Mutumwa Mawere

Good article. A few points that will either augment/challenge/qualify your write-up

1. The key issue that most of Africa (and the world at large, to be honest) has failed to appreciate amidst the torrent of populist posturing and sermonizing that our dear politicians have not been short of, is that what facilitates progress and improvement of well being in any society that is premised on individual freedom as opposed to coercion is not the acquisition/redistribution of existing wealth, but the CREATION OF NEW WEALTH. Most people, fanned by the rhetoric of politicians and the shallow conjecture of the average financial journalist, view the economy as a fixed pie in which certain individuals have had a claim to “unfairly” larger slices (via exploitation and expropriation, it is claimed), making the relevant question for business players “how can I secure a larger piece?”. However, the fundamental question that any entrepreneur worth his salt should be asking is how to enlarge his own slice by increasing the size of the pie “in toto”.
2. The Development of any society/grouping/collective always begins as the result of the efforts a minority, who assume a leadership position and consequently create “an example” that others imitate/follow. One only needs to think through how the pioneering efforts of Julius Makoni et all spawned the phenomenon of the “indigenous banker” in Zimbabwe. As such, the example that has been set in South Africa (if not Africa as a whole) is of tycoons who have made their way not through effort, but through political leverage, subsequently confirming to all who intend to “follow in their footsteps” that it is not through business acumen, sound financing, long term vision, hard work and application that one succeeds, but through shouting slogans at the next rally. It is only inevitable that political discussion center around the “robin hood” conception of government when the man on the street aspires not to change his own life, but to be lucky enough to have his life changed by that omnipotent idol known as “The State”.
3. What is key is the “DEMOCRATISATRION OF CAPITAL”, ie the access to funding for any idea backed by the requisite brains and energy, and not the largess of the political elite on favored races, tribes, and nationalities. Such a process can occur with limited input by the state. Unfortunately, cursory thought will actually reveal that in many instances institutional flaws and the bureaucratization of private institutions (fanned by over-regulation, over-taxation, etc) serve to undermine the trend towards the freeing up of capital to those ends that can truly justify its receipt, whilst promoting those (such as never ending handouts to special interest groups) which do not.

The Oracle, I like the follow up. MM, the insights are challenging.

I don\'t know if the SA government had a lot of choices especially when they waged a war to achieve independence. The trouble with such a settlement was that you simply replaced those in power (as if they are the only colonialists). They could have wanted to take the economic means together with the acquisition of power. In my layman understanding, the colonialists where the guys in government; if they were removed then colonialism would come to a crushing halt. Being so defined, they could be wrestled out of power and out of government. Yet it was accepted that apartheid tendencies resulted in policies and practices that benefited the whites, and all these whites knew that they were benefiting because of their skin. While the whites were getting clear-cut opportunities and better prepared to build on those chances, blacks were routinely denied attempts at those chances. Whites did not question it, in general. So they should have been defined as colonialists too, therefore due for replacement just the way political actors were removed - forced out. That could have been the day.


If the government did not do anything about economic independence, then the political independence could have remained hollow, and will continue to be so unless it is filled with material contents. Let\'s face it, if nothing is done to even the playing field then blacks will continue to play a subservient role in a country they are governing. The one important indicative force that defined colonial era was the ownership of economic resources, and the same measure shall also define independence. Them whites did not give up power voluntarily, and to expect them to give up or stop accumulating economic means to allow for blacks to catch up is wishful thinking. What if they really haven\'t changed? It was nice having both political power and economic resources, but it\'s still ideal to retain economic control and relinquish power. The easier way could have been a reverse colonialism, not independence. In this regard, the new government treats the colonialists just the same way they treated the generality of the populace - deny them chances, reduces them to servants, define their knowledge, separate and confine them, etc. You know the story.

The laws enacted were a way to achieve a certain measure of equality. The government finds itself negotiating with the whites for them to help redistribute economic resources, because these resources were accumulated as such, were they not? Something has to give. I don\'t think it\'s wise to say that blacks should start their own economic advancement based on their efforts alone. They should be given opportunities and be adequately prepared to exploit those opportunities, and whites should be prepared to play second fiddle in vying for chances. That\'s basically how they ended up where they are. A white man would give business to another white man, and its still happening. Simple. With the bulk of the resources in their hands, if we do not do something to break these segregative tendencies, I mean something more than creation of wealth, we are basically still stuck in a rut. The creation of wealth will happen amongst those who have the means of production anyway. The whites are the ones with the financial muscle to exploit and explore opportunities and create wealth.

For fear of sounding terribly naive, my humble submission is that there must be a mechanism to transfer wealth into the hands of the ruling majority, some kinda way. BEE has resulted in heightened political patronage, and the same faces continue to benefit. The intentions are very noble in BEE, but the shortcomings and inadequacy of the average African politician are evident at the execution level.

I wanna be motivational, I wanna be inspirational

1. Quote: “Yet it was accepted that apartheid tendencies resulted in policies and practices that benefited the whites, and all these whites knew that they were benefiting because of their skin.”

Were there no poor whites? Amongst the whites themselves, was there no social stratification, and if there was, how did those who assumed positions at the top of the pyramid do so? Was the upper class still not a minority when considered amongst the aggregation of whites as a whole, or do you believe \"all whites were rich\"?


2. Quote: “While the whites were getting clear-cut opportunities and better prepared to build on those chances, blacks were routinely denied attempts at those chances.”

Besides limited access to financing, how else were blacks precluded from exploiting opportunities? Reference to point one as well; why didn’t every white man exploit every opportunity, resulting in stratification amongst the whites? Does this not have something to do with individual attitudes and aptitudes, which you are leaving out of the equation? Is individual effort not a mysteriously absent variable in your conception? What role is played in your schema by dilatory work habits and the thoughtless procreation of children (and the subsequent effects on saving)?

3. Quote: “If the government did not do anything about economic independence, then the political independence could have remained hollow, and will continue to be so unless it is filled with material contents. Let\\\'s face it, if nothing is done to even the playing field then blacks will continue to play a subservient role in a country they are governing.”

Should we all expect our personal circumstances to improve without improving ourselves? In addition to education, socio-political stability, and the access to capital (i.e. the opportunity to fail with ones own efforts), should handouts via the maternal state be included as a pre-requisite of development? DESPITE HAVING A NEAR IDENTICAL COLONIAL HERITAGE TO AFRICANS, DO WE STILL HEAR ASIANS FINGERING THE MARXIST ROSARY WHILST HUMMING FROM THE “WE WERE WRONGED” HYMN BOOK? (Ghana was wealthier than most of those states in the 50’s.) How much of Asia\'s progress was the result of \"allocation and redistribution\"?

4. Quote: “The one important indicative force that defined colonial era was the ownership of economic resources, and the same measure shall also define independence”

Who owned Econet prior to independence? Or NMB? Are these two not “resources” in your sense, and if they are, how did ownership end up in the hands of Blacks? What did those blacks do that you didnt that resulted in the gulf between yourself and them?


5. Quote: “I don\\\'t think it\\\'s wise to say that blacks should start their own economic advancement based on their efforts alone. They should be given opportunities and be adequately prepared to exploit those opportunities, and whites should be prepared to play second fiddle in vying for chances.”

I.e. Black businessmen are incompetent minors who cannot perceive opportunities on their own and therefore need to have their hands held by the maternal state? There should be adverts in the nationally circulating press telling Joe Public to go and set up a McDonalds in Thembisa? If a white man comes up with an innovative and bankable idea and has the initiative to see the thing to life, we should stop him from doing so because of the color of his skin? What sort of segregation enabled Mark Shuttleworth to become a billionaire in post colonial South Africa, from a position of ground zero and with the most miserable of means, whereas Black man with unlimited financing are below break even on poorly thought out acquisition deals?

6. Quote: For fear of sounding terribly naive, my humble submission is that there must be a mechanism to transfer wealth into the hands of the ruling majority, some kinda way

Unfortunately Sir, your fears were realized.

The topic at hand has to be understood deeper only through analysing the socio-strata of the black race. It is utter naivety to believe that innovation and creativity does not exist in black society. This has and continues to be in abundance, more so than in white society in Africa. That this innovation and creativity did not flourish into industrialisation and a revolution is premised on lack of commercialisation –

The next step is to understand what colonisation did- the thesis of imperialism is to ensure continual subjugation of the other race and this was successfully done by ensuring the African becomes a labourer. His/her creativity became an extra-curricular activity done after hours. The rise of white entrepreneurship in Africa, should be praised for sheer innovation and strides made in industrialising the state. Cursory understanding of how the cities of Johannesburg and Bulawayo were built will attest to this mastery. But one cannot forget the mental subjugation that occurred at this time. Bantu-education did not kill a race but killed a generation, the seed of inferiority was sowed and fertilised by an education system that ensured it became difficult for any Blackman who are born in such a society to rebel. And when they finally rebelled it was political- the ideology at the time that abated the political fight was communism. And you have to admit, any political revolution that has occurred is etched in mass mobilisation-and mass uprising- quite contrary to any neo-liberal tenets. Upon gaining political freedom, the new hero’s became the new leaders of the nation.

In retrospect that was the problem Africa made. The mind that led a fight for political freedom cannot in any way understand the functioning of the state. How can a heavily indoctrinated soldier whose remit was to destroy, ( e.g Noczim fuel tanks) have a basic understanding of how to build an economy let alone run a company. At best he should hold token positions in government and not that the whole cabinet is made of guerrilla fighters. The consequence is there for us to see in Zimbabwe, THERE is no way Zanu Pf can believe in creation. Its beyond their psyche. Thus it becomes necessary to take what they believe is theirs, this is very consistent with the way they took the country that they believe was theirs.

And so the indigenisation drive will fail as long as we have the current leadership. Oracle argues we should look East for lessons. Indeed this is true, but he misses the point. The first economic blue print for China’s current success was written in 1974, after Mao’s death, the same can be argued for India. Not until the umkoto wesizwe crowd is longer with us, can a new breed of African entrepreneurs rise….who believe in new creations and a new pie. One simply hopes Mck never becomes a leader in Africa.

Oracle

I hear your point about the Gono’s and the Malema’s the poster boys of the . But in my honest assessment we should not worry about them. Whereas Hunzvi or chinotimba could scrounge around and find some moral authority in their claims for black ownership, these two have no iota of relevance in the new state. I liken Gono to Wersal Gummage the fictional scarecrow- scary from away but upon closer examination is a load of straws- The imprisonment of Chiluba’s wife should be enough warning for Gono and his irk.

The post-colonial African nomenclature is caught between two axis- the past and the future, quite hazy and difficult to ascertain if change will happen. But my faith rests in new generation of entrepreneurs who believe less in the power of despair and commiseration in being a down trodden race but believe more in their ability to innovate and change the universe- if anything just to prove a point! The problem with the last generation of entrepreneurs and BEE beneficiaries is the over-investment in one country. The dearth of the 1990s entrepreneur in Zimbabwe is exemplary as they all wait for Godot….and waiting for change, and not believing that they are the change. That one entrepreneurial foray or deal was enough for their lifetime, comforted by purportedly wise proverbs “ chawawana batisisa mudzimu haipi kaviri” ( whatever you get you should hold on to it- never let go, you are only lucky once in a lifetime)- such naivety.

The new generation, is not simply African by birth, indeed their children of the universe, but CHOOSE to be African. Thabo Mbeki’s I am an African is illustrative of the change that is happening, For Thabo being African is a burden of birth, The new generation moves far from being simply conceived by mother Africa they have Chosen to be African. Thus care less/indeed refuse to be identified with the previously dis-advantaged crowd…. Indeed though they may have grown up in Mamelodi their minds and creativity were more than Advantaged. Thus Africa provides the platform to share that creativity- it boggles the mind why then I should be a token 30% owner!

Sage

Far from missing the point, my earlier posts were written to show what isn’t the point, with the intention to leave it to the reader to make their own conclusion as to what is actually the essence of the matter. You are indeed correct in highlighting that the primary hindrances to development in Africa are no longer the historical vestiges of the colonial era, but instead are the manufactured and artificial obstacles (institutional and psychological) placed in the way of black initiative and effort by atrophied political relics who never had the background, education, or basic common sense to understand what it required to run a modern economy. However, you must also not underrate the emergence of a new breed of parasitic, totalitarian, and criminal type, potentially far more dangerous than the existing leadership, and similarly heavily invested in the status quo: “Your Governor” Gideon Gono being the poster boy of this type. Such lice are likely to perpetuate the Dick Turpin mindset as long as they remain entrenched in our institutions, and even long after the “umkonto we Sizwe crowd” ride into the sunset.

Hi Dziva,the father of telecoms in africa the late Miko Rwayitare,wat made him succeed to reach such levels to create a global company,y cant we have mo black guys in the market who will create global companies?do we need legislation or is it all about the attitude of us black people

The Oracle

I still do not consider myself the best brains to deliberate on the issue of BEE. But I really have a few issues to raise, and perhaps cause another riot. So if you don\'t mind I will itemize my responses corresponding to your categorical analysis above. Let me point out something quickly though: I do not hate whites, not at all.

1. A more informed analysis is the one that looks at proportions regarding the issue of poverty. Indeed there were poor whites and a distinct social stratification amongst them. For all intents and purposes, apartheid was \"WEE\" - white economic empowerment. The system targeted whites, promoted whites and sustained whites (Of course not all whites became better off, but the advantages where apparent). Can the BEE achieve that? Does it have the same orientations? The critical difference is that while WEE was an oppressive feat (force), BEE is an corrective intervention (appeal).

2. We cannot allow ourselves to be so simple-minded regarding the subjugation of the black populace. The apartheid system was long drawn, effective, planned, controlled and disciplined. Here you make scandalous allegations tantamount to calling blacks retarded and incapable. But long years of political and economic dominance by whites created a legacy of fear and self-doubt. And you go on to ask, as if in a daydream: \"Besides limited access to financing, how else were blacks precluded from exploiting opportunities?\". Isn\'t that a bit insensitive guys? You are on your own on this one, let\'s debate the BEE issue.

3. SAGE could have sensed my drift on this one. My contention is that what we have as a state of affairs is not anything we dreamed of. This is not what was our future state. We inherited a new state from White settlers which state is their dream. What we had was a sense of origin and belonging, and that\'s the same feeling that drove the wars of liberation. In the new state, what used to be a normal African life had changed, but the aptitudes of the African people had not changed. We can hold the racist regime accountable for taking a sectarian approach to developing citizens, can\'t we? The reality was that the state was changing, and a few \"citizens\" where developed in tandem. So, in blacks, the lack of ambition is real, the primitive approach is a fact and the absence of foresight a cause for concern. Its not about them blacks being black, it\'s their background worsened by an equality ill-prepared replacement government. BEE should address these deficiencies as the bedrock for any sustainable economic empowerment. As for your Asian reference, SAGE took the heat for me.

4. What, so we are going to pick a few examples like Strive Masiiwa and Julius Makoni and write a story about how the rest of black people are their own undoing? Let\'s keep counting such achievers and see if they will not fit on your fingers. And among them could be those who have been correct politically. Now take it a little bit further and you will see how these blacks had the same chance the white man had in terms of education, or even educated abroad somehow. It took their talents and abilities to achieve, but honed by an instructive and empowering educational system. These are indeed the exceptions juxtaposed with a colonial legacy. To think that such an entrenched system will undo itself is grossly negligent.

5. It may be a system becoming extinct, but back then an African household used to allocate beasts to its sons as they graduated into manhood. They would be allowed to accumulate their own wealth from the initial support they get from their parents. If there was a relative who did not have draught power, another family member helped. You know that story. In the modern day industrialized state the same persists. Companies are peopled with relatives and family members and other close connections. No wonder the employment data is not representative of the demographic reality on the ground in SA, because the whites still control the means of production. Its not only caused by black inadequacies, but the same racial biases that pervaded the apartheid era are still prevalent. The few educated blacks are still not good enough for the white man. So the managerial levels will continue to be a preserve for the whites. The reason why we don\'t have a balance is simply that these companies are generally white-owned or white run. And these whites still look at the black man with the same attitude of being subservient. I know its not a \"nice\" thing to say 15 years after independence, but we need a sustainable strategy to restore the dignity of the African people for they are at a great disadvantage. BEE must yield results for it to be a workable intervention, and its cardinal targets are indeed worth pursuing.

Supposed we ever have a national discourse on the nation we want, I will be astonished if we settle for what is obtaining. The whites were unjustly enriched.

Mck

Unfortunately, I am unable to respond to your second reply as you have wholly missed the points previously made (meaning I would have to repeat myself), and ended up having to resort to the creation of absurd falsities and fantasy in order to support the crumbling superstructure of your arguement whose lack of foundation was never going to survive the winds of rational analysis and criticism. As an example, and quoting your own words, you rant: "Here you make scandalous allegations tantamount to calling blacks retarded and incapable", when at no point was this said or implied by myself, yet it is at the core of your own misguided ramblings about the need to mother black businessman as if they were in Kindergarten: Quoting your words again "So, in blacks, the lack of ambition is real, the primitive approach is a fact and the absence of foresight a cause for concern". It appears that the architects of apartheid, who created that system to prevent ambitious and capable blacks from competing on an equal footing with the lower to Middle class whites, had a much higher estimation of the black mans aptitudes than you do. (Note: Apartheid was supposed to be a barrier to the middle class for blacks, not an elevator to the upper class for whites; the selection process of the upper class amongs whites revolved around a seperate mechanism).

Unfortunately, when a discussion no longer revolves around facts, reasoning, and objectivity, but devolves into slogans and mantra which only expose unfamiliarity with theory and history, that is the point at which I recuse myself from further participation in the name of intellectual etiquette.

The Oracle,

Point taken, no need to get all emotional hey.

Just to throw in a curve ball; so that we re-engage each other intellectually. As a government who would you support? the tuck shop owner pre-1994 who now owns a mid-size supermarket in Tembisa. Or the mine worker pre-1994 who now owns 30% of the same mine he used to work for. The answer in theory is obvious even to the “mothered kindergarten kids”- and yet to our dear leaders not so. The current BEE structure and legislation does not in any way promote entrepreneurship full stop. It serves to correct an injustice- which is far removed and opposite to promoting entrepreneurship. This is lost on a lot of discussions. BEE in its current form is restitutive - compensation for a wronged past. THIS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY INCREASE ENTREPRENUERS IN THE COUNTRY. And so compensation should be settled in the court of laws and not in any economic foray.

To make matters worse the unsung hero in Tembisa, who applies himself/herself diligently through creativity and re-organisation of the business from a tuck shop to a supermarket is hardly commended and promoted. Instead our experts and indeed the general populace is more interested in supposed success stories who are nothing but rushed-up shelf companies named after their totems/ big 5- and the miraculous act of getting 30% in the business (political clout is the new alchemy)….surprise, surprise the very next day we get 5 point steps on how to become a businessman from these new alchemists. My Foot! What is unbeknown to these gravy train hoppers is the seed they are cultivating and fertilising in young minds. The message is clear, meet the quotas and you are a success. Yes, unfortunately the African society has decided this is a yardstick for success- its their prerogative, but let no one claim its in the spirit of economic development or promotion of entrepreneurship. Its not, it’s the reason why Africa will remain unnoticed!