Why are we comparing a democratic South Africa to Nazi Germany? A response to James Myburgh

Everything is everywhere, the environment selects. This is an interesting statement that points to what may be considered the natural order of things. Where given sufficient opportunities, people will prosper and realise their potential. In some cases the environment can be altered in such a way that only some species will prosper or prosper more than others.

The idea of bioremediation is partly relevant to this. It's a phenomenon that is exploited for environmental management when different kinds of biomolecules like oil and petrol spill in an area. What happens in these cases is that microbes will be put in the area where a particular resource suddenly "became available" and they will utilise it until it is depleted.

It is obviously not all of the microbes that will utilise the resource in the same way. The difference in the genetic makeup of different organisms is what probably led Charles Darwin to conclude that the fittest will survive. We can add to this that the fittest will survive if left free to survive in the best way that nature equipped them to.

In Mr Myburgh's recent article "Race quotas: The terrible power of demographic representivity" he points to policies that have been put in place by the government since the dawn of democracy aimed equity in employment (see here). Credit has to be given to the Mr Myburgh on the thorough research that he went through in putting the article together, especially on the kind of treatments that the Jews in Germany went through during the holocaust.

What is really not clear however is how he uses this background to reach the conclusion that he is making or inferring in the article. This I think would have been very important since the goals of the two dispensations i.e. Nazi Germany and democratic South Africa are very different. What South Africa is doing is redressing the effects of legalized injustices of the Apartheid government.

It would have further been important to show how those who were called the Aryan Germans have been deliberately suppressed by the governments before that of Adolf Hitler. An important question however would be how the Jews got to occupy those positions that they did. The point we should not shy away from is what the historical background is.

South African EE is necessary

I always find it challenging to respond to a person arguing against employment equity in South Africa. I will try though to do just this, since this is a very important issue that has the potential to help negate or further entrench the inequalities that South Africa struggles with. What I am convinced about or at least wish to believe is that Mr Myburgh is clear about what led to the need for policies aimed at the redress in the economic participation of black people of this country. I use the definition of black as it is also used in The Employment Equity Act No. 55 of 1998 (Republic of South Africa, 1998a which defines black people as Africans, Coloureds (mixed race) and Indians.

In the article he clearly points out the demographics of the country where he notes that 74.9% is black, 11.3% is white and 3% is Indian. Adele Thomas in the article Employment equity in South Africa; lessons from the global school looks at a 1998 Department of Labour report  that alludes to the fact that:

"While some progress has been made in this area, management structures, however, are still the domain of white males. Figures provided in 1997 (Breakwater Monitor, 1997) of 99 companies employing, in total, 651,000 employees indicated that top managerial ranks of companies(Paterson F Grade) comprised 6.15 per cent blacks, 0.36 per cent Coloureds,0.90 per cent Asians[2], while whites constituted 92.59 per cent. This was in sharp contrast to the lowest level (Paterson A Grade) where the equivalent statistics were 88.47 per cent, 8.25 per cent, 1.29 per cent and 1.99 per centres respectively. In July 1998, a continuation of this study (Breakwater Monitor,1998) reported that 87 per cent of private sector management is white, 93 percent of executive managers are white, 92 per cent of senior managers are white, six per cent of all managers are black (African) and only 14 per cent of managers are women, of whom 77 per cent are white. A survey of 455 South African businesses has recently revealed that black employees comprise 11 percent of senior management structures, of which one per cent comprise black women (Department of Labour, 1998a)".

What is necessary to take cognisance of is the fact that the equity issue is not only limited to race but also the gender divide in the employment of women to key institutions as compared to their male counter parts. These divides cannot be said to have come by chance or a result of the inherent competence of white men relative to black men and women and white women.

The same laws mentioned which have been put in place by the democratic government are a response to some of the laws and policies that were put in place and implemented by past governments which ensured the privilege of white men over everyone else. This was not put in the same words, as we would all probably know how important the aesthetic presentation of some of these odd laws are like.

The typical case is the actual policy that is the basis of the current argument. Apartheid, as a policy was never referred to in a way that sounded like a policy aimed at preserving the privilege of whites but was always referred to in the media and elsewhere as the policy of Separate Development. Now to any person that has never been exposed to information about what this policy meant for black people, the belief may be that the "development" did occur on both sides, well it did not.

Black people of this country have since then been thrown into townships all over the country, all of which are service reservoirs for nearby suburbs. Not only this, but they have went on to receive inferior education, with less funding, living far from where they worked and paid less when they had the same jobs as white people (when they did).

This separate development is unfortunately not the kind that just naturally goes away in a few years, and the "few" in this case talks to no less than 50 years if this redress is not done with some kind on assistance for those who have been held back by the so called separate development policies.

Separate development also had implications for social interactions and how resources were distributed, in the process leading to an accumulation of resources and capital (financial and academically). The idea of "old money" and the huge advantage that it gives those who grow in it, is not an issue that can be taken lightly if taken for granted at all.

I do not believe that it can be disputed that people who grow in privileged settings (from separate development and otherwise) have an advantage relative to those who do not have a similar background. Without having to deal with the "I was taken out of context" issue it would be fair to acknowledge that I find nothing wrong with wealthy people and the privilege that they are accorded by the status. It is nothing to be ashamed of when it has been earned through fair play. South Africa has however not been a level field for play in the economic participation game.

Alistair Body-Evans notes that "In 1982 the Apartheid government of South Africa spent an average of R1,211 on education for each White child, and only R146 for each Black child." This amounts have not been constant over time and the ratio has been bigger at some points than others. This is compounded by the fact that not only was the amount of money spent on the black kids lower but the education was also inferior and presented in a language that made it even more difficult for blacks to find their way to performing in the best way they can.

This is an issue that served as the detonator for the 1976 uprisings. Let's note that when the black youth rose against the oppressive laws, the white kid that was in school at that time is currently only 38 years of age. The implications of this are not that difficult to work out.

The game cannot be said to be fair when one grows in a family where the grandparents and parents are products of an inferior education and then have to be judged on the same basis when they have to compete for jobs, often in companies that are largely owned by their fellow racially privileged individuals. We are not to forget that the equity is not only racial but also looks at the patriarchal history we come from where women were treated in an unjust manner based solely on their gender, much like then race question.

If a country we can all identify with is the goal, then EE is relevant

Contrary to popular belief about the moral argument for redress, I find it important to actually note that the world is not fair and we are probably not likely to experience a world that is free from injustices and inequality, at least not in the near future. I am however of the firm belief that the fight against this should not stop, especially against those deliberately created by the state.

If the South Africa we want to create is one that was foreseen by among others the late former President Nelson Mandela, redress is crucial. With democratic politics and depending on the kind of democracy, the majority can put in place laws that can disadvantage the minorities.

This was however not the route that the new South Africa took, it was an inclusive democracy that constitutionally ensures not only the rights of racial minorities but also protects sexual, religious and gender rights. The flipside of this coin has to be to ensure that we redress some of the injustices that have been committed against women and black people.

The constitutional law expert, Prof Pierre De Vos alluded to this important element in an article that appeared in the Daily Maverick where he notes that "There can be no serious talk of equality and non-discrimination in a world in which racial discrimination is structurally built into the system and skews the way in which privileges and opportunities are distributed - mostly along racial lines." He further notes that," It is in this context that arguments about the supposed "reverse racism" of redress measures can sound ludicrous and embarrassingly self-serving." Whether or not they are compared to the case of Nazi Germany as it is in Mr Myburgh's argument.

In as much as I am not proud of a number of measures aimed at redress, I cannot for one second underestimate the need for this. If we agree that society is usually made of different people who are "gifted" (genetically and otherwise) differently, with different work ethics, yielding different successes, there is no reason why under normal circumstances the majority should not be represented as per demographics in leadership and the economy.

If 10% of society is made up of intelligent people, there is no reason why 7 or those people should not be black when the playing field is level. The quotas that Mr Myburgh points to are necessary measures aimed at ensuring that the gates are open to people in an equitable manner.

It is something that should concern all of us that the vast majority of the leaders in key institutions and senior management positions of companies are white whereas the black people of this country make up the majority of the country. Are we saying we should wait until we reach natural equilibrium or that the status quo is a true reflection of the South African skills pool? I hope we can work around this dear citizens.

Khomotso Ntuli is facilitator of Bush Dialogues and can be reached at [email protected]

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter