| The best Zimbabwe news site on the world wide web |  |
| NEWS |
| FORUMS |
| NEWS ANALYSIS |
| READERS' FORUM |
South Africa's BEE project intersects with xenophobia
By Mutumwa
D. Mawere
(www.mmawere.com)
AS OF Monday this
week, the official death toll from South African xenophobic attacks
totals 62 with 670 injured and 1,300 people arrested and an economic
cost still to be determined.
As we all reflect on this unfortunate development in South Africa, one of the most positive outcomes is that an opportunity has been created for a frank and honest conversation about what it means to be African.
Apartheid is buried but the image of what it means to be South African and who is entitled to be a South African may find its roots in the construction of a colonial and subsequently an apartheid state. It is undeniable that white South Africans are as foreign to South Africa as are post-apartheid black Africans.
What makes a white South African immigrant a more acceptable face of South Africa than a black African? Could one of the answers lie in the economic definition of black people as well as Africans in the various legislations that have been passed in post-apartheid South Africa?
In terms of South African legislation, “black people” is a generic term which means Africans, Indians, and Coloureds. It is accepted that the term African is restricted to indigenous people. When South Africans negotiated a settlement to end apartheid, a new definition of a South African was then agreed and crystallised.
Under this framework, white South Africans and black people who were citizens of the country prior to 1994 are the only ones who are entitled to legitimately claim to be authentic citizens in terms of Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) definition.
Accordingly, in the context of the black economic empowerment project that was framed by apartheid beneficiaries as an instrument of assimilating the black political elites, a new definition of an eligible black for economic empowerment was then coined i.e. historically disadvantaged individual (HDI) or previously disadvantaged individuals (PDI).
The constitution of South Africa was then crafted, recognising the historical legacy of apartheid and the need to level the economic playing field. Both black and white political and non-political actors accepted a construction that a black immigrant is not meant to be an economic beneficiary of the post-apartheid dispensation at the expense of black South African persons and notwithstanding any commitment to a pan-African project.
It can then be rationally argued that xenophobia’s roots must be located in the minds of the framers of the black economic empowerment project. It would, therefore, be wrong to blame the practitioners of physical violence when the construction of the post-apartheid state had in its foundation an anti-black African immigrant tone.
It can also be argued that xenophobia may not be a reflection of only the attitudes of the perpetrators of violence but a generally held view that South Africa belongs to a certain class of people and benefits of economic progress must be reserved. Indeed, if economic power can be transferable to black elites on often non-transparent basis through so called BEE deals, then it can be argued that why should the poor not be part of the deal when they all fit into the definition of PDI and HDI?
The following are some of the acts that have been passed by the post apartheid parliament dominated by the African National Congress (ANC) on which the xenophobic passion may have its roots. These include:
1. Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act 53 of 2003*It provides a legislative framework for the promotion of black economic empowerment; empowers the Minister of Trade and Industry to issue codes of good practice and to publish transformation charters; to establish the Black Economic Empowerment Advisory Council; and to provide for matters connected therewith. The Minister is not empowered to look after black emigrants.
2. Diamond
Amendment Act 29 of 2005 and Diamond second amendment Act 30 of 2005
Deals with beneficiation activities in the mining sector and clarifies
the empowerment requirements in respect of beneficiation activities
first contemplated in the Mining Charter
3. Employment
Equity Act 55 of 1998*
Relevant to the determination of the Human Resource Management criteria
of the BEE Scorecard
4. Mineral
and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002
Dealing with the Mining Charter
5. Petroleum
Products Amendment Act 58 of 2003 –
Dealing with the Petroleum Charter
6. Precious
Metals Act 37 of 2005
Deals with beneficiation activities in the mining sector and clarifies
the empowerment requirements in respect of beneficiation activities
first contemplated in the Mining Charter. Assented to on 15 April 2006.
7. Preferential
Procurement Policy Framework Act 5 of 2000*
The South African Government procurement framework
8. Revenue
Laws Amendment Act 32 of 2005 (second amendment)
Dealing with the tax treatment of certain forms of broad-based employee
share schemes
9. Skills Development
Act 97 of 1998
Relevant to the determination of the Human Resource Management criteria
of the BEE Scorecard
A number of regulations and charters in various sectors have been put in place reflecting the consensus that only pre-1994 black people as defined ought to share the economic spoils of South Africa to the exclusion of black emigrants. This view is not held only at the lower end of the economic spectrum but is a shared one among black and whites.
In the post-apartheid Africa, it has now been accepted that there are two Africas i.e. South Africa and the rest of Africa. In South Africa, it is now an economic and legislative imperative to empower black persons. However, the untapped resources of the rest of the continent are regarded as fair game for the reconfigured/empowered South African enterprises with no policy on empowering the rest of the black Africans.
At the continental level, there is no conversation about the need for pan-African empowerment charter. The absurd development is that South African capital is now being exported on a tricky foundation that is premised on the notion that empowering the pre-1994 blacks is a necessary and sufficient condition for economically colonising the rest of the continent.
Although the decolonisation project was prosecuted on the basis that an injury to one black person was an injury to all, the post-apartheid empowerment project is reserved to black persons as defined. Some may legitimately ask how a movement like ANC with its commitment to the pan-African project could end up being the architect of a new Africa that makes black Africans born outside the perimeters of the country less African than their white and Indian colleagues.
The heritage of South Africa can only confer benefits to black people as defined ignoring the consequences of the Berlin Conference of 1885 that split the continent into convenient economic units that separated brothers and sisters depending on who was privileged to be the master.
What would be the consequences if other countries in Africa were to adopt the same attitude that only their indigenous people should benefit? In the case of South Africa, the xenophobic sentiment resonates with many white people who genuinely believe that they have a better claim on South Africa than their fellow black immigrants.
It has been argued that the recent xenophobic attacks were motivated by President Mbeki’s stance on Zimbabwe. A proposition has been made that white and black Zimbabweans anxious for change may have invested in the xenophobic project as a way of encouraging Zimbabweans living in South Africa to return to Zimbabwe and vote as well exposing his alleged hypocrisy.
The anger expressed by black South Africans was as predictable as the consequences of a superficial empowerment process. It is clear that South Africa through its various laws has accepted that it is a different African country and black Africans have to take note and plan accordingly.
White South Africans have argued that the country is an attractive destination for black Africans after 52 years of uhuru precisely because they made it happen. They feel vindicated that Africa will never be a viable project without their intervention and control.
If black Africans can in their millions run away from the anti-imperialist legend, President Mugabe, then it is argued that this is enough evidence supporting the deeply held view that Africans were not ready for independence.
The framers of the colonial state justified the denial of civil and economic rights to black Africans on the basis that they had brought the civilisation that created the state as an institution and to the extent that they gave themselves credit for entrepreneurship that then funded the state, they maintained that they were entitled to exclusively benefit from the fruits of the initiative.
However, in accepting BEE, a new language has been created in South Africa and is supported by law that being a pre-1994 black person one has an entitlement to extract from whites part of what they accumulated during the colonial and apartheid eras.
It must accept that if apartheid South Africa had been governed the same way that for example Zimbabwe has been governed, then surely the influx of black Zimbabweans would be unthinkable. What is not deniable for example is that the estimated 3 million Zimbabweans living and working in South Africa are critical drivers of economic growth and they do contribute to the fiscus.
Unlike their white immigrants, black Zimbabweans have failed to invest in being South African in as much as whites have done. Indeed, it would be unthinkable for a black Zimbabwean born South African to aspire to be a Mayor of Cape Town in post-apartheid South Africa, for example, in as much as Mayor Helen Zille has done without attracting xenophobic attacks.
Having lived and worked in South Africa for the past 13 years, I also came to the conclusion that it is important to be part of the solution than be part of the problem. I acquired South African citizenship not because Zimbabwean citizenship is inferior but because I am an economic contributor to the South African project in as much as any other immigrant.
If Indians and whites can be accepted as South Africans then surely it cannot and should not be the case that Zimbabwe-born persons like us should apologise for being part of the South African story.
Recognising that when English people came to South Africa they saw the need of creating an Old Mutual in 1845 to serve their interests and the Afrikaners followed suit in 1928 by creating Sanlam, I am proud to say that I was one of the founding members of Africa Heritage Society (AHS), on the same principles of mutuality that underpinned Old Mutual and Sanlam with the only difference that we do not hold the same racists views that informed the colonial state.
As a member of AHS, I believe strongly that it is important that we begin to engage in conversations about what kind of Africa we want to see. Should we have a black only Africa? Should we have an empowered South Africa only with its empowered companies exporting the model to the rest of the continent? Who is an African? Who should benefit from Africa’s resources? Is the South African BEE related legislation consistent with the values of pan Africanism? What would be the implications on Africa’s growth and transformation if other African countries were to cut and paste the South African empowerment legislation and enact similar laws in their countries?
Mutumwa Mawere's
weekly column is published on New Zimbabwe.com every Monday. You can
contact him at: mmawere@global.co.za
JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS
ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
newsdesk@newzimbabwe.com
All material copyright newzimbabwe.com
Material may be published or reproduced in any form with appropriate credit to this website