conditions for private equity deals in the continent's education sector.

Private equity firms can reap internal rates of return of between 25 and 30% if they can ride a long-term investment of up to 12 years and possible shifts in legislation unscathed. 

"There are a lot of rich people in Nigeria, in Dar es Salaam, Nairobi, Accra, who would like their children to get a great education," one senior private equity executive said.

"It ranks way up in the hierarchy of needs for people who are making $5 000 a year. If we had the right partner we could put up 20 great private schools in African capitals in three years."

Investing in education has its challenges as building schools is costly and it takes a long time to generate returns. 

Regulations in Africa tend to be relaxed, but there is still the exposure to possible sudden changes in legislation, said Karan Khemka of consulting firm Parthenon Group, who has seen some emerging market countries ban fee increases overnight. 

"We've seen very tight regimes become very relaxed. We've seen very relaxed regimes go to ultra tight," he said.

More schools please

African countries need to invest heavily in education to develop a skilled workforce and reduce high unemployment. 

Although the region has made progress in expanding school access in the past decade, it has the world's lowest secondary school enrolment rates, according to US think tank the Brookings Institution.

Private equity bankers compare Africa's potential with emerging markets such as Brazil, India and China, which have attracted significant investment into their education sectors.

Africa-focused fund Development Partners International is working on two opportunities in the sector, partner Eduardo Gutierrez said, and emerging markets firm Actis, which has made investments in Chinese and Brazilian education companies, also has its eye on the continent.

"Education is a really important sector for us globally," said Simon Harford, its co-head for Africa. 

"Education in Africa needs to be funded and developed and advanced and we would love to play a part in that."

So far, private equity education deals have been rare given the prevalence of small institutions, many started by entrepreneurs.

Actis, whose minimum investment size is $40-$50m, says one option is merging companies to create scale. Harford said another option was to await organic scale.

Curro parent Curro Holdings, majority-owned by the private equity arm of investment company PSG Group [JSE:PSG], is one of the few examples of a private equity-backed education group in Africa. 

The only other South African listed education company is Advtech Group [JSE:ADH].

PSG CEO Piet Mouton said the value of its 2009 investment in Curro has already increased fivefold.

It could take anywhere from seven to 12 years for a new school to fill up and make money, but when full it should generate core profit margins of up to 40%, he added.

"Anybody who wants to compete with us has got to have a thick skin," said Mouton. "It's a phenomenal model but you've got to be able to stomach a J curve." 

Insatiable demand

For investors, typically multilateral institutions or impact funds that have social as well as financial motives, the appeal of education is that demand for schools is growing faster than incomes.

By 2020, 128 million African households will earn $5 000 a year or more, consulting firm McKinsey says, enabling them to spend half their income on non-food items. 

Africa's middle class families - those earning $20 000 or more - outnumber India's. 

"That creates an insatiable demand, especially in emerging economies. It's a demand that governments simply cannot meet," said Robert Lytle, who co-heads Parthenon's education practice. 

"At least a solid half dozen" global private equity players are looking for opportunities in African education, he added.

Globally, the attention given to education as an asset class has soared in recent years. More deals, including private equity and mergers and acquisitions, have been done outside the United States in the last five years than in the prior 15, according to Parthenon. 

Brazil is home to some of the world's largest publicly-traded education companies, partly owned by private equity firms. These include Anhanguera Educacional and Estacio Participacoes, which has seen its stock price double in the last year.

In India, $1bn of private equity has gone into education in the last four years, said Sandeep Aneja, managing director of Kaizen Private Equity, which now wants to expand in Africa in the next three years.

Curro Holdings, whose share price has nearly quadrupled since listing, sees huge potential in its back yard and is aiming for 80 schools by 2020 from 26 now.

Academies like Curro Serengeti, where average fees are R3 000 a month, provide an alternative to often overcrowded state schools and pricier top-end independent schools. 

Founder Chris van der Merwe said private equity backing had let the firm build schools faster than it could have done otherwise, taking the burden off stretched public resources.

"For each school that we build we save the state about R60m," he said. 

____________

Telkom predicts 20% drop in profit

Nick Hedley, Business Day, 09 April 2013

 

TELKOM on Monday warned of a drop in headline earnings per share for the year to March of at least 20%, coming after a substantial drop in earnings a year ago.

The news follows a 33% decline to 324.7c in the previous financial year, and this year may be worse.

Absa Investments private client asset management head Craig Pheiffer said the update was “not much of a surprise at all” and that the decline “should comfortably be greater than 20%”.

“For the first half of the year, Telkom reported headline earnings per share of 37.2c — so you would need a pretty big second half to get close to 324.7c.”

Consensus earnings per share numbers “seem to indicate a decline of 40%-50% for the year, so we will have to see when Telkom updates its trading statement what will happen to headline earnings per share”.

Telkom appointed former Vodacom MD Sipho Maseko as its new CEO late last month, while also appointing Telkom Business MD Brian Armstrong as chief operating officer.

Also last month, the company announced a fresh round of retrenchments and early retirements in a bid to cut costs.

BMI-TechKnowledge MD Denis Smit said Telkom was facing “fierce competition” and falling prices, and needed to “aggressively tackle its cost base”. Mr Smit said Telkom now had a “strong board” but the remaining uncertainty was now the “government’s role for Telkom going forward”.

Last week, the Department of Communications released its draft national broadband policy for comment, saying Telkom would provide “the bulk of the core backbone structure”, with support from state-owned companies and the private sector.

Mr Smit said that while the telecommunications industry was very competitive, “our cost bases are still very high in this country — we’re still way above international benchmarks, so competition is good”.

He added that Telkom’s rivals should not underestimate it, as it was “competing vigorously and doing the right things”.

“They are totally capable of coming back on track. Obviously the caveat to that is the strategic decisions the government needs to make in terms of the broadband strategy going forward. That’s the missing piece of the puzzle right now,” he said.

Bataung Capital Advisors MD Tota Tsotsotso said the market expected a decline in headline earnings per share of almost 40%. The company’s share price has declined 39% over the past 12 months.

With Thabiso Mochiko

_____________

Commission finds cartel in glass sector

I-Net Bridge, Fin24, 08 April 2013

 

Johannesburg - The Competition Commission has referred its findings of cartel conduct against Glass SA‚ National Glass‚ Northern Hardware and Glass‚ Furman Glass‚ McCoy’s Glass and AF-FSL Glass.

The six firms‚ which are active in the manufacturing and distribution of glass products‚ face allegations of price fixing‚ market allocation and the fixing of trading conditions for float‚ laminated and toughened glass in the Gauteng‚ Free State and Western Cape regions. This was done through various arrangements and agreements amongst the respondents.

Float glass is the key input for the manufacture of windows while laminated glass is a type of safety glass used in automobile windshields and skylight glazing. Toughened glass crumbles into granular chunks and is unlikely to cause injury when broken and is as such used in passenger vehicle windows‚ shower doors‚ refrigerator trays and various types of plates and cookware‚ the commission said on Monday.

The commission initiated this investigation into cartel activity in February 2010 based on information it received in a leniency application by AF-FSL Glass on June 8 2009. AF-FSL was granted conditional leniency from prosecution.

In its investigation the commission found that between 1995 and 2007 cartel members had telephone conversations and held various “boys’ club” meetings where they fixed minimum selling prices‚ the percentage by which minimum prices would increase and the date for the implementation of the fixed prices. The cartel members further agreed not to undercut one another by providing competitive prices to customers that “belonged” to each other and in 2005 they agreed to introduce a distribution or transport levy of 3% of the price charged to customers. The “boys’ club” meetings were held at hotels‚ pubs‚ sports clubs and on boat trips to Zimbabwe.

The commission has asked the Competition Tribunal to impose an administrative penalty of 10% of annual turnover on each of the firms involved. 

_________

FIVE MINUTES: South Africa

Daily Maverick Staff Reporter, 09 April 2013

 

A round-up of the day's news from South Africa.

SA POLITICIANS EXPRESS SADNESS AT DEATH OF MARGARET THATCHER

President Jacob Zuma has sent a message of condolence to the family of former British prime minister, Baroness Thatcher, who died from a stroke on Monday. He said the thoughts and prayers of South Africans were with the people of the United Kingdom. The ANC said Margaret Thatcher’s death signalled “the end of a generation of leaders that ruled during a very difficult period characterised by the dynamics of the cold war”. It said despite her well-known anti-ANC stance, “she was one of the strong leaders in Britain and Europe” and that “her impact will still be felt and her views a subject of discussion”. IFP leader

Mangosuthu Buthelezi said he was “devastated” by her death. "She is an iconic figure in world history,” he said.

JSC DEBATES WHETHER WHITE MEN CAN JUDGE

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) is debating whether white men should be appointed to the bench. A discussion document leaked to the media questioned a “real perception in certain quarters that the JSC is, in general, set against the appointment of white male candidates except in exceptional circumstances”. JSC spokesman Dumisa Ntsebeza told Sapa the organisation was still discussing the issue “on its merits”. The paper, prepared by senior counsel Izak Smuts, titled Transformation and the Judicial Service Commission’ has caused a stir as it called for an “honest debate” over the appointment of white men. He said if the majority view was that white men only be considered in exceptional circumstance, a view he does not hold, the JSC  “should at the very least come clean and say so.”

BLOEMFONTEIN ARTS ACADEMY GUILTY OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

The Human Rights Commission of South Africa says a Bloemfontein arts academy is guilty of human rights violations. Spokesman Isaac Mangena said the Creare Training Centre violated the rights to “equality, dignity, religion, freedom of association, freedom and security of the person, and education as enshrined in the Constitution”. Deputy justice and constitutional development minister Andries Nel asked the HRCSA to investigate as the Centre’s Relationship Etiquette prospectus opposed same sex relationships and called for discipline or barring gays and lesbians from attending classes. Earlier, the Sunday Times reported the academy had said it could “cure” homosexuals through its rehabilitation programme.

TEACHERS TO EMBARK ON A GO-SLOW

Teachers belonging to the Democratic Teachers' Union (Sadtu) have made good on their threat to take part in a go-slow, starting on Tuesday when inland schools re-open. General secretary, Mugwena Maluleke, said teachers would not work outside teaching hours nor would they mark matric supplementary exams written in February. The union has listed a number of grievances against education minister Angie Motshekga, and have called for her resignation and that of her director general, Bobby Soobrayan. They said the education department had failed to honour its agreement to give exam markers a 6.8% increase. Sadtu is also opposed to Motshekga’s plan to introduce a fingerprint-based clocking-in system intended to monitor when teachers arrive for work and government’s intention to make teaching an essential service.

ZUMA CALLS ON PUBLIC SEVANTS TO ‘WORK HARDER’

A patriotic, effective and efficient cadre of public servants is vital in today’s global and competitive world, President Jacob Zuma says. In a message to South Africa’s public servants, Zuma said they had to “work harder to improve people’s experience of government services”. He said while many “meaningful achievements” could be attributed public servants there was “still much room for improvement in departments, particularly in areas such as payment of suppliers within 30 days and the setting and monitoring of service delivery standards”. Zuma’s message comes in the wake of a controversial call by minister in the presidency, Trevor Manuel, for government to stop blaming apartheid for “mediocre” service delivery, saying it could no longer plead “ignorance or inexperience”.

WHERE’S THE SECOND CAR MOU, MINISTER?

Democratic Alliance defence spokesman David Maynier wants a copy of South Africa’s second Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for defence co-operation with the Central African Republic. He said it was “extremely concerning” that five months after it was signed, the treaty and public document “is nowhere to be found”. Maynier said defence minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula told the Joint Standing Committee on Defence meeting that the second MoU differs from the previous one signed in 2007 in that South Africa was mandated to participate in disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration in the CAR. “This raises the question as to whether the Department of Defence is trying to hide the real reasons for the deployment of the SANDF in the CAR or whether it was pure administrative incompetence,” Maynier said.

BAIL GRANTED TO FOUR MEN CHARGED IN RUGBY MURDER

The four men charged with murdering rugby fan Brett Williams in Durban have been given bail of R5,000 each, Sapa reports. Magistrate Vanitha Armu said although there had been a public outcry over the attack, it was clear the men were not flight risks. Brothers Blayne and Kyle Shepard, Andries van der Merwe, and Dustin van Wyk were also banned from Kings Park stadium until the completion of their trial. They were also forbidden from contacting a fifth accused, Grant Cramer, who was released on R2000 bail on Thursday. Prosecutor Krishen Shah said Williams had an altercation with Cramer outside Kings Park stadium on the night of 23 March. Shah said Cramer "had a choke hold" on Williams and he lost consciousness. Although paramedics revived him, the other four accused "kicked and punched" him in a second altercation later on. Williams was declared dead at the scene.

ZUMA AND TOP SIX LAY DOWN THE LAW IN MBIZANA

Top leaders of the ANC have told the officials in the Eastern Cape’s Mbizana municipality to resign. President Jacob Zuma and his top six visited the area on Friday and told the mayor, speaker, and chief whip to tender their resignations. They also want the municipal manager’s contract reviewed. ANC Eastern Cape spokesman Mlibo Qoboshiyane said the municipality had been placed under provincial administration last year, but that there was “total defiance of both the province and national guidance”. Qoboshiyane said the ANC was intolerant of municipal administrative chaos where service delivery takes a back seat to infighting, lack of accountability and improper appointments. “Corrupt practices continues unabated,” he said, adding that the top six were honouring their commitment to cleaning up municipal problems.

_______________

4.    Alliance

JZ approves interim SABC board

iAfrica, 09 April 2013

President Jacob Zuma has endorsed the interim SABC board recommended by Parliament, the communications department said on Monday.

The interim board comprises chairwoman Zandile Tshabalala, her deputy Noluthando Gosa, economist Iraj Abedian, former public service commission member Vusumzi Mavuso, and chartered accountant Ronnie Lubisi.

Last month, Parliament adopted a resolution to dissolve the SABC board and recommended an interim board to guide the public broadcaster.

"The next process is that the board now deals with the day-to-day strategic issues that the SABC board has to deal with," department spokesperson Siyabulela Qoza said.

Qoza said Communications Minister Dina Pule met the interim board during bilateral meetings on Thursday. The interim board can sit for only six months.

Parliament is now expected to initiate a public process of inviting people to serve on a permanent board, and interviewing them.

In March, Zuma accepted the resignations of most members of the SABC board, including chairman Ben Ngubane and his deputy Thami ka Plaatjie.

He later received and accepted the resignations of Lumko Mtimde, John Danana, Cedric Gina, Desmond Golding, Cawe Mahlati, and Noluthando Gosa.

The exodus followed a row between Ngubane and the board, reportedly about acting chief operating officer Hlaudi Motsoeneng's tenure.

_________

Derby-Lewis 'is very sorry'

iAfrica, 09 April 2013

 

Convicted killer Clive Derby-Lewis wants to apologise for his role in the assassination of SACP general secretary Chris Hani, according to a report on Tuesday.

The New Age reported that Derby-Lewis's attorney Marius Coertze indicated that his client wanted to meet Hani's widow, Limpho.

"He is very sorry about the whole thing," Coertze said.

Limpho was reportedly reluctant and asked for privacy as the family was preparing for the 20-year anniversary of Hani's killing on 10 April.

SA Communist Party spokesperson Malesela Maleka said Derby-Lewis needed to reveal more about the assassination.

"There is an outstanding matter with them as far as the [Truth and Reconciliation Commission] is concerned; they need to have full disclosure from the people who were involved in the assassination of Chris Hani.

"That's the reason they were denied amnesty. They did not tell the truth."

It was reported on Sunday that Derby-Lewis, who has been diagnosed with hypertension and cancer, was denied medical parole.

In 2011, he was also denied medical parole.

Derby-Lewis was sentenced to 25 years in prison for his role in the 1993 killing.

He had arranged a firearm for hit-man Janusz Walus. Both were initially sentenced to death but this was commuted to life in prison when the death penalty was abolished.

___________

NEWS ANALYSIS: ANC could change the image of youth league

Setumo Stone, Business Day, 08 April 2013

 

A DECISION on Monday on the temporary leadership of the African National Congress (ANC) Youth League could change the image of the ANC’s young politicians.

The ruling party has cast its eye across young people in South Africa — inside and outside the party — searching for a leader who is going to breathe new life into its collapsed youth wing.

The ANC wants youth leaders that appeal to young people, particularly those in the voting age group.

It wants young, educated people who are able to connect with the youth without necessarily raising their voice, says ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe, describing the calibre of the youth leader the party has been searching for for almost four weeks.

The league under Julius Malema was deemed rowdy and this was unattractive to sections of the youth wing’s potential supporters and ultimately ANC voters. "Ill-discipline" was cited as a major factor that led to the once-powerful league’s downfall, when the ANC national executive committee (NEC) last month dissolved the youth wing’s top leadership.

The party’s national working committee meets on Monday to finalise the matter, but the task of finding a new face for the league — someone who has little in common with Mr Malema — has proven difficult.

The ANC is not short of young leaders who meet the criteria for the job. A cursory glance at the overall academic profile of the league’s NEC — formerly led by Mr Malema — is revealing of both the league under Mr Malema and the quality of possible leadership contenders.

It is a misconception that the ANC Youth League upper echelons were uneducated delinquents. While a few of the 30-member executive had no post-matric tertiary qualification, at least one had a master’s degree in business administration; one was a qualified mechanical engineer; two had law degrees, with one being an admitted attorney ; three had undergraduate degrees and five had a national diploma in one or other field.

Among the possible candidates mentioned to pick up the mantle as head of the league were Young Communist League deputy chairman Mawethu Rune, former South African Students Congress secretary-general Magasela Mzobe and ANC deputy chief whip in Parliament Nkhensani Kubayi.

The name of football player and Kaizer Chiefs star Jimmy Tau has also been bandied about.

But are these young people the answer to the ANC’s difficulty in attracting the young vote?

The ANC has requested young people to submit their CVs to the league’s interim leadership for consideration. As a result, young people have been seen flocking to Luthuli House with brown envelopes, delivering their CVs. However, this appears to be an attempt to depoliticise a tricky political situation.

Not long after President Jacob Zuma was re-elected in Mangaung last December — amid opposition from the youth league — the youth wing was given three options: to work with the new ANC leadership; to convene an early national conference to fill vacant posts left after Mr Malema’s expulsion and the suspension of league secretary-general Sindiso Magaqa; or to disband.

The league wanted an early conference, however, Mr Zuma’s leadership opted to disband the whole ANC Youth League structure. This means temporary leadership must be put together to rebuild the young wing. Since it has been chosen by the mother party, this also means that the new leadership of the organisation is unlikely to challenge Mr Zuma’s authority.

Political analyst Ralph Mathekga says the ANC’s primary challenge would be to come up with individuals who appear neutral and who are not tainted by the party’s factional infighting.

"The idea should be that those new leaders that come in should have credibility," Mr Mathekga says. Those appointed would be expected to toe the ANC line, to avoid a repeat of what happened when Mr Malema was in charge of the league, he says.

However, a key question remains : the ANC wants to change the image of the youth league, but what does it want to change it to?

_____________

Zuma and ANC tactful about Thatcher legacy

 Sam Mkokeli, Business Day, 09 April 2013

THE government and the ruling party struck a diplomatic cord on the death of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, as her passing drew both praise and vilification in South Africa on Monday.

Lady Thatcher opposed calls for the British government to impose sanctions on apartheid South Africa at a time when most Commonwealth countries thought it appropriate to do so. She upset African National Congress (ANC) leaders when she referred to the party, banned in South Africa at the time, as a "terrorist" organisation.

Icons including Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu were among those infuriated by Lady Thatcher’s resistance to the campaign to isolate the apartheid regime.

Former president FW de Klerk and Inkatha Freedom Party leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi on Monday both praised Lady Thatcher and described her as a "friend" who was supportive to them.

Mr de Klerk said Lady Thatcher was a leading light.

"Although she was always a steadfast critic of apartheid, she had a much better grasp of the complexities and geo-strategic realities of South Africa than many of her contemporaries. She consistently, and correctly, believed that much more could be achieved through constructive engagement with the South African government than through draconian sanctions and isolation.

"She also understood the need to consider the concerns and aspirations of all South Africans in their search for constitutional consensus."

Lady Thatcher had played a positive role in supporting South Africa’s own process of nonracial constitutional transformation, Mr de Klerk said. "From my first meeting with her in London after my election as leader of the National Party in 1989 and throughout the rest of her tenure as prime minister, she gave strong and valued support to me and to all other leaders who were working for a peaceful, prosperous and constitutional future for South Africa ."

Mr de Klerk had met Lady Thatcher in South Africa and abroad on numerous occasions. "We met in the Cape and in London many times after her retirement from office and before her stroke in 2002 ."

Prince Buthelezi said Lady Thatcher was an important global leader. " (She) will forever command my respect and admiration, not only for her leadership in the UK, but for her leadership on global matters."

She was a "voice of reason" during apartheid and "listened attentively to my plea against sanctions and economic disinvestment, which we both recognised would hurt the poorest of our people the most", Prince Buthelezi said.

"I was privileged to visit Lady Thatcher at 10 Downing Street in 1986, and was honoured when she specifically travelled to Ulundi to visit me as the chief minister of the erstwhile KwaZulu government.

"Never before had an international dignitary shown such respect for a black leadership."

President Jacob Zuma, in a terse statement, expressed his condolences. "Our thoughts and prayers are with the family of Lady Thatcher and the people of the UK during this difficult time," he said.

ANC spokesman Jackson Mthembu said the party had been at the receiving end of Lady Thatcher’s policies when she opposed the idea of sanctions against apartheid South Africa.

She "was one of the strong leaders in Britain … to an extent some of her policies dominate discourse in the public service structures of the world. Long after her passing on, her impact will still be felt .… "

_______________________ 

5.    International

Six million jobs lost in EU since 2008

AFP, Fin24, 08 April 2013

 

Geneva - European Union economies have shed almost six million jobs since the global economic crisis struck in 2008, the International Labour Organisation said on Monday.

In a report on the European labour market, the UN agency said the employment rate across the 27-nation EU stood at 57.6% in 2012, down 1.6 percentage points on 2008.

"This means that there is still a deficit of 5.9 million jobs to restore employment rates to their pre-crisis levels," the ILO said.

A million jobs have been lost in the past six months alone, it noted.

It underlined that despite some signs of labour market recovery that started to materialise in 2010, only five EU members - Austria, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg and Malta - have employment rates above pre-crisis levels.

Countries such as Cyprus, Greece, Portugal and Spain have seen a steady decline in employment rates of more than three percentage points.

As of February, official unemployment stood at 26.3 million in Europe, or 10.2 million more than in 2008, the ILO said.

"Importantly, while the deterioration of employment paused during 2010-2011, it has gained momentum over the past year," it noted.

Average unemployment in the EU has reached 10.9% - with double digit rates in some of the most crisis-afflicted countries - and a record of 12% in the 17-nation eurozone.

Young and unskilled workers have been the hardest hit, with youth unemployment across the EU at 23.5% and stark rates of 58 percent in Greece and 55% in Spain.

Companies have increasingly turned to part-time and temporary contracts meanwhile, underscoring the bleak outlook, the ILO said.

"The above trends suggest that is necessary to move to a job-friendly strategy. Much of the emphasis so far has been on reducing budget deficits and restoring external competitiveness through 'internal devaluations'," it said.

"While fiscal and competitiveness goals are important, it is crucial not to tackle them through ill-conceived austerity measures and structural reforms that do not address the root causes of the crisis," it added.

The ILO said that more measures were needed to resolve systemic problems in the financial sector and to unlock credit for small firms.

"More and more countries face downward pressures on wages and employment, thereby affecting domestic consumption and investment and eroding intra-EU trade," it warned.

_____________

Coal miners greet news of Thatcher's death as 'great day'

Sapa-dpa, Times Live, 08 April  2013

 

Former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher's death was Monday greeted as a "great day" by coal miners.

Thatcher became a hated figure among northern mining communities in the 1980s after she clashed with the unions, refusing to give in to their demands.

"For the union this could not come soon enough and I'm pleased that I have outlived her," said David Hopper, general secretary of the Durham Miners' Association, who turned 70 on Monday. "It looks like one of the best birthdays I have ever had."

Miners have suggested that they may hold a demonstration at her funeral.

"She absolutely hated working people and I have got very bitter memories of what she did," he added. "She turned all the nation against us and the violence that was meted out on us was terrible."

_____________

Thatcher Legacy Sees Employment Rising Amid U.K. Slump

 Robert Hutton, Bloomberg, 09   April  2013

Margaret Thatcher is keeping a record number of Britons in work, nearly 30 years after her policies drove unemployment to the highest in living memory.

 

April 8 (Bloomberg) -- David "Danny" Blanchflower, former Bank of England policy maker and a Bloomberg Television contributing editor, talks about the career of former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who died today after suffering a stroke. Blanchflower, speaking with Erik Schatzker and Stephanie Ruhle on Bloomberg Television's "Market Makers," also talks about Federal Reserve monetary policy. Bruce Richards, chief executive officer of Marathon Asset Management LP, also speaks. (Source: Bloomberg)

Slammed in swathes of northern Britain for shutting down industries from shipbuilding to mining, Thatcher’s vision of the job market has now led to 29.8 million people in work at the end of December, more than at any time in history. That’s after adouble-dip recession and the country’s worst financial crisis since World War II.

“I would have expected unemployment to rise quite a lot further, perhaps another million wouldn’t have been surprising,” said Nicholas Crafts, professor of economic history at Warwick University. “If we ask why it hasn’t risen further, the answer is real wage flexibility. The reforms Thatcher put in place brought down unemployment largely after she left office.”

Thatcher, who died yesterday at the age of 87 from a stroke, fought battles with labor unions to reduce their power, sold state industries and opened the economy to competition, as well as unleashing a revolution in the City of London.

The result was unemployment that reached a postwar high of 3.3 million people, a rate of 11.9 percent, in 1984, a social legacy that divides the country to this day. While the likes of Prime Minister David Cameron and her successor, John Major, praised Thatcher yesterday, people reacted in Glasgow, Scotland’s main city, by dancing in the street.

“Unemployment went through the roof, we had riots,” former Labour lawmaker Clare Short told the BBC. “She did enormous damage.”

‘Divided Opinion’

“We can’t deny that Lady Thatcher divided opinion,” Cameron said outside his Downing Street office last night. “For many of us, she was and is an inspiration. For others, she was a force to be defined against. But if there is one thing that cuts through all of this -- one thing that runs through everything she did -- it was her lion-hearted love for this country. She was the patriot prime minister.”

Cameron’s list of Thatcher’s fights focused on the economic. “Taking on the union barons, privatizing industry, unleashing enterprise, rescuing the economy,” he said. “When today we admire Britain’s strongest companies, very often they are ones she helped transform from failing state monoliths to thriving private sector businesses.”

British Airways Plc, Centrica Plc (CNA), British Telecommunications Plc (BT/A), BP Plc (BP/)and BAE Systems Plc (BA/) all traced their origins as public companies to the Thatcher government. Ordinary people were encouraged to buy the shares.

Banking was opened up with the introduction of electronic trading, and access given to foreign banks, helping London to maintain its status as a global financial hub.

Strike ‘Discontent’

Thatcher came to power in 1979 after a wave of strikes dubbed “the winter of discontent.” Water and rail workers, truckers and oil-tanker drivers, ambulance personnel and gravediggers, teachers, dock workers and garbage collectors all stopped work. She was determined to reduce union power, and introduced rules to restrict when they could strike and whether they could force people to join.

Her success made it easier for companies to cut pay and hours in the latest recession.

“The 1970s were a bad decade for the U.K.; it seemed as if everything was going wrong -- we had stagflation, little growth and high inflation, the place was depressing to live in,” Howard Davies, a professor at the French School of Political Science who worked under Thatcher as a Treasury official, said in an interview with Tom Keene on Bloomberg Radio’s Bloomberg Surveillance. “When she came in, there was a sense of what was possible, a sense that the U.K. did not need to condemn itself to genteel decline and that it was possible to turn things round.”

Employment Rebound

One difference can be seen in unemployment. After the most recent recession, it peaked at 2.7 million, or 8.4 percent in 2011. It took four years for employment to pass its June 2008 peak. After previous recessions, job levels took twice that to recover. Employment didn’t reach its 1990 peak until 1998, or its 1979 peak until 1987.

The shift reflects workers accepting real-term pay cuts and shorter working hours: since May 2008, the number of people working full-time has fallen by 400,000 while the number working part-time has risen by 561,000.

“I always fought Mrs. Thatcher, but unemployment would be millions worse in this recession if she hadn’t made our labor market more flexible,” Matthew Oakeshott, a Liberal Democrat lawmaker, wrote on his Twitter Inc. feed.

Widening Gap

According to Crafts at Warwick University, losers under Thatcher were low-paid male manual workers, as their jobs went overseas. Income inequality also rose.

“The poor got poorer, for the first time in a century,” Neil Kinnock, who led the opposition Labour Party against her from 1983 to 1992, told the BBC.

Still, Crafts points out that when Labour under Tony Blair won power back from her Conservatives in 1997, it had accepted her changes and reversed few of them.

“She moved the center ground of British politics,” Labour’s current leader Ed Miliband said. “She also defined the politics of the 1980s. David Cameron, Nick Clegg and I all grew up in a politics shaped by Lady Thatcher.”

“The economy was in a frightful mess in the 1970s,” Major told the BBC. “Nobody believed we could move from a neo- socialist economy to a free-market economy, and that’s what she achieved.”

Economic Influences

Thatcher said her economic thinking was influenced by the Austrian philosopher Friedrich Hayekand the University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman. Crafts was skeptical of this.

“I really don’t think Thatcher had any sense of economics whatever,” he said. “After the fact one can reconstruct the legacy of what her governments achieved, but she certainly didn’t understand the concepts as far as I can tell.”

One of Thatcher’s great enemies, former Labour London Mayor Ken Livingstone, disputed that she had improved the country. “Almost everything that’s wrong with Britain today is her legacy,” he told Sky News television. “It was her that decided to deregulate the banks. She decided to let our manufacturing wither. She was fundamentally wrong.”

_______________

 

Margaret Thatcher, an enlarger of British freedom

Reuters, Daily Maverick, 09 April 2013

 

My immediate and lasting memory of Mrs. Thatcher - Maggie as we called her - is sitting next to her in the late 1960s at a dinner table as she scorched a bunch of City of London financial types. I was astonished. She wasn't yet the Iron Lady. She wasn't in government. Labour was in power. She was an obscure back bench Conservative MP, elected only in 1959, noticed in those sexist days as much for her hats and aggressive hair style as for her passionate defence of grammar schools under threat of closure from Labour. By Sir Harold Evans.

What she did with the City of London men was later characterised as a "hand-bagging." A black Asprey bag she always carried was metaphorically wielded against people she saw as standing in the way of the greatness of Britain, as Boudica, the leader of a British tribe, wielded a lance against the Roman occupiers. I suppose that as the new national editor of The Sunday Times of London, and with normal male presumption, I had expected to lead the questioning of the ten or so big names and the table. I didn't stand a chance.

Maggie pounded and pummeled them all by herself for an hour. I can't pretend this is verbatim but it went something like this: "All you people are interested in is moving paper around, making money not things. What are you doing for British industry? When are you going to help business stand up to the unions?"

They murmured, they shuffled, they were outclassed. British elections - six weeks to a vote and no paid television ads - have never been as corrupted by money as much as those in America, so she was not turning off a potential source of funding as an American candidate would fear to do. Still these were men - all men of course - who were influential and articulate and used to reverence not rebuke.

Maggie could be seductive in private conversation one on one, more so as she matured, the strident voice of the public halls giving way to a softer, more seductive style, hand on an arm, intent eye to eye in persuasion.

She was afraid of nobody, respecter of no convention she considered archaic. The British custom at dinner parties was always for the host to murmur "coffee?" which was signal for "the ladies" to leave for the powder room while the men, over cigars and port, got down to serious business. It was a small sensation, regarded in some circles as a grave breach of etiquette, when at a dinner party I attended thrown by her egregious confidante Woodrow Wyatt, Maggie stayed in her seat unabashed, uninvited, and unfazed by the arguments over the cigars - in this case by a couple of captains of industry who wanted to be part of Europe while she defiantly raised the Union Jack.

The trade unions in Britain at the time were busy wreaking havoc on industry. The far left had infiltrated Labour constituencies. Labour candidates were as scared of the militants then as primary Republicans are of the Tea Party candidates today. Local union chiefs called wildcat strikes and disrupted production.

The union movement, with some Labour ministers in support, threatened a closed shop in the press which would have curtailed free speech. I'd spoken out against it as had the then editor of The Guardian, Alastair Hetherington. At another of those endless London dinners where Maggie was the speaker and still not in government, she referred to me as "one of us." I wasn't.

I was just expressing a view on an issue. We had many things in common, both from the north, both educated in state schools, both brought up in a grocer's shop, in my case one my mother started, in hers one her father ran. I admired her. I was one of the millions of voters in the 1979 general election which put her into power as the first woman prime minister. The country was in dreadful shape, fearful and anxious during a winter of discontent in which trade union militants blocked cancer patients getting treatment and garbage piled up in the center of London.

She saved Britain from anarchy and immediately restored a sense of purpose. She could be rough. As Prime Minister, she had a limited tolerance for dissent and an infinite regard for personal loyalty. If you were not with on her everything, she regarded you as disloyal, as unreliable, lacking conviction. I suppose it was the reverse mirror of her indomitable courage.

How valiant she was when the IRA terrorists blew up her conference hotel. They tried to murder her and almost succeeded. She was often vindicated. She was impatient with excuses for inertia and woolliness - vividly represented in Meryl Streep's representation of her cutting off a Cabinet member in mid speech.

I disappointed her by giving space in The Times to critics, especially one of them, Edward Heath, whom she'd ousted as Prime Minister. The imperatives of news meant we published news stories she didn't like. She'd sunk in the polls and recession deepened. Relations became a little chillier. As an editor, I'd never sought to cosy up to political leaders, but I now understand more of what she was up against - the Tory snobs in the counties, the plotters in the party who eventually betrayed her, the "wets" and the "wimps" who would yield on a principle she considered vital.

When she became Prime Minister I was editor of The Times. We backed her a hundred per cent on trade union reforms, on holding the line on pay, especially in the public sector and on advocating more competition in the banking industry, on free trade, on resisting terrorism in Northern Ireland. I told her I thought she moved too slowly against trade union anarchy, but she bided her time and planned well. She won a famous victory against the coal miners, badly led by a firebrand who took money from Gaddafi, and it was thanks to her stalwart support of Rupert Murdoch, whom she admired as a free-booting entrepreneur, that he was able to win the battle of Wapping which ended the guerilla warfare of the print unions.

Margaret Thatcher, whatever the missteps, will take her place in the pantheon of heros - sorry, heroines - who enlarged British freedom.

___________

Margaret Thatcher, The Iron Lady, mortal after all

J Brooks Spector, Daily Maverick, 09 April 2013

 

Margaret Thatcher is most widely remembered for ensuring that not an inch of British territory was surrendered in the Falkland Islands fracas to the bully boys of the Argentine military junta. But it was her passionate embrace of free market and its broader political implications that helped her start a global revolution in government economic stewardship. J BROOKS SPECTOR examines the legacies of the woman who put Britain back on the map.

By the time her political life had been fully led, she had become an instantly recognisable "ism" – unlike the impact of almost any previous British prime minister. “Thatcherism” was a blend of steadfast free market economics and trimming back hard at government subsidies and entitlements at home; forceful, assertive pro-Western alliance policies abroad; and a revolutionary approach to British politics – especially her own political home, the Conservative Party, when she brought in the techniques and ideas of American-style campaigning to the closed world of British electioneering.

Born the stalwart upper-lower-middle-class grocer’s daughter with conservative values to match, and groomed by her father to grasp for political leadership; after a university education in chemistry at Oxford, step by step she constructed herself into the perfect political animal (with the help and guidance of veteran politicians like Keith Joseph) with a deft, devastating turn of phrase used to skewer opponents. Thatcher frankly revelled in and was at her best when she was taking on a stubborn opponent – whether it was miners union’s head Arthur Scargill, Argentina’s authoritarian admirals and generals, the Soviet Union’s Mikhail Gorbachev – or even the  “wets” of her own, by-then-spineless, principle-less Tory Party. 

By the time she was forced to relinquish the prime ministership after more than 11 years in office – more than any other 20^th-century prime minister and, incidentally as the country’s first and only female prime minister – she had rebuilt British society, its economy and, most of all, its politics. While many believed then and still believe now that her influence was ruinous on Britain’s cradle-to-grave socialist environment, few will argue she was without a permanent impact on her nation.

Along the way, as she infuriated her opponents, she also created a political persona easy to lampoon – or underestimate at one’s political peril. But she also described, then inhabited, a place in British and global politics that has since been almost impossible to be occupied by anybody else. Along the way, Thatcher forged a partnership with US President Ronald Reagan that helped reconstruct the global landscape. Sometimes some people sniggered that she was the real backbone (and brains) in that partnership, but the US president always fervently embraced her ideas, her support – and her spirit.

Along the way, Thatcher’s boundless enthusiasm for this free marketeerism and its broader political implications – and her belief in its healing, cleansing values for restoring self-respect and vigour in a society – also helped create a global revolution in government economic stewardship. Summing up her impact, The Economist has already pronounced on her legacy, saying, “her willingness to stand up to tyranny helped to bring an end to the Soviet Union. Winston Churchill won a war, but he never created an ‘ism’.”

At its heart, Thatcherism stood in opposition to the status quo – in effect her “ism” bet the house on freedom. For some this could have seemed at cross-purposes with her political philosophy of exuberant conservatism, especially given her controlling management and personal styles. Nevertheless, she believed nations and individuals only truly became great – or returned to greatness – if they were set free. As a result, whatever she did was aligned to her fundamental belief that everyone had the right to run their own lives as free as possible from the interference of that dreaded nanny state.

Her domestic political battles helped give birth to the idea that she was some kind of suburban Boadicea, wearing a good string of pearls and sensible shoes, hammering away at the recalcitrant striking coal miners. But she was just as tough on her own team, mercilessly beating up on the old-style “wets” who reigned from their moneyed enclaves, dusty men’s clubs, and dustier political nostrums. Famously, when British unemployment had moved beyond 2 million persons, she had confronted her own in-house critics in a wickedly clever turn of phrase, “You turn if you want to, the lady’s not for turning.” Take that, you old fogies!

However, despite her success in reshaping her own party in her own image and holding onto the prime ministership for more than 11 years (winning three elections along the way), paradoxically, the impact on her own party was that it effectively stopped being a truly national entity. During her time in power and from the effects of her policies, as an active political force the Tories retreated back to the prosperous southern quadrant of the nation and the lusher suburban swathes; surrendering Scotland, Wales and the virtual expanse of all of the more northern cities to Labour (or smaller regional parties). 

Thus, in an ironic turn, rather than John Major – the politician from her own party who had succeeded Thatcher when she was driven from office – Labour’s Tony Blair benefited most from Thatcher’s reconstruction of British politics. After the rancorous trade unions had been politically neutered, it was Tony Blair who could reconstruct his own party as the “third way” – and then sell it effectively to the vast political and social middle ground in the UK. Blair’s own big win in 1997 brought in 13 years of Labour rule (but it was a Labour as refashioned by Blair) until it was effectively undone by Blair’s embrace of George W Bush’s Gulf War II. 

But rather than the old-style, fire-breathing, red flag-waving Labour Party of yore, this was a Labour Party whose leader, Tony Blair, could claim, “The presumption should be that economic activity is best left to the private sector.” This too was a legacy of Margaret Thatcher’s impact on the British political scene, long after she had left office.

Beyond her reshaping of the British domestic political world, years after her departure from the scene, her views continue to be felt internationally. Hers was a Britain that intellectually punched well above its weight class, measured by national GDP alone. Without doubt, she was the first UK leader since Churchill in World War II who was taken seriously by the heads of every major world power. Eastern European politicians and activists opposed to Soviet-style government and Russian domination idolised her approach, and her arm-in-arm, joined in common cause with Ronald Reagan thereby blocked the Soviet Union at nearly every turn – eventually helping force a change of thinking deep within the Kremlin itself. Even so, her view of Gorbachev as a man the West “could do business with” helped nudge the Cold War to a conclusion. 

The Thatcherite revolution continued further. By the mid 1990s, Russia had privatised thousands of industrial institutions; India had begun to break down the “licence Raj” of nearly impenetrable, red-tape ridden bureaucratic control; and her impact helped generate a further wave of similarly free market activity across Latin America. And during Ronald Reagan’s presidency and extending well into his successors’ terms of office (even unto the terms of Democratic presidents), the predominant style of US government became one that drew back from expansionary government and regulation. Perhaps this pendulum is moving back towards governmental interventionism in the wake of the 2007-8 financial crisis, but, even so, this is in reaction to the Thatcherite revolution.

In the popular view, of course, Margaret Thatcher’s place in history is assured because of her insistence that not an inch of British territory should be surrendered to the likes of the thugs of the Argentine military junta. As a result, she chivvied her government and its defence establishment into carrying out an audacious – and successful – military counterstrike from the UK to the distant reaches of the Falkland Islands in the Southern Atlantic Ocean; this after the Argentine military had sent an occupying force to those same disputed islands in 1982. (Ironically, perhaps, Margaret Thatcher also agreed to the reversion of the British colony of Hong Kong to China to take place at the end of the 20th century.)

Closer to home, back in the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher had infamously characterised the ANC as a terrorist organisation that should never have a role in governing South Africa. In spite of that view, the South African government, in commenting on her passing (and mindful, perhaps of how a friendly nation will react to the passing of a major politician who dominated the political life of a nation over the course of a generation), announced on Monday: “President Jacob Zuma has, on behalf of the government and the people of South Africa, expressed his heartfelt condolences to the government and the people of the United Kingdom, as well as to the family of former Prime Minister Thatcher following her death earlier today at the age of 87. President Zuma said: ‘Our thoughts and prayers are with the family of Lady Thatcher and the people of the United Kingdom during this difficult time.’” Given her comments about South Africa’s liberation movements, that seems a rather magnanimous statement of solicitude from the South African government.

Doubtless, in the coming days and weeks ahead, and certainly during the official state funeral that will take place, there will be encomiums from many quarters on the continuing impact of Thatcher’s ideas and the force of political personality. And many people too will find the elements of their own image of Thatcher drawn from Meryl Streep’s astonishing portrayal of  “The Iron Lady” in a recent film bio-pic. 

But perhaps a defining moment of her own softer side can also be remembered from her eulogy at Ronald Reagan’s funeral – her friend and fellow traveller on ideological and geo-political battlefronts for a decade. These comments, her final moment in the global spotlight after she had suffered a stroke in 2002, came two years later. At that service, she was seated behind Nancy Reagan and adjacent to Mikhail Gorbachev in Washington’s National Cathedral – her prerecorded words coming from a giant video screen as she sat very quietly and reflectively in her pew.

___________

SA soldiers in another central African country: this time it’s different

Simon Allison, Daily Maverick, 09 April 2013

 

The earth had not yet settled on the graves of the soldiers killed in the Central African Republic when our government committed another 1,000 men to another central African war, this time in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It’s a dangerous deployment, but this time we’re going about things the right way. By SIMON ALLISON.

As he announced on Sunday that South Africa would be sending yet more soldiers into central Africa – this time to fight rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo – South African National Defence Force spokesperson Brigadier General Xolani Mabanga was at pains to emphasise that this was in no way related to the botched military operation (or whatever it was – government has yet to properly explain what we were doing there) in the Central African Republic.

“The DRC deployment has nothing to do with the CAR,” he said. “Neither did the CAR incident influence the decision to send the troops into the DRC. They are two different issues.” I know it’s a little difficult to take military spokespeople at their word right now, but Mabanga is right: the DRC is a completely different situation, for a few good reasons.

1. The DRC mission has an international mandate

We’re still waiting to find out why exactly South African soldiers were sent to the CAR in the first place. Government officials have offered a variety of unconvincing and contradictory explanations. We were “protecting assets”, or “training CAR forces”, or “supporting peace and stability”, they say. What we do know is that the deployment was arranged in a bilateral agreement between South Africa and the CAR. This means that in addition to the scarcity of internal oversight of the deployment, there was no international oversight either – South Africa did not have to prove to anyone that its intentions were honourable.

Of course, international oversight – in the form of mandates from international organisations such as the United Nations or African Union – does not guarantee honourable intentions. But it does mean that a certain minimum threshold has to be met in terms of proving that there is just cause for the use of military force. There must a clear danger. Other alternatives, such as negotiation or mediation, must have been exhausted. There must be a clear plan of action and equally clear objectives.

International mandates are not always given. Remember when the United States approached the United Nations to request approval for the war on Iraq? The UN said no (and was promptly ignored by the US, but look how well that turned out).

In the DRC, South African troops will be operating under a UN mandate as part of the United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the DRC (known by the French acronym Monusco). Established in 2010, Monusco is authorised to deploy 19,815 soldiers in the DRC to support the government in its attempts to stabilise the country and to protect civilians from imminent danger or humanitarian disaster.  The bulk of these soldiers come from Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Uruguay and South Africa (the South African contingent currently numbers 1,228, according to the Monusco website).

Last month, Monusco’s mandate was extended by the UN Security Council to March 2014, and altered quite dramatically to incorporate an “intervention force” which is empowered to go on the offensive against rebel groups if necessary. The extra troops being committed by South Africa – possibly as many as 1,000 men – will be part of this new intervention force.

2. There are clearly defined goals and objectives, although this is a dangerous new mission

Monusco’s mandate explains exactly what its purpose in the DRC is, and what it is allowed and not allowed to do. When established in 2010, its main priorities were to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence; help bring perpetrators of human rights violations to justice; help the government create a stable, secure environment in dangerous areas to which refugees and internally displaced persons would return; and help conclude the ongoing military operations against rebels in the east.

In essence, Monusco was created as a peace-keeping operation. This, however, has evolved into what some described as a peace-enforcing operation, whereby the new intervention force is allowed to actively engage in combat operations against the rebels. This is a huge departure from the United Nations’ standard operating procedure, and a potentially significant development in the organisation’s role in tackling conflict areas.

In practice, what this means is that South African troops are taking part in an important but largely untested experiment which could determine the future of conflict resolution. This is invaluable experience for us if we plan on taking more leadership roles in Africa, which appears to be the current policy. It does, however, mean our soldiers are actively looking for a fight; greatly increasing the danger to themselves. And the rebels presumed to be the main target of the intervention force – the M23 movement – have already promised a hostile welcome.

3. There should be adequate military support and back-up, and we know the area

There are a few important advantages for military forces operating as part of a large, multilateral effort: back-up and support.

One of the major problems faced by South African soldiers fighting in the CAR was a basic logistical failure. They did not have enough ammunition to fight the rebels bearing down on them; there were no reinforcements to drag them out of a dangerous situation or air support to provide cover and reconnaissance ability; they didn’t even have proper food, forced to rely for months on emergency ready-to-eat ration packs.

This should not be as much of a problem in the DRC. South Africa has had some military presence in the country since 2000 (originally as part of the United Nations mission which preceded Monusco), so we know the lay of the land and have tried and tested supply chains. We’ll also benefit from the resources of Monusco as a whole, which means that no South African soldier should die from want of a helicopter.

“Logistically there is definitely a bit more preparation on the ground around the area of operations which these troops would be working in,” said defence analyst John Stupart, speaking to the Daily Maverick. “Not just from an SANDF perspective, but also because of the larger UN framework they’re operating in. That means airlift within the DRC, helicopter transport, more armoured vehicles and, if necessary, nearby Quick Reaction Forces who can assist if the SADC troops get into trouble… Essentially it’s a safer environment for less-elite SANDF/SADC troops to operate in, and I think match the task well. In the CAR, the strategic objectives did not really match up to the reality on the ground, which I think is an important distinction to make.”

There is no doubt that the DRC deployment will be dangerous. We may see yet more body bags delivered to Waterkloof Air Base. But – unlike their comrades felled in the Battle of Bangui – we should at least know what they were fighting for, and that we gave them the best possible chance of success.

_____________

Weakening US, EU data destroy recovery hopes

Andy Bruce London, Business Report, 09 April 2013

Just three months in, and already there is a nagging sense that 2013, like last year and the one before, will produce another disappointing vintage for the world economy.

Last week Japan’s $1.4 trillion (R12.7 trillion) monetary barrage stole the show, but it was the dismal turn in data from the US and Europe that brought home how this year is panning out worse than many had hoped.

News that US employers hired far fewer staff last month than even the gloomiest predictions managed to derail the heady rise of stock markets over the last few months.

And business surveys from the euro zone confirmed recession there was dragging on, confounding hopes for improvement, with France’s economy deteriorating sharply.

Hopes now rest with China and that signs of renewed vitality in its economy can underpin the global economy.

“I’m hopeful we’re not going to see the slide back that we’ve seen over the last couple of years,” said Victoria Clarke, an economist at Investec in London. “We see China steadily plugging away, but certainly not a return to double-digit growth. That should at least support the US and more broadly, the global economy.”

Europe remains the weak link, and this week US treasury secretary Jack Lew, in his first official trip, will visit France, Belgium and Germany to discuss ways European economies can stimulate growth.

Lew and his European counterparts have common ground as their respective economic problems are partly home grown – owing to political impasse in the US, and political impotence in Europe.

The US added just 88 000 non-farm jobs last month, the weakest pace in nine months and a sign that Washington’s austerity drive may be sapping momentum from the economy. That came after business surveys showed slowing growth.

“Unfortunately, more recent data suggest that the US has entered another spring slowdown and that the impressive rate of growth in the first quarter won’t be sustained in the second,” Mohamed El-Erian, the co-chief investment officer at Pimco in California, said.

In Europe, such paltry jobs growth would be the envy of many members of the euro zone such as Greece or Spain, where more than one in four workers can’t find employment.

Lew will also discuss a planned free trade agreement between the US and the EU, which could give a major boost to both sides’ economies. But that won’t help soon enough, and as the second quarter gets under way, it is hard to see what will pull the euro zone out from its economic rut.

While the botched bailout of Cyprus and Italy’s power vacuum have hogged the headlines in recent weeks, an accelerating slump in France’s economy is also causing alarm.

Purchasing managers surveys last week showed the euro zone’s second-biggest economy is flagging at a rate unseen since the nadir of the recession of 2008/09.

A traditional “core” member of the euro zone along with Germany, France’s downturn outstrips even those in Spain and Italy, on the struggling euro zone periphery.

“We used to write ‘periphery’ and ‘core’ quite freely and knowing who that meant, but now it’s less clear,” Investec’s Clarke said. “The only major country showing any resilience is Germany, and that’s borderline now. It’s quite possible that even Germany gets dragged down.”

Economic data this week is unlikely to shed more light on the euro zone’s slump.

European Central Bank (ECB) president Mario Draghi said last Thursday that weakness was spreading from euro zone countries afflicted by “fragmentation” – where monetary policy is having little effect – to places where that was not an issue.

Draghi opened the door to an interest rate cut as soon as next month, saying the ECB stood “ready to act”. That came straight after the Bank of Japan (BoJ) promised to inject about $1.4 trillion into the Japanese economy in less than two years, a radical gamble that sent the yen reeling and bond yields to record lows.

The BoJ’s aggressiveness received cautious endorsements from US Federal Reserve policymakers, who said it could help economies everywhere.

Minutes from the Fed’s March meeting are due tomorrow, and even if they indicate that some policymakers were thinking about scaling back asset purchases, the poor economic data since then would take that off the table. – Reuters

______________

US economy 'still far' from desired state

 AFP, Fin24, 08 April 2013

                                                

 

Washington - Federal Reserve Chairperson Ben Bernanke said on Monday that the US economy still has far to go to recover to an acceptable state of health.

"Today the economy is significantly stronger than it was four years ago, although conditions are clearly still far from where we would all like them to be," he said.

The statement, made in a speech on banking in Stone Mountain, Georgia, came as economists and investors seek signs on whether the US central bank is ready to tighten up its easy-money policy aimed at holding long-term interest rates down.

Since December the Fed has stuck to its ultra-low rates and its $85bn per month "quantitative easing" bond purchase program despite economic indicators that led many to believe the economy is picking up speed.

Bernanke has consistently tied tightening monetary policy to a substantial improvement in unemployment, with the rate currently 7.6%, and his statement echoed comments made in previous months that he was not satisfied with the pace of recovery.

On Friday the Labour Department reported that just 88 000 new jobs were generated in March, the slowest growth in nine months.

_____________

‘Greek banks to be recapitalised’

SAPA, Business Report, 08 April 2013

Athens - Greece's central bank on Sunday said the country's main four lenders would be recapitalised separately, a move that put on hold a planned merger between two of them.

“The Bank of Greece confirms that the recapitalisation process for the four systemic banks (National Bank, Alpha, Eurobank, Piraeus) is proceeding normally and will conclude in April in any case,” the central bank said.

“All four banks have already called - or will call in the coming days - shareholder meetings to approve capital increases,” it added.

National Bank and Eurobank were several months into a merger process that foresaw a joint recapitalisation.

But a finance ministry source said on Sunday: “Further procedures (on the merger) are suspended.”

Greece's so-called troika of creditors - the European Union, International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank - had reportedly expressed concern that the new NBG-Eurobank entity would both dominate the Greek market and would be tough to recapitalise.

“(The creditors) do not like the creation of such a major player with a market share of around 40 percent,” Bank of Greece governor George Provopoulos said in a televised interview last week.

“The troika says, and I can also say, that there will be a greater difficulty in a combined National Bank-Eurobank entity, with capital needs in the order of 1.5 billion euros or slightly higher, a very large sum under the current circumstances. So there is a concern that if private investors cannot be found, it will come under state control,” he told state television NET.

The Bank of Greece announcement on Sunday came after new talks between the creditor representatives and Prime Minister Antonis Samaras on Sunday.

Their report will determine whether Athens will receive a loan disbursement of 2.8 billion euros pending since March.

The recapitalisation of Greek banks, who took a major blow last year in helping the country reduce its sovereign debt, is a condition for the continued release of EU-IMF rescue loans for Greece's crisis-hit economy.

A sum of 50 billion euros out of the total EU-IMF bailout fund of 240 billion euros has been earmarked for this purpose.

Under the original plan, at least 10 percent of new capital was to come from private investors to keep the banks from being effectively nationalised.

This now seems unlikely for National Bank and Eurobank, who will need the full support of the Hellenic financial stability fund, a source close to the process told AFP.

“National Bank and Eurobank have admitted that they will be unable to raise the money,” the source said.

The Bank of Greece said the stability fund would “fully” cover the capital increase for each bank.

But a source close to the process noted that the 10-percent rule “was still available” to whichever bank managed to raise the necessary funds privately.

Alpha Bank has called an emergency meeting of shareholders on Thursday.

Piraeus Bank will follow suit on Friday.

The Bank of Greece governor had noted in his interview that even if a bank had to turn to the Hellenic financial stability fund for help, “it's not exactly state control”.

“In the Stability Fund there is ECB representation, and the EU Commission, and the troika has oversight. In no way would the troika want a major bank to operate as a traditional (state) bank. I am also concerned and would not want it to happen. I do not think it will,” Provopoulos had said. - Sapa-AFP

_________________________________________________       

6.    Comment

COSATU E-toll Campaign goes ahead in 2013

 

For more information, contact COSATU Offices

                                

Come one…..Come All!

 

Stop Commodification of public goods!

____________

COSATU Section77 Notice served at Nedlac on the 11th December 2012

_____________

Wrong on Southern Africa, but incorruptible and brave

Paul Moorcraft, Business Day, 09 April  2013

THE most controversial postwar British prime minister has died at the age of 87. Margaret Thatcher still divides British opinion, especially those who lived under her premiership: she is either "the blessed Margaret", a "true conviction" politician, or simply "that awful woman".

From lower-middle class origins, a grocer’s daughter, she trained as a chemist at Oxford and then later as a barrister. She became the first woman to lead a major British political party and then the first female UK prime minister in 1979.

Just more than 30 years ago, urban riots, recession, mass unemployment, big government spending cuts and disputes over immigration and European unity dominated UK politics. Not much has changed, except perhaps for the dominant leadership of one politician. This mastery prompted her friends, and enemies, to dub her the only real man in the cabinet. She was said to clash sometimes with Queen Elizabeth, especially over major Commonwealth concerns about white rule in Rhodesia and South Africa.

From outside the UK, she was often compared with Charles de Gaulle, who restored French pride after the humiliations of German conquest and imperial decline. In the UK, however, she was a highly divisive figure, especially among the opponents of Tory monetarist policy, which introduced the smaller state and privatisation of nationalised industries, especially coal mining.

She destroyed the power of the trade unions for almost a generation. She reformed her Conservative Party and, by accident, the opposition Labour Party too. Thatcherite policies became almost the norm. In this sense, Tony Blair became the true heir of Thatcher, although he was never a conviction politician. He was always a pragmatic opportunistic "moderniser".

She held power for 11 years and 209 days. When she reluctantly resigned, she gave way to a lesser leader, John Major, who was unfairly lampooned as "the man who ran away from the circus to become an accountant".

In foreign policy, she was an ardent Cold War warrior. She embraced the special relationship with another hardline conservative, Ronald Reagan, in his campaign against the "evil empire", the Soviet Union. Against much domestic opposition, she supported putting cruise missiles on the European mainland and in the UK. She ignored her cabinet and went ahead with the purchase of the US Trident nuclear deterrent system.

Yet she was agile enough to recognise change in Moscow. After Mikhail Gorbachev introduced perestroika, she said he was a man "we can do business with". Like Reagan, her toughness and flexibility helped to end the Cold War. But she feared the resulting German unification. She was suspicious of the political unification of Europe and the possibility, now the inevitability, of German economic supremacy.

Her defence of the distant Falkland Islands after the Argentinean invasion of 1982 won her much domestic acclaim. The victory was a close-run affair. Today’s reduced military may not be able to repeat the trick.

In 1990, Margaret Thatcher was determined to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, after the Iraqi invasion. She told then US president George Bush: "This is no time to go wobbly." But dissenters within her own party forced her to resign just before the ensuing war in which the UK backed the US.

Thatcher often relied on her instincts. In the beginning, she was often right but, like most politicians, the practice of power corrupted perception and good instincts. On Africa, she was often wrong. A Conservative Party observer group said that the so-called "internal" April 1979 elections in Rhodesia were free and fair. She wanted to recognise the administration of Abel Muzorewa, even though the "external" parties loyal to Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo were excluded. Peter Carrington, Thatcher’s foreign secretary, worked hard to dissuade her. At the Commonwealth conference in Lusaka in August 1979, presidents Julius Nyerere and Kenneth Kaunda worked on her.

In a carefully stage-managed male chauvinist strategy, two of the tallest, most charming and handsome of the Commonwealth premiers, Michael Manley of Jamaica, and Malcolm Fraser of Australia, wined, dined and danced with her. Despite a stare that could freeze even veteran statesmen, the Iron Lady was susceptible to male charm and sometimes deployed a coquettish manner in response. To conservative UK politicians of a certain age, Thatcher was something of a sex symbol in the 1980s.

Ultimately, she was charmed and persuaded not to recognise Muzorewa, a glove puppet in the hands of Ian Smith. Instead, the Lancaster House talks followed, leading to new elections and the independence of Zimbabwe under Mugabe. By accident, one of the most right-wing of British prime ministers had created the conditions for the first electoral triumph of a Marxist leader in Africa.

Thatcher opposed apartheid, she said, but she also opposed the African National Congress (ANC). She saw the ANC as communist terrorists. In 1984, National Party leader PW Botha paid a controversial visit to Thatcher. She described herself as a "candid friend" of the apartheid politician. She thought persuasion, not sanctions, would bring reform. In 1987, she said anyone who believed the ANC would rule South Africa was living in "cloud-cuckoo land". She fought a long rearguard action against comprehensive sanctions and trade embargoes.

So what is Thatcher’s legacy? She might have been misguided about Southern Africa, but she was instrumental in restoring British economic and diplomatic prestige in the 1980s. She played a key role in the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. But the costs in domestic hardship, especially the imposition of the detested "poll tax", still inspire venomous comments about her.

All these emotions were dredged up by the film, The Iron Lady, starring Meryl Streep. Much criticised for showing Thatcher suffering from dementia in her last days, Streep was also praised for her amazing ability to capture Thatcher’s courage in overcoming class and gender to reach the top.

Thatcher did not expect to become prime minister, while many former Etonians, such as David Cameron, seem to act as if the premiership is almost a birthright. As the UK faces the hardest times since the Depression of the 1930s, Cameron has begun to assume some of the Thatcherite values of a conviction politician, especially regarding Europe.

Thatcher in her last years in power was savagely satirised in the Spitting Image TV programme as a mad, bullying tyrant. Her puppet boasted grotesquely large staring eyes. And yet, during her long illness, many politicians, of all parties, were debating whether Thatcher should enjoy the first state funeral for a prime minister since her hero, Winston Churchill.

The release of government papers, under the 30-year rule, shows that Thatcher was exercised by the state expenditure of £19 on an ironing board for her official residence, Number Ten Downing Street. She insisted on paying for it herself.

The Red Star Soviet newspaper tried to insult Thatcher by first calling her the "Iron Lady", but she eagerly adopted the sobriquet. Ruling politicians in Southern Africa, of a different mettle perhaps, might correctly decry the lady’s lack of vision regarding the politics of race. They could also learn from her incorruptibility and moral courage.

• Moorcraft is a visiting professor at the School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies at Cardiff University in the UK.

_____________

Money can’t buy a moral compass

 Simon Lincoln Reader, Business Day, 09 April 2013

TEODORO Nguema Obiang Mangue’s marvellously coiffed Afro probably isn’t a result of his fascination with Michael Jackson. Keeping hair that good requires perpetual styling, which explains why the son of Equatorial Guinea’s brutal dictator installed salons at his respective mansions situated on the most expensive avenues in Paris, Malibu and Cape Town.

But what it doesn’t explain is how, on an annual salary of roughly £35,000, Obiang Jnr managed such breathtaking opulence that included some of the most expensive vehicles ever designed, Gulfstreams, yachts and, of course, white gloves once worn by the King of Pop. It was a conundrum that caught the attention of the US Justice Department and French authorities too; in 2011, a series of raids was executed by those countries on his properties, culminating in an arrest warrant issued by France in February last year.

Equatorial Guinea is quite literally the armpit of Africa. Before 1994 it was a festering, postcolonial backwater fraught with witchcraft and malaria. In 1979, the incumbent president and Africa’s longest-serving leader, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, overthrew his uncle Francisco Macías Nguema — a man suspected of committing atrocities worse than the deeds of the Nazis during the latter’s occupation of Europe. Things changed dramatically in 1994 when ExxonMobil discovered vast offshore oil deposits and Equatorial Guinea became one of the wealthiest nations in the world overnight. Yet even this could not pluck the country from relative obscurity. For that, we had to wait until 2004.

In what could be described as Zero Dark Thirty meets Dinner for One featuring the cast of Only Fools and Horses, a group of public school chums hatched a farcical attempt at what become known as the "Wonga coup" while sitting on a veranda in Constantia. But one of their own had already sold them out: it wasn’t long before one of the ringleaders, Simon Mann, was imprisoned twice — once in Harare, then in Malabo. Inadvertently, however, the coup exposed a regime capable of stone-age brutality and whose level of corruption was equally perplexing and repugnant for an unusual reason: the population of Equatorial Guinea barely exceeded half a million.

In a perfect world, $3bn in oil revenue could have translated into about $26,000 per citizen, making Equatorial Guinea the second-richest state per capita on the planet. The reality could not be further, with nine-tenths of the country living in abject poverty — well below the United Nations poverty threshold of $2 a day.

The money trail starts and ends with the family; Global Witness estimates that the president steals up to $40m a day and that billions have been stashed in foreign accounts with the complicity of some of the biggest financial institutions in the world.

Corruption in Africa on this scale, particularly with regard to oil, has gradually eked its own economy and, ultimately, identity.

 It finds and finances some of the most hideous indulgences ever conceived. When Libyan rebels stormed one of Muammar Gaddafi’s many palaces, the founder of Harrys of London, Kevin Martel, coined the phrase "dictator chic" in reference to the ghastly displays of wealth in every possible form — a stylistic thread of vulgarity (usually gold) that would make even Mobutu Sese Seko blush.

 In Nigeria and Angola, two of Africa’s largest oil producers, the consequences of oil have altered the course of human rights forever — like Equatorial Guinea, those doing the altering belong to a small group or family accountable to no one, least of all their own citizens.

The legacy of this oil wealth-power hybrid has distorted mainstream politics and created a set of false prophets. In 2011, an ill-fated African National Congress Youth League march saw its hierarchy and supporters wearing T-shirts featuring Gaddafi’s face accompanied by words declaring the slain dictator a hero.

Nobody saw a nouveau riche lunatic who actively sponsored foreign terrorist organisations, whose family rampantly looted state coffers and who stood idly by while his maniac son (one of them) beat his servants and mistresses in luxury hotels across Europe.

He perfected the associated anti-western rhetoric that concealed his grotesque indiscretions; in the end he died, in the eyes of his supporters, as an anti-imperialist who once built an irrigation system in the desert.

It’s not just the young and angry who fall prey to these advances; a nuclear PR campaign orchestrated by President Obiang saw him hosting three British Conservative MPs along with a number of B-list Hollywood types and secured him a photo opportunity with US President Barack Obama.

This is a funny old Africa. Today, Isabel dos Santos charges around London in leopard-skin tights denying her involvement in her family’s shady business empire in Angola.

While Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue has evaded the foreign authorities temporarily, things at home are curious and curiouser; last year his father decreed that his son inherit the presidency, six months after he hired Mann — the leader of the Dad’s Army mercenary bunch and his ex-prisoner — as his "security consultant".

Ultimately it appears Africa’s oil money can buy just about everything, save for good taste or a bout of morality.

_____________

EDITORIAL: Send Eskom packing

Business Day, 09 April 2013

 

NOBODY wants a repeat of the rolling blackouts that afflicted South Africa in 2008, when buoyant demand for electricity exceeded Eskom’s generation capacity.

The economic damage, both direct through lost production and indirect due to delayed and abandoned private sector investment plans, has been incalculable.

However, fear of the same thing happening again if Eskom is unable to expand its generation capacity quickly enough to keep up with forecast demand must not be allowed to drive us to secure power at any cost.

As much as South Africa needs adequate supplies of electricity to enable the economy to grow, we also need to keep a lid on inflation, significant drivers of which are energy costs and administered prices.

The National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa) was therefore obliged to go through Eskom’s five-year application for a 16% annual increase in electricity tariffs with a fine-toothed comb, seeking inefficiencies and fat that could be trimmed. And, now that Eskom has responded to the decision to grant tariff increases of just 8% a year, and Nersa has explained its reasoning in more detail, the reason South Africa needs independent regulators of state-protected monopolies such as Eskom is apparent: left to its own devices, there is no incentive to maximise efficiency, and conflicts of interest abound. Perhaps for the first time in its recent history, Eskom is being made to account for its actions. Hard questions have been asked by Nersa about the level of return on investment that is required for the utility to fund its debt, the amount of padding in its operating budget, and the appropriateness of its accounting policies. In all cases, the answers have been desperately inadequate, entirely unexpected of the lean power-producing machine Eskom was supposed to have become after the 2008 debacle.

"Something will have to give," says Eskom spokeswoman Hilary Joffe, conveniently avoiding the utility having to take responsibility for finding solutions.

It will now approach the government to "discuss its mandate", presumably a euphemism for an appeal for another bail-out.

We sincerely hope the Treasury sends it packing with firm instructions to cut its coat according to its cloth, as the rest of South Africa is having to do in these tough times.

____________

Madiba: What will be, will be

Ranjeni Munusamy, Daily Maverick, 09 April 2013

 

Professor Jonathan Jansen probably thought, and still thinks, he was making a profound point by saying Nelson Mandela should be left alone to die in peace. The vice chancellor of the University of the Free State is perfectly entitled to ask his students, “Don’t you also wish he would die?” But he shouldn’t expect them or the rest of us to answer or agree. There is no correct way to deal with the eventuality of Madiba’s passing and no matter how much we prepare personally and as a nation, it will hit us hard. It will make us cry. It will make each of us die a little. So when it comes to Madiba, nobody should prescribe what is best or how we should deal with the pain of losing him.

“I think they sent him home to die,” a foreign correspondent said offhandedly at a social gathering on Saturday after Nelson Mandela was discharged from hospital that afternoon.

I flinched.

It felt like a punch in the gut. I can never seem to get accustomed to such statements about Madiba or prime myself not to get hurt by them. But like every conversation on the issue I am now so often party to as a journalist, I cannot participate sensibly. I think of other things, distract myself or change the subject. I have never been able to be impartial or dispassionate about Madiba’s life or death so I am unable to do so now that  a “Mandela watch” is a standing item on the international news diary.

I have long ago accepted that I am completely irrational, even about my prayers and expectations every time he is sick or hospitalised. And I know it is for completely selfish reasons that I keep willing him to live on when I know he is gravely ill. I am quite aware that it makes no sense whatsoever for me to sit on my bed in the middle of the night taking deep breaths hoping that through some miraculous telepathic means, it will help his lung infection clear and he will again breathe strongly.

Daily Maverick colleague Marelise van der Merwe wrote eloquently on letting Madiba go last week. It was the most sensitive, level-headed commentary I have come across on the issue.

“Madiba has earned his rest. He has earned the right to sit quietly with the people he loves most in this world, and drift gently into the next one. He gave us his life in service – but we don’t even want to grant him his death. Why do we keep on wanting him to get better, just so that he can go back into hospital? Selfishly, we don’t want to let go of all he symbolises, so we are forcing him to cling to a life that he has, in all honesty, lived out,” Marelise wrote.

Of course she is right. Of course he should go with dignity and not have the media community I belong to scavenge, stake out his home and hunt for novel angles on his death and South Africa’s reaction. Of course his quality of life is now compromised by his age and illness. It must be exhausting for him and those close to him to be in and out of hospital. It is heart-breaking that after years of being shut off from the world in a prison cell, he is now shut off from the world in his sick bed.

He cannot enjoy the sunlight on these glorious autumn days in Johannesburg. He cannot see the rolling countryside of his beloved Qunu, the hills and valleys he so longed for during all that time he was away from us. We do not know how cognisant he is of anything about life in South Africa in 2013.

“He has paid his debt to South Africa, and more. He has led each one of us to be a better person, a stronger South Africa. Surely it is time for us to lovingly let him go…” Marelise wrote.

I perceived her words like a gentle whisper in my ear, counselling me to less irrational and to be more prepared mentally. But when the presidency announced on Saturday that Madiba was well enough to go home, I fell off the wagon again, rejoicing that he beat the odds and would be okay for a little while longer.

Professor Jonathan Jansen was probably trying to express a similar sentiment to the one articulated by Marelise; that we need to show Madiba some mercy and stop trying to hold onto him for selfish reasons. Unlike her elegance in expressing this though, he was perhaps clumsy and unnecessarily melodramatic. He claims to have been misquoted, that what he actually said was that Madiba should be allowed to go “peacefully”, not that he actually wished him to die.

Whatever Jansen intended to say, Madiba’s death is not something that can be stage-managed to happen in a logical, dispassionate manner. It will not be a surprise but it will cut deep. We will grieve, not because we fear for the future of our country – according to the foreign media narrative – but because Madiba represents what is best about us and because we love him dearly. He had a special connection to each one of us so we will all mourn collectively as a nation, but differently as individuals.

For years, the media has been preparing for the massive news event that will be Nelson Mandela’s passing. It is not unreasonable to do so. In fact it would be downright reckless for any news outlet not to have pre-packaged information and research for what will arguably be the biggest news event of all time. It will keep the spotlight on South Africa for several weeks until international public interest wanes.

It is also a big money business, flying in news crews from around the world, securing broadcast rights and appropriate locations for live crossings and getting inside access to the Mandela family and ANC luminaries.

The South African government, the ANC, the Nelson Mandela Foundation and the family will be overwhelmed with world leaders flying in from around the world, the enormous and sustained media attention, and logistical arrangements for numerous memorial events and the funeral.

This is what terrifies me. I am so scared that all of it will not be good enough and that our tremendous loss will get lost in the frenzy. I am worried that all of the preparation over so many years will not do justice to Madiba’s memory. I worry that President Jacob Zuma’s funeral oration will be pedestrian and uninspired, like his ANC centenary lecture on Mandela was last July.

I worry that there will be stupid fights in the family and the ANC that will detract from the occasion. I am anxious that some people will use Madiba’s passing for their own benefit and make a mockery of things. I hope that those in charge will get it right and that when the world stops to say goodbye to the greatest icon of this era, South Africa will send Madiba off in a blaze of glory. 

Yes, I am irrational and neurotic about this issue. And who am I to worry about all this anyway?

When the time comes, I know I will be hopeless as a journalist and a commentator. I do not want to be able to speak or write authoritatively about the life and times of Nelson Mandela, or speculate about what South Africa will be like when he is gone. I do not want to be caught up in the whirlwind of the event and miss what his passing means to me.

I want to grieve and say goodbye on my own. I want to embrace the times I spent with him, remember the look on face when he would see me walk in, and treasure how he shaped who I am now. I want to hold on to whatever I can for as long as I can.

So no, I am not able to let Tata go. I never will be. And when the time comes, the future’s not ours to see. What will be, will be. 

__________

Bidvest’s 60% offer suggests backroom negotiating

Tim Cohen, Business Day, 08 April 2013

 

THE takeover battle between Bidvest and Adcock Ingram is turning into a ding-dong affair, and like many tough takeover battles, it is exposing an interesting and important part of takeover law.

Just to recap a bit, here is what has happened so far.

Bidvest, the widely diversified industrial group, sent Adcock, a pharmaceutical provider, a takeover proposal to acquire 60% of the company. For the acquisitive Bidvest, this is hardly an unusual process; it’s known in the market as the Joffe bear hug, Brian Joffe being Bidvest’s much admired — and feared — CEO.

For Adcock, the proposal theoretically came as a surprise.

It’s a real eye-opener to track the share prices of the various companies in the healthcare sector: it’s not just that Adcock has trailed. It’s that almost all the others have exploded except for Adcock.

Adcock’s two closest rivals, the much smaller Cipla and the much larger Aspen, are up 70% and 173% on a three-year frame, compared with Adcock’s 3.5%. In that context, it’s surprising that anyone would be surprised at a takeover bid, especially since Cipla is also a takeover candidate at the moment.

In any event, the proposal entails a R6.2bn takeover bid, pegged at R62.82 a share, an 11% premium, half in cash and half in Bidvest shares.

The Adcock board response was unusual: it argued essentially that it did not believe that a firm intention of offer had been made, because the legal requirements of a firm intention had not been met.

This opens up a wonderful new can of worms. Firm acceptance or firm rejection are pretty well-known tracks, but to claim neutrality on the bid while rejecting it on legal grounds, is a bit of novelty. Hence, the pertinent question now becomes, are these claims valid?

From talking to some lawyers and takeover experts, the consensus seems to be pretty sceptical. But this is an untested area so, in all honesty, who knows?

The issue, in legal terms, is what one lawyer described as a "slippery" definition in the new Companies Act about what constitutes a "valid and binding offer".

Before we get there, however, it is worth noting that much of the press has suggested that Bidvest might go, or has gone, hostile. This remains a possibility, but is not my reading of what Bidvest has actually done, so far at least.

If Bidvest had "gone hostile" it would have used the other of the two legal options available to a would-be offeror, and that would be to make a general offer.

Of course, a "general offer" is a simple offer to shareholders to buy their shares at a certain price.

But Bidvest has not gone down that route, or not yet.

Why not? Presumably because one of the great virtues of the "scheme of arrangement" route — the other route available to the would-be offeror — is that it constitutes an agreement, so it can consist of anything the parties want.

This provides the opportunity for conditions, stipulations, price matrices, and crucially, due diligence. But it does require the cooperation of the board.

I suspect what Joffe is most worried about is whether the takeover would trigger any contractual problems with Adcock’s pharmaceutical suppliers. Since, he has also mentioned an earnings assurance connected to a price matrix.

In other words, if the company’s earnings don’t hold up, the offer price gets sliced.

There is one other thing that is interesting here: the offer is for 60% of the shares.

Now I don’t know if this is true or not, but that does not seem Joffe’s style by any means. I would almost guarantee he would want 100%. So why did he settle for 60%?

In public interviews Joffe indicated that shareholders were convinced there was upside in the share price and were keen to remain exposed. I bet what actually happened was a bit different. I bet he spoke to a lot of shareholders who agreed generally that Bidvest should manage the group.

But there was some tough bargaining over the takeover price compared to the target proportion, and eventually the fund managers relented on price and Joffe relented on the takeover proportion.

If I am right, then the Adcock board is in a much tighter position than many suspect. This makes their "go legal route" tactic a bit more explicable, since what they want to avoid is having to put any kind of bid to shareholders. At first, I was a bit confused by this, because the takeover premium is very small, so it would seem much simpler for the Adcock board just to refuse to accept the offer on the basis that it’s stingy — which it is. But obviously the board wanted something more.

So what are these legal objections and will they stand up? I’m not a lawyer, but my instinct is they won’t, or at least, not all but one of them, and the deficiencies of that one are easy to remedy. So the board might find itself cornered.

According to the statement of Dr Khotso Mokhele, chairman of Adcock’s board, Adcock is concerned about "the high level of conditionality, including ‘walk-away’ rights, the absence of comparable offers for two of our other key stakeholders, namely our BEE partners and employees, who are participants in our group share incentive scheme". The Bidvest letter also fails to address the position of the remaining minority shareholders after such a transaction has taken effect.

The absence of comparable offers for other classes of shareholders can easily be remedied by making them the same offer, which was presumably implied anyway. The "walk-away" rights are essentially conditions that the offeror sets, which allows it to walk away if they are not met. They are a powerful tool in the hands of the offeror because if the company does walk away on the basis that it considers certain conditions have not been met, and that becomes public knowledge, that makes investors assume that certain problems exist. These conditions therefore act as an incentive to agree to takeover terms.

But it depends on what they are. There may be more in this case than meets the eye, but from what has become visible, they don’t seem to be unreasonable, except in one case. What Bidvest wants to know is whether a takeover bid will trigger a renegotiation of contracts and whether earnings are holding up.

The problem area concerns a conditional clause that the successful bidders, Bidvest in other words, can buy a further 15% of the company if shareholders accept the 60% takeover. That seems to suggest an agreement to treat different classes of shareholders differently, which would be illegal.

Still, if Adcock didn’t like this clause, or others, it could have asked for the offer to be remedied. It doesn’t seem that difficult.

Joffe has, if I understand him correctly, suggested a novel approach. What he has argued is that if the board is genuinely neutral about a takeover offer, then why does it not make its objections known, but nevertheless put the offer to shareholders? Even if the board recommends against the bid, they should really let shareholders decide.

Unfortunately for Bidvest, this is more a moral argument than a legal one. For a scheme of arrangement to be put to shareholders, the board’s co-operation is necessary.

Something else is worth remembering. The board not only has a fiduciary duty to shareholders. It also has a duty to act with care and skill. And that is now actionable in terms of the new Companies Act, by minority shareholders.

This battle is not over.

...

APART from the legal issues, does Bidvest’s bid for Adcock make any sense?

From a management viewpoint, it’s hard to be too sympathetic to Jonathan Louw and his team; they have missed out in critical competitions, missed the move to generics, and for a long time opted out of foreign expansion. It rubs salt in the wound that Aspen has managed these things with such aplomb.

But there are some suggestions about a change in the fortunes of the company. The company points out that it won a significant slice of the government’s 2012 antiretroviarals tender, a new product pipeline is good, it has a grand new distribution centre, and it has just made acquisitions in Ghana and India.

The shift in the tide is presumably one of the things that is attracting in Bidvest — and it’s the reason why shareholders are keen to stay at least partially exposed. The mere fact of a 60% rather than a 100% bid is an implicit acknowledgement by Bidvest that the fortunes of the company seem brighter.

But the main question is about logistics, since this is one of Bidvest’s great strengths. The company’s advocates argue the notion that there is synergistic logic in the merger is faulty. It is, they argue, a bit simplistic and in fact, the logistics of a pharmaceutical company are different from other consumer goods, even fairly complicated goods such as fresh produce. There is a huge security protocol, and temperature is important, among other factors. In fact, one of Adcock’s great strengths is its logistics, they claim.

I’m not sure what to make of this, but I’m sceptical. Even if the types of goods are very different, I just don’t think Bidvest would take very long to catch up. In any event, logistics costs are not a determining part of Adcock’s world. Hitting the right markets is — and that is where the company has been lacking.

...

ONE other thing about the battle is whether Adcock’s shareholders are "stale" or "soft". The latter notion is related to the decision by Tiger Brands to hive off Adcock in 2008.

The idea is that Adcock inherited a shareholder base that was actually more interested in consumer goods than the pharmaceutical industry.

I think that this is unlikely. I’m sure those shareholders would have cycled out by now.

Likewise, even though Adcock’s share price has been static for a long time, I suspect their current shareholders are not stale and many have sensed a turnaround. Trading volumes were certainly up strongly in January this year.

The biggest problem as regards the shareholder base is that because Adcock is lightly held, there are lots of investors who hold both Adcock and Bidvest.

That’s a big plus for Bidvest, presumably, partly because it is one of the few companies which have grown as fast as the healthcare sector over the past three years.

___________

 

Norman Mampane (Communications Officer)

Congress of South African Trade Unions

110 Jorissen Cnr Simmonds Street

Braamfontein

2017

 

P.O.Box 1019

Johannesburg

2000

South Africa

 

Tel: +27 11 339-4911 or Direct 010 219-1342

Mobile: +27 72 416 3790

E-Mail: mam...@cosatu.org.za