Save electricity now and you’ll pay for it later

Hajira Amla |31 March 2008

The Department of Minerals and Energy last week announced plans to implement new legislation that would enforce hefty fines on Eskom’s residential and business customers that did not make a 10% saving on their energy bills. The new law, which has already sailed through Parliament and is expected to be implemented by July, would see home owners and businesses required to make the reduction based on previous months’ energy usage.

Am I the only person asking the obvious question here? Let’s say I am a good and patriotic South African citizen who is concerned by the energy crisis and has been moved by the government and Eskoms heartfelt pleas to save as much energy as possible. I’d estimate that at least 60% of households in South Africa have already made some kind of effort to curb their power consumption, whether by switching their geysers off during the day, fitting energy-saving lightbulbs or just switching appliances and lights off when they are not needed. The South African public is collectively quite proud of their individual efforts and expects to be patted on the back by Eskom.

So I’ve cut my electricity consumption by as much as 15% and I’m happy about that. Then I hear that Eskom is hiking the price of electricity by roughly 50%, with another planned increase of 50% on the cards in 2009 (it’s just about the only thing that’s ever come out of Alec Irwin’s mouth that I believe) and now my little personal good Samaritan’s effort feels like a hollow, empty victory.

Then when the law is implemented in July, they will look at my reduced consumption in May and June and tell me I have to save another 10%! How should I do that? Should my family eat only raw foods? Take cold showers? What will their next step be - to make the possession and use of heaters illegal? In what forecasters are predicting to be one of our harshest winters in the past few years, do they seriously expect people to shiver in the dark?

Let’s have a look and see what alternatives to electricity the government has provided us with, shall we? Gas is astronomically priced and good luck to you if you can find any in the coming months. Illuminating paraffin is going up by R1.57 cents a litre on Wednesday, so it’s not really going to be very economical to run a paraffin stove or paraffin lamps. As for those who bought diesel generators for those long, dark winter nights, the price of diesel is set to increase by a shocking R1.30 per litre on Wednesday.

The only conclusion I can draw from all this is that the government couldn’t care less about providing us with a solution as long as they have the opportunity to line their pockets with our hard-earned money - by fining us for the terrible crime of caring enough to reduce our consumption before July and then being unable to reduce it any further.

The moral of the story? I’m unapologetically refusing to save electricity now so that I can avoid paying fines after July. Thank you to Eskom, the Department of Minerals and Energy and the government’s general ineptitude and lack of forward planning for making us do the crazy things we do.

Time Magazine’s Person of the Year (2006) is persona non grata in South Africa

Hajira Amla | 7 March 2008 

In 2006, you (the general public) were given Time Magazine’s Person of the Year award. Although I still stick to my guns and say the general public only won because the online poll put Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the clear favourite to win the award (and that wouldn’t have gone down well in Washington), one cannot help but admit that the world-wide web has put an astonishing amount of volume into the voices of the man on the street with something on his mind.

Between sites such as Wikipedia, YouTube, Myspace, FaceBook and the blog sections of international news networks, people across the world discuss topics such as the US elections, the war in Iraq, ancient maps, the pigeon conspiracy to take over the world, and to how to remove the stubborn stains in your toilet easily. Not all of it is worthy of serious consideration, but the percentage of people getting involved in web-based discussions and activities is higher than it has ever been, resulting in a higher number of people getting interested, educated and involved in current affairs around the world. 

South Africa is no exception to this trend, with bloggers literally coming out of the woodwork from all sections of our society. Our country indeed offers top quality commentary and analysis into the ways of the world, and it doesn’t take a genius to figure that out. Everybody has an opinion, everyone feels that his or her commentary is valid and important, and in a democratic society, so it should be valued as such. Unfortunately, in South Africa, any dissident voice against the government’s plan for the country is dismissed as a racist voice. Oh, and black dissident voices are labeled as “coconut” voices (black on the outside but really just white supremacist on the inside). Go figure. 

Freedom of speech is in such peril at this juncture that most of the non-parastatal newspapers, radio stations and television news teams suffer tenuous, mistrustful and dysfunctional relationships with government departments and ANC bigwigs. The state-owned South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) has cut off all ties with the dissident media groups, rescinding its membership with the South African National Editors Forum (SANEF) and government has effectively put a halt to all advertising in the offending publications. At any given time there are at least two high-level members of the ANC trying to sue the Sunday Times for damning articles relating to allegations of corruption and lecherous behavior. 

Never before has public opinion taken such a turn against government spin, both locally and the world over, than it has in the past few years. Perhaps a mixture of disillusionment about government in general and the feeling that one has more or less total freedom of speech and a platform on which to stand and be heard on the internet has led to the sort of rebellious sarcasm and irreverent humour about government administrations and other current affairs that we see unfolding around us. 

The upswing in blogging has certainly done much to publicise the US primaries and the mud-slinging battles between former first lady Senator Hillary Clinton and the younger Senator Barack Obama, thereby generating massive amounts of interest the world over and in-depth commentary from the public, which is always useful for the campaign team to assess where they are going wrong. 

The African National Congress, sadly, does not seem to experience the same kind of lust for engaging in debate. One wonders if this is an indication of just how patriarchal and domineering our country’s decision-makers really are. The process of democracy seems to begin and end at the national elections once every four years. When concerns are raised, they are rubbished into the shadows. “No, there’s no crisis with regard to crime in South Africa”, “No, there is no division within the ANC”, “No, there is no tension between COSATU, the SACP and the ANC”, “No, I did not accept money from Schabir Shaik”. And it goes on and on… 

If you believed the ANC-led government, you would think all these things had been made up by pessimistic members of the media who have nothing better to do with their time than make up stories. By the way, that really is how the ANC explains it all away. Those in power today seem to be forging ahead with their own plans for the country without holding themselves accountable to the people that voted them into power. And the plans seem to be altogether less than altruistic, not to put too fine a point on it. Here are a few examples: 

·         The government is in the process of dissolving the elite crime-fighting unit called the Scorpions, South Africa’s answer to the rampant fraud and corruption problem plaguing the country’s government, and pushed the proposal through the two-thirds majority Parliament as though it was lubricated with the finest of oils. It may be worth mentioning that seven of the ANC’s National Executive Committee members have been found guilty of criminal offences in the past and six others are currently subjects of criminal investigations (statistics gleefully supplied by Helen Zille of the DA).  

·         The selection of the next president of the ANC is another distasteful case in point. Although the party enjoys such popularity among the citizens of the country as well as a comfortable two-thirds majority in Parliament, they did not feel the need to hold a public referendum on which person should become the next president of the organisation and, inevitably, the country. Just over 4000 ANC members voted to change the leadership that makes decisions for approximately 42 million South Africans (and about five or six million Zimbabweans).  

·          The five ANC Parliamentary whips found guilty of being involved in a wide-ranging travel scam which cost the taxpayer R17.2 million were given plea bargains and were not fired from Parliament last year. Around R9.4 million is owed by Members of Parliament and has yet to be recovered. It is astonishing to think that those who have pleaded guilty to corruption retain their jobs while those within the party who question the wisdom of their leaders are dismissed summarily, for example National Prosecuting Authority boss Vusi Pikoli, the deputy Health minister Nosiviwe Madlala-Routledge and former National Intelligence Agency boss Billy Masethla. 

·         Floor-crossing is another practice which many have argued is downright undemocratic. In a nutshell, every year for a certain period of time, Members of Parliament are allowed to “cross the floor” and join a different political party, but still retain their seats. This makes one wonder why on earth we voted at all to begin with when they can re-arrange themselves on the board as they please – and the floor crossing usually benefits only the bigger parties such as the ANC primarily and the Democratic Alliance to some extent. Smaller parties such as the Independent Democrats are all but crushed each year when they lose the seats they worked so hard for in the national elections. Due to vehement public outcry, floor crossing is set to be scrapped sometime within the next year – we think. But then again, the ANC has already benefitted in a huge way from it for quite a number of years, so it’s not a total loss for them.  

·         Dyantyi vs. Godzille – when the Democratic Alliance managed to wrest control of the City of Cape Town during the March 2006 local elections, the ANC proposed changing the executive mayoral system of government to an executive committee, which would put control of the Mother City back in the hands of the ANC. Following the unsuccessfulness of this bid, the formidable Helen Zille has been accused of many things by the ANC’s local government MEC Richard Dyantyi to try to topple her from her seat of power, including accusing her of the following: failing to implement affirmative action in the municipality (viz., employing white people), spying on non-DA Cape Town city councilors and having links to what the ANC claims is a vigilante group, PADLAC, to which end the mayor was publicly arrested on 9 September 2007. The charges were later thrown out of court.  

There seems to be an almost ironic parallel between Helen Zille and the Democratic Alliance today and Helen Suzman and her Progressive Party of yesteryear – a lone voice of reason in the political arena among a cacophony of zealous bigots trying to force the public to resign themselves to their sometimes radical policies. The South African government’s inclusion of the public in its decision-making processes seems to be inversely proportionate to the level at which the public are willing to become involved. And contrary to good PR practices, the more criticism is leveled at it, the more the ruling party seems to cower back into its shell and plot to gain more control, all the while alienating and intimidating South Africans even further. 

The ANC, and by inference, the government of South Africa, seems to have reached a point of no return as far as undoing the damage it has done is concerned. Those who wish to don rose-tinted glasses and call me negative are most welcome to do so, but through the eyes of one who has researched the fall of the apartheid regime, the new South African government seems to have followed in the doomed footsteps of their racist predecessors by implementing extremist and high-risk laws and policies which only serve to prolong existing tensions between certain groups and create enmity among sections of society which had never previously existed.  

Government has also failed to make good on its promises at election time for jobs, shelter, water and electricity to the poorest of the poor. The only people that seem to have benefited are the “newly elite” government crowd and their BEE protégés. This is a very small section of society, and they all seem to share common surnames, like the Zumas, the Skweyiyas, the Ngcukas, the Nqakulas, the Moleketis, and of course the Shaiks of this world. Funny, isn’t it?

Paying for the sins of other people’s forefathers

Hajira Amla | 4 March 2008

I came to South Africa in 1993 as an eleven-year-old, with South Africa teetering on the brink of political turmoil and change. I was born in the United Kingdom and lived in the Seychelles for two years prior to my arrival in South Africa. My mother is a Seychelloise and my father is, for want of a better word, English, but has lived in many countries throughout his life, including several African countries.

Now, having lived in black and Indian communities for most of my life, I am discriminated against in the New South Africa because of the colour of my skin. Although I did not benefit in any way from apartheid, it is nearly impossible for me to get a job because of the colour of my skin. Even though I am getting married to a “Historically Disadvantaged Individual” in a week’s time, I will still be penalised because of my European genes. My daughter will also be discriminated against when she grows up even though she was born in a Democratic South Africa from an English mother and a Scottish father.

Although I spend all my free time researching the injustices perpetrated against the non-white population in this country, from the time Jan van Riebeeck and the free burghers forced the Khoi-Khoi into slavery and submission right up to the 90-day detention law which swallowed the lives of many who struggled for freedom without a trace, my genes still make me an automatic racist.

This makes me think of the 1950s, when the apartheid regime enforced mandatory race classification. Families were torn apart because some were darker than others, and officials deemed a person “coloured” on the basis of whether a pencil stuck in their hair or not. Will we have to carry around identification documents which state our race? In a country where mixed marriages are becoming increasingly popular and commonplace, how will the next generation identify themselves then? Why should it even matter?

It’s not that I’m unsympathetic to the ideological desire to right old wrongs and correct the imbalance of power. It’s just that there’s this thing called the Constitution that our children are supposed to honour and uphold, that says there shall be no discrimination on the basis of race, gender or religious beliefs. Yet here we are… wondering when affirmative action will end. When will procurement and human resources stop looking at my skin and discarding my applications with upturned noses?

As a child growing up in the Seychelles, I lived in a society where I saw no colour. Whites, Indians and blacks have lived, worked and made babies with one other for decades. My maternal family is of African, French and Indian descent, yet we all love one another equally and make no distinctions among one another.

I do not for one second dismiss or try to diminish the importance of the struggle against apartheid, and I furthermore acknowlege that the solution is not a simple one. I apologise if my opinion doesn’t toe the ANC party line, but I am still entitled to put forth my argument - at least for the time being. Will whites in this country have to bear the burden of collective punishment twenty years from now? They will only continue to be resentful towards blacks and carry that bitterness and hatred over to the next generation. In the meantime the new black bourgeoisie keep the other 90% of the black population suffering in abject poverty distracted by blaming all their problems on the white man. This is certainly not the way to heal the rifts of the past. Going forward in the new South Africa was supposed to be about reconciliation, not the perpetuation of hatred on racial lines.

South Africa’s neutrality questionable over Iran sanctions vote

By Hajira Amla | 4 March 2008

South Africa voted on Monday in approval of a proposed third tier of United Nations sanctions on the beleaguered Islamic Republic of Iran despite their own representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s recommendations to the contrary.

The Department of Foreign Affairs’ Chief Director to the UN, Xolisa Mabhongo, said South Africa had not been pressurised by any major power into approving the sanctions, after France and Britain had postponed the vote to try to gain the support of four non-permanent Security Council members. French President Nicholas Sarkozy made an official visit to the country this week when the vote took place, sparking speculation that South Africa voted ‘yay’ to strengthen ties with the French president.

The vote may be seen to damage the credibility of South Africa’s self-claimed reputation for fairness and neutrality in the face of Iran’s co-operation with the IAEA. The South African representative of the IAEA, Abdul Samad Minty, had on Thursday told the UN Security Council that Iran had met all current requirements, and warned the Council not to implement further sanctions against Iran as negotiations were at a critical stage for Iran to sign further IAEA protocols. Minty said that the implementation of further sanctions could irreparably damage the delicate relationship between Iran and the IAEA.

The implications of this vote could be disastrous for South Africa’s diplomatic track record as Iran may - justifiably - refuse to accept South African mediation efforts should hostility between Iran and the United States escalate towards military aggression. There may not be many other countries that would be willing to intervene for the sake of peace and justice between the two most ideologically stubborn countries in the world.

High aspirations and national pride were paraded back and forth at the time South Africa was admitted as a non-permanent member of the United Nations’ Security Council. However, the toothless lion of the African savannah seems to have fallen asleep at the table and lost the plot.