Faith is the biggest business not least because its practitioners are driven by greed, but its customers realise the limitations and opportunities of human life.

When human beings think and act as one they possess a power that is indivisible and solid.
Human progress is necessarily located in the ability of actors to pursue individual interests, but in a societal or community framework.

The box that we have to think and act in has to be seen in a bigger context.

Nation states exist only because human beings thinking and acting in the personal, family, clan, village, provincial and national settings define and shape its character.

A firm’s character is equally shaped and defined by its stakeholders contrary to the generally held notion that firms are extensions of shareholders and, indeed, they are tools solely set up to extract value and not add goods and services necessary for a better life.

Leaders are human after all. They are incapable of possessing the power to cause other human beings to act in a manner that undermines his or her interests.

If we accept that life is only meaningful if it brings with it an environment in which choice and freedom are obtainable, then we are compelled to respect the rights of persons and their property.

The space that an individual operates in and the choices made must be voluntary in order to get the maximum from the creativity and innovation of human beings.

Successful firms acquire the status from their abilty to serve and the same applies to nation states.

The power of one starts with the individual acting in a seemingly selfish and irrational manner, but when everyone pulls his or her own wagon, the outcomes are predictable.

In the context of Zimbabwe, the columnist who chose to use Nathaniel Manheru as his trading name has written extensively to convince Zimbabweans that his worldview is the only correct and patrotic one.

He believes strongly that his party, Zanu PF and its leadership who have been in power for the last 32 years must be credited for all the perceived successes of the post-colonial state and must not be held to book for failures.

However, it is striking that an individual with an excellent mind and ability to connect words in a coherent manner would find no fault in the manner in which those elected to serve have discharged their duties.

So when I read Manheru’s last instalment entitled Zimdollar: When inventor-owner loses control to the doorman, I was not surprised that he could not and failed to respond to the allegations made using a few examples including my own experiences.

In as much as he would like to give credit to Zanu PF for the dollarisation of the economy, he is silent on who should assume the responsibility for undermining the promise to an extent that it was deemed fit for the domestic unit of account to be abandoned.

While he showers Zanu PF with credit for giving life to the idea of using the currencies of foreign states he fails to stand up and be counted for bringing into life toxic legislation like the Reconstruction of State-Indebted Insolvent Companies Act and the misery it has occassioned on the lives of so many people.

He chose to reduce the addition of my voice to the battle of ideas as motivated solely by bitterness.
To him and the few who think like him, progress is only possible when time and effort is devoted towards throwing mud at perceived enemies and competitors.

A negative mind that is blinded by an inert inability to think outside the frame of the status quo does little to advance the human cause.

Instead of focusing on being against Morgan Tsvangirai or any other credible contender for political office, Manheru should tell us what he believes in and where he genuinely believes that the country would be better off if MDC never came into existence and Zanu PF was the only political home of all Zimbabweans.

The need to debate isssues rather than individuals in the quest for a higher moral and economic ground cannot overstated.

One individual is capable of undermining the promise if he is allowed to hear his own voice and sing for his supper while we choose to sit back in silence.

Time for change is now and it begins with each and everyone of us.

Manheru must understand his worldview does not represent the universe and when that happens he will know the real enemy of progress may very well be close to him, but his his eyes and ears are blinded and blocked by the ghosts of the past.

Author: Mutumwa Mawere
Mutumwa Mawere is a businessman based in South Africa. He writes in his personal capacity.

Indeed the law of the jungle applies to the rest of the animal kingdom where might is right. We generally expect better from human beings.

When the basic foundational principles expected in the human kingdom are absent, then one must know that the difference, if any, between the animal and human mind is the same.

When an occurrence of the nature that challenges the human mind to reflect on what it means to be a human being happens, then it is important to expose such occurrences in the best interests of protecting human civilisation.

Human beings can think, act and make choices in a manner that gives them dominion over other animals.

We can organise ourselves and most importantly, we have the capacity to self govern by putting in place a legal system that can regulate human behaviour.

The absence, therefore, of a government in the animal kingdom is not accidental to suggest that human beings are entitled to expect better from the people who serve them.

However, when State actors begin to behave as if there is no difference between human beings and animals, then it is time to go back to the drawing board. In making this observation, I can only rely on examples that have been revealed to me in my life.

I have come to accept that common sense is not always common and, therefore, it is important to expose the uncommon one.

I have been a victim of the logic that Patrick Chinamasa, the Justice and Legal Affairs minister acting solely on his own, was the genius behind the construction and execution of a law that belongs to a class of laws that can only exist in the animal kingdom ie the Reconstruction of State-Indebted and Insolvent Companies Act.

I have refused to accept that a single individual can have the capacity to think and act in a box without the support of others especially when the human mind is capable of knowing better in terms of what is right and just.

Obviously the mind that mooted the idea of the Act must be congratulated for blinding the majority to believe that the law has no relevance to their own interests and affairs.

One aspect of the law that I thought needed exposure is the manner in which an “associate” in relation to a company in which the Act applies to was defined.

Associate in relation to a company referred to in the Act was mischievously give the following self-serving meaning:

Its subsidiary

Any company of which the company is the single largest shareholder.

Its holding company

Where the company is itself a subsidiary of a holding company, any other subsidiary of the holding company

Any person who has power, directly or indirectly, to control the company’s management and policies.

The above definition was deliberately inserted in the Act to permit the minds that saw a benefit in borrowing State powers for the sole purpose of achieving ends that could not be accomodated using existing laws to assume the control of a private company while ensuring that no avenue could exist for the parent or sister of the targetted company to challenge the unlawful act.

Put simply, the law permits the parent, sibling and relation of an accused to be also held culpable for the alleged crime of the targetted.

In this case, in terms of the Act, a crime allegedly committed by a person can be used to sink his or her relatives without any attempt to treat each person as a separate and distinct entity.

The implications of this Act in so far as it allows State actors to hold liable and culpable relatives of an accused for the conduct of a person in the family tree, are far-reaching and unprecedented.

The existence of the law for more than eight years on the Zimbabwean statutes suggests that anything is possible where people are not vigilant.

By highlighting and exposing lunacy, I hope that the content and context of the daily conversations that take place between people concerned about the future of Zimbabwe and Africa, will change so that we can begin to make people accountable for reducing human civilisation to animal behaviour without making the necessary declarations that the law of the jungle is the operative law in post-colonial Zimbabwe.

We clearly have a long way to go towards making Zimbabwe’s future secure. The brilliant minds that were seized with the task of converting an idea of creating a window for this lunacy, must at the very least come out in the open to add their faces and voices to the class of animals that believe the end justifies the means.

When I reflect on the plight of the workers at Shabani Mashaba Mines and try to locate the place and time when minds met to condemn the future of so many in the interests of punishing an individual for a crime that was not captured by all existing laws, I am compelled to add my voice and face to not only the workers and their families, but the African family that the future is not secure when the State can be used to increase the bargaining power of cowards.

Author: Mutumwa Mawere
Mutumwa Mawere is a businessman based in South Africa. He writes in his personal capacity.

Manheru correctly observes that no real assessment of the Right Honourable Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai’s book (“MT”) has been done by a Zimbabwean and concludes by saying that this is partly a self-sought ruin, partly a tragedy of contemporary Zimbabwe.

My focus is not on MT’s book and its alleged shortcomings but on the need to invest in the correct knowledge about the African story.

Many of us are afraid to add our voices and faces to the story choosing to be observers of the unfolding drama that typically takes place in our continent.

The central message that comes from Manheru’s instalment is that ZANU-PF is in charge and MDC representatives in government are of no consequence but more significantly are intellectual midgets whose actions and choices are not origin and patriotic.

The fact that the post-colonial government of Zimbabwe has been presided by one face is not in doubt but the question of governance and the genesis of the ideas that have influenced the direction of the economy require careful examination.

In the battle of ideas that seek to dominate the thinking on what kind of Zimbabwe the future should hold, the people in power have a tendency to believe that they alone have the historic mission to impose their ideas on others instead of negotiating with others on the kind of political and economic morality that is required to deliver the promise.

The Zimbabwean narrative will suggest that the rulers are the only thinkers sufficiently concerned about the condition of the people when in truth and fact the squandered opportunities of the post-colonial era may have been directly produced by the crowding out effect of few minds that see no evil or harm emanating from power that is not shared or a vision that is monopolised.

It is clear from Manheru’s perspective that MT is not fit to govern.  Equally, it is self evident from the ideas that he subscribes to that only his boss has what it takes to govern.

In the battle of ideas, we are compelled to ask whether an electoral system is capable of producing smart or intelligent outcomes.  If this is the case, people normally get leaders they deserve.  What is more important is for citizens to be vigilant and participate actively in the battle of ideas because propaganda can be used to distort and mask the real issues.

MT like any citizen of Zimbabwe is entitled to be wrong but what is important is that minds must find a meeting point on what matters.

To Manheru it would appear that the rulers are always right and any credit for human progress in post-colonial Zimbabwe must be given to ZANU-PF.  However, we must accept that ZANU-PF and its actors are no angels.

I have no doubt that the narrative of post-colonial Zimbabwe from the perspectives of people like the late Nyagumbo, Tekere, and others may be different from Manheru’s although no one can deny that they played a part in the liberation struggle.

If I were to ask Mr. Enos Nkala, for instance, about the Zimbabwean idea I have no doubt that he will have a lot to say about what has gone wrong not in MDC but in ZANU-PF.

Recently, Mr. Makamba lost his daughter in a car accident but unfortunately could not visit Zimbabwe because of the existence of a warrant of arrest notwithstanding the fact that he was acquitted on the charges that saw him languish in prison on remand for seven months.

I have no doubt that he has a lot to say about the rulers of Zimbabwe and the great idea that would condemn him to prison on a crime he did not commit.

Mr. Chiyangwa who has never received a government salary in his life must be wondering what idea Manheru is talking about when he was arrested on espionage notwithstanding the fact that he was not a state actor.

Surely, it must be self-evident to the minds that framed the charge that the Official Secrets Act must only apply to people who have taken an oath not to disclose government secrets to third parties.

Today, Chiyangwa is being told by a party of liberation that he is not free to add his name and face to the contestants for provincial party posts because he is guilty as charged.  No court of law has convicted him and yet the party that Manheru credits with wisdom has already condemned him.

Surely the struggle for freedom, justice and democracy was meant to allow people like Chiyangwa to contest for any office without let and hindrance.

Only the voters must decide and yet it would appear to Manheru that we should rather focus on MT’s alleged character flaws or disputed facts in his book to decide on what kind of Zimbabwe we should have.

The starting point must surely be an assessment of the actions and choices that have been made over the last 32 years.

The focus should not be what MT’s shortcomings are because even according to Manheru’s version he has yet to test real power but we should focus on the ideas of ZANU-PF to understand why so many would find refuge and economic progress in foreign states and more importantly why people would be afraid to engage in the battle of ideas when they know better given what has happened to many who have chosen to see the world differently from the rulers.

As I look back on my own journey, I am also compelled to add my voice on the unacceptable political morality that would suggest that the end justifies the means.

In examining the preamble of the Reconstruction Act, a law that was used by the rulers to assume the control and management of SMM Holdings Private Limited (“SMM”), I thought that it would be beneficial to share the text so that people can begin to understand why MT would find no better title than “In the deep end” because the rulers can and have been ruthless in executing not the mandate of the people but the desire to remain in power.

The preamble reads as follows: “The Act shall apply to all State-Indebted companies, including those formed or incorporated before the date of commencement of the Act and regardless of when they became indebted to the State”.

In the battle of ideas, I have no doubt that Manheru would find justification for a law that applies retrospectively.  If this is what independence was meant to produce, then we must begin to debate the real question on whether the rulers are fit to govern.

It is true that for any idea to be converted into law the consent of the President is required.

In this case, the Act was passed when ZANU-PF dominated all the organs of the state and, therefore, it is legitimate to ask Manheru in his next instalment to provide a sound explanation on whether a regime that is capable of producing a law that applies retrospectively is what the liberation struggle was meant to produce and to what legitimate national interest.

Author: Mutumwa Mawere.

Building national democratic societies is never an easy task, but what we do know is it is fundamental that such societies are founded and underpinned by a political and economic morality that respects the rule of law and in which the rights of persons and to their property are also respected.

So when Justice minister Patrick Chinamasa invoked Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) by promulgating Statutory Instrument 187 of 2004 published as a supplement to the Zimbabwean Government Gazette dated September 3 2004, it stands to reason the minds that saw it fit to use emergency powers to deal with the affairs of SMM Holdings Private Limited (SMM) were of the view there was no other instrument to use than to borrow State powers to create a law that did not exist.

In a few weeks, Zimbabwe will celebrate its 32nd birthday and as we reflect on the journey travelled, we will no doubt be compelled to think critically about the past, present and future not only through the eyes and actions of the few privileged to preside over the State, but through our collective inability to take ownership of the future by refusing to be reduced to spectators of history.

It must be obvious to all who live in free societies that any law must be capable of being understood by the people to whom it must apply and, more significantly, it must serve a legitimate purpose.

The real test of any democratic dispensation must surely lie in its ability to submit itself to the dictates of the rule of law and not rule by law.

I have no doubt that the brains behind the law used to deal with my circumstances were not many, but were determined to use any means necessary and available to achieve a desired outcome.

When the minds behind this Act met for the first time, they must have thought hard about the need for the law and what words should be used to justify its use.

The creative minds came up with the title: “Reconstruction of State-Indebted Insolvent Companies Regulations”. Each word used must have been thought of carefully.

By invoking the word “reconstruction”, an impression no doubt needed to be created that jurisdictional facts existed warranting the State to be involved in an unprecedented reconstructive corporate surgery in which the courts were deemed to be incompetent to be involved.

It must have occurred to the minds at work that the only avenue to create a nexus for State intervention was to allege some kind of involvement by the State as a creditor.

No creditor would ideally need the assistance of a law that did not exist at the time when indebtedness was created.

By using the term “State-indebted”, it must have been obvious to the architects of the law that in the minds of the majority the State exists as a contracting power and that such an entity in so far as SMM was concerned could not rely on the laws that existed to protect any legitimate creditor.

In any constitutional democracy, the doctrine of the separation of powers would be relied upon to protect the public against abuse of Presidential powers where the Legislature is independent and autonomous.

Even where the members of the Legislature can be whipped to enact into law regulations that serve no legitimate purpose, one would still look to an independent Judiciary to see through the mischief in laws of this nature.

The fact that the Reconstruction laws belong to a class of laws that should not exist in any democratic society requires no assistance from any person from outer space.

After eight years of the existence of the Reconstruction laws, we must accept that it is not the genius of the few minds that met to give it life, but the silence of the majority.

It is interesting that the minds behind the law saw it fit to borrow the term “insolvency” to mask the true intention.

Firstly, for the law to be applied, a potential victim had to be indebted to the State, but this was deemed to be insufficient to allow the creditor, in this case the State, to intervene.

What was required then was to create the impression that the State by giving itself superior creditor status could unilaterally and arbitrarily classify a victim as insolvent without the involvement of the courts.

The President must no doubt have been informed or misinformed that grounds for State intervention existed with some justification. The President had to be part of the scheme knowingly and unknowingly.

However, because of our past and the limited literacy on corporate civilisation issues, one can understand why wool can be pulled over the eyes of an unsuspecting liberation icon to the extent that the risk of his legacy as a reliable custodian of the kind of morality that is required to secure a prosperous and inclusive society is tarnished.

History will record that a law that does not make sense was passed during the watch of not only the President, but a Legislature that at the material time was incapable of thinking and acting outside the box prescribed by the masters in the Executive.

Democracy normally instils fear in the minds of the mischievous, but when the mischievous are no longer afraid, then one must know that the centre can no longer hold.

The courage to imagine a law that serves no legitimate purpose must be noted, but to then proceed to give life to such an absurdity and get away with it exposes how fragile and weak the post-colonial institutional framework is.

The law in question has no equivalent in any other country in the world and this must say something about the innovative capacity of the minds behind the law.

The inclusive government came into existence in 2009 and after almost three years of existence, one can conclude that there are more pressing issues than focusing on building a new moral, just and equitable foundation informed by real life examples of what not to do in building sustainable democratic societies.

A legitimate question has to be asked on what kind of mind would give life to regulations and laws of this nature.

Who were the people behind the law? It is important that such individuals are brought to the attention of the broader public.

It would be simplistic to imagine that Chinamasa acting alone would have been capable of dreaming up the law and acting on the dream without the active support of not only State but non-State actors.

The fact that the faces and voices of the people behind the law has not been exposed after more than eight years of the existence of the law must be an issue of concern in any country that is trying to escape from an ugly past.

By adding my voice to this issue, it is my hope that other minds will also meet and reflect on how the liberation project can be easily manipulated and undermined.

We have to ask whether it is conceivable that a company can be indebted to the State. Surely being indebted to a State corporation like Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority cannot be construed as State indebtedness.

It must be clear to all that a law now exists that permits the State to be the judge unto its own cause.

Yesterday it was SMM; today it is Zimplats where it is being asserted by the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority that the company owes $28 million in royalties which exposes the company to be reconstructed in the event that the funds are not paid as demanded.

Author: Mutumwa Mawere

Mutumwa Mawere is a businessman based in South Africa. He writes in his personal capacity.

My own experiences have assisted me in sharpening my understanding about the human mind and the need to create a vibrant space in which minds can meet and engage in meaningful conversations based on the premise that every mind counts and ideas, facts and perspectives can advance the human cause when they are voluntarily generated and freely shared.

It was Theodore Zeldin, the author and historian, who observed that: “Conversation is a meeting of minds with different memories and habits. When minds meet, they don’t just exchange facts: they transform, reshape them, draw different implications from them, and engage in new trains of thought. Conversation doesn’t just reshuffle the cards: it creates new cards.”

In a letter to James Madison dated January 30, 1787, Thomas Jefferson stated that: “The people cannot be all, and always informed. The past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is a lethargy; the forerunner of death to the public liberty.”

I have chosen to focus my thoughts on what can be done to allow more African minds to discover the facts that reside in many minds, but never find expression because the typical human instinct is to withhold facts rather than use such facts and experiences to build new knowledge systems to the benefit of humankind.

Creating new cards through conversations requires effort. What separates post-colonial Africa from its peers is the limited or lack of informed conversations on the kind of issues that promote progress and prosperity.

It is easy to fall into the trap that the obligation to bring facts to the table lies with the next person.There is no doubt that my story will be part of the narrative of our generation.

Given the nature of life, my natural voice has a temporary shelf life compelling me to spare no effort in telling my story in my own words so that future generations my draw lessons from our experiences.

The privilege of writing carries with it obligations to choose the words and images that best capture the essence of the message.

The future is always kind to those who choose to use their actions to leave life imprints that can assure others that nothing is inevitable and guaranteed in life.

The past cannot be relived, but knowing about it secures the future. We often take for granted the forces that have played a part in shaping and defining the present.

It is not unusual that human beings have the propensity to appropriate the present state of affairs to the actions of a few forgetting that the present is a consequence of both the actions and inaction of the aggregate.

Human civilisation has taught us that creativity cannot be prescribed. It comes naturally from the ideas and thoughts of human beings. The subject that has occupied my mind for sometime relates to the role of corporate citizens in nation building.

A corporate citizen is an artificial person that only exists if the rule of law is in existence.

Unfortunately, the knowledge base about corporate citizens and the role they play in building inclusive and cohesive societies is often subordinated to the role politics and politicians play in the state.

A successful corporation is only measured in terms of its ability to deliver goods and services to willing market participants.

However, it is difficult to measure the performance of political actors and yet more is expected from them by society.

The role of corporations and the motives of the players in the corporate space are often misunderstood in as much as the role of the State and its actors.

How can we bridge this disconnect? Although it is a tall order, the few African players who have been privileged to play in the corporate space have an obligation to add their voices and faces to the conversations about the role of markets and justice in advancing the cause of nation building.

I have tried in my previous articles to deal with the philosophical issues surrounding the role of corporate and State actors in nation building.

Many of the State actors rise through the ranks using different rules while some employ slogans, intimidation and propaganda as weapons.

This is largely so because the majority of thought leaders on business issues generally frown upon the people who offer themselves to serve using the medium of the State.

How do we equip our teachers to know better about the corporate side of civilisation? We can only do so when we begin to incorporate corporate issues in the many discourses that take place between human beings.

If one were to measure the corporate content of the daily human conversations, it is not difficult to establish why corporate citizens are disliked.

The deficiency in the corporate content in conversations must squarely be blamed on the inability of corporate actors to connect with the general public.

Our experiences in the corporate world are limited to the memories of a few players. Such memories are generally not shared in books and newspapers to inspire young people to make the kind of choices that promote the prosperity of Africa.

Who are the drivers and builders of the African story?

If we do not invest in building new knowledge platforms, the future may never know how food is delivered to the table, for example, and what is required for the supply chain architecture to perform effectively and efficiently.

Author: Mutumwa Mawere

It, is therefore, fitting that I add my voice on this last article for 2011 to the extraordinary events that started unfolding from 17 December 2010 when a young vendor named Mohammed Bouazizi in Tunisia came to the conclusion that his life was less important than the change that needed to take place in his country so that the dignity of citizens could be restored.

Although Tunisia and its fellow Arab states that have given in to the power of the masses are distant from the borders of many African states, we all know that the wind of change cannot be stopped at border posts that divide our states.

As we look back at the events of the last year, we are compelled to pause and reflect on how best our nation states can respond to the forces of history, faith, security and economics that have caused others to rise up to demand a better deal.

History has a tendency to repeat itself.  In August 1953, Professor Z.K. Mathews at the annual congress of the African National Congress suggested the convening of a Congress of the People (C.O.P.) to draw what is now known as the Freedom Charter.

History will record that when a broad coalition of about 2,844 South Africans met on 25 and 26 June 1955 in Kliptown, near Johannesburg, they resolved to link the new order with the will of the people in proclaiming that “South African belongs to all who live in it” and “no government can justly claim authority unless it is based on the will of the people”.

From Sudan to South Sudan in 2011, the African post-colonial narrative has produced its own absurdities no different from the objective conditions obtaining in many Arab states.

The longing for freedom that spurred many Africans to be the authors of the kind of change that they wanted to see through struggles endures to this day.

Independence brought with it a promise that a better life was possible underpinned by freedom, justice and equality.  However, the experience of independence has failed to deliver the promise.

The story of the Arab uprising and the ones that have followed in many nation states was as inevitable as it was predictable.

African states won their independence starting with Sudan in 1956 but the post-colonial experience has denied the people the independence that they sought and deserved.

Instead of the power being vested with the people, all too often power has been concentrated in the hands of the few who believe that democracy has the capacity to elevate them to some super beings possessed with the superior wisdom and power of indispensability.

The office bearers of a peoples’ project, i.e. the state, in many African states believe that they alone have the obligation to preside over the affairs of the state.

In many African states, ordinary citizens have no access to the state’s organs and more significantly their voices are crowded out by the voices of state actors who see in the media a convenient platform for propaganda.

Through the manipulation of the media, judiciary and the various organs of the state including parliament, elections have been reduced to ritual events whose outcomes have little to do with the aspirations of the people.

The process of stealing the power vested in the people is ordinarily legitimized through elections.

What we do know from human experience is that no person is capable of ignoring his needs in preference for other people’s needs.

Even the head of state is and always pulls his/her wagon full of friendly and family passengers.

The promise of independence that citizens would be given an opportunity to make their lives what they will has been eroded by the actions of the people who have seen in the state a convenient mechanism of enriching themselves.

Economic democracy has been an illusion in many developing states.

It not unusual for state actors in resource-endowed nations to play God in the allocation of resources to only those who can afford the toll gates fees.

Although it is common cause that no living human being has played a part in the creation of natural resources, the pockets of prosperity that arise as a result of the abuse of state power are artificially generated in a manner that crowds out financially any contender for state office operating outside the four corners of the state.

History and contemporary experience has taught us that knowledge and innovation are more powerful instruments for wealth generation to suggest that development strategies primarily based on what God has created i.e. land and minerals are counter productive.

People cannot reach the potential that independence promised when there is no rule of law and more importantly when the rights of persons and their property are not respected.

We have seen many African leaders in the face of their nations failing to deliver the promise try to direct the grievances of the people elsewhere.

Imperialism, race and capitalism are often targeted as the source of poverty forgetting that many former colonies have risen up and are asserting their rightful places in the Commonwealth of Nations.

Even after more than five decades after the end of colonialism, it is not unusual that African state role players find it easy to blame the past.

Instead of leaning forward, the propensity to use the rear view mirror to see what lies ahead in the journey of nation building continues to be high.

The events of the last year have demonstrated that strategies of oppression and diversion have a limited shelf life.

The democratization of knowledge and information has allowed citizens to know better and act in their self-interest.

The voices that we hear on the social networking platforms suggest that change is inevitable given the demographics of Africa.

President Obama led the way by exposing how easy it is for an outsider to seize state power underpinned by the support of ordinary people who felt alienated from the system.

Independence has failed to produce some fresh air for citizens as the air waves are polluted with propaganda and slogans that have denied daylight and the possibilities it brings to the majority.

When the people cannot find their voices and their actions are punishable using the state machinery then we must know that sustainability is and will always be an issue.

In a few days, the African National Congress will celebrate the centenary and questions must legitimately be asked whether in truth and fact the post-apartheid state has delivered the promise to the generality of the people.

The shouts of human dignity will spread by crossing borders without being asked for visas until the people take back ownership of their future.

As we cross over to 2012, we are all compelled to think about a future in which the voices of all citizens counts and in which the state is only relevant to the extent that it performs only those functions that ordinary citizens are not capable of discharging for themselves.

After decades of brainwashing, the road ahead will not be easy but freedom and the progress it promises cannot be reserved only for the few who rise from the valley on the back of the pain, hope and faith of the majority who remain condemned in the valley of poverty.

Author: Mutumwa Mawere

The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert

“95% of world scientists agree;” “the science is settled;” “the time for discussion is over.” Such expressions dominate debate on climate change. The font of wisdom from which these assertions emanate is the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change whose job it is to survey the scientific literature and to issue a series of reports for the guidance of governments in formulating climate change policy. Journalists are among the IPCC’s most ardent admirers: “The greatest feat of global scientific co-operation ever seen … utterly unique and authoritive.” (UK Guardian). According to its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC’s reports are the “crème de la crème.” And “its writers are chosen from people at the top of their professions … the best scientific experts from around the world.”

After two year’s research into this paragon of scientific authority, investigative journalist, Donna Laframboise, has revealed that these claims are bogus. Investigating Pachauri’s reference to “only the best scientific expertise from round the world” she was astounded to find that among the “impeccable sources” were graduate students in their twenties who were considered fit enough to serve as IPCC lead authors. Some of them had yet to publish their first academic paper. Another surprise was learning that issues of diversity, gender balance and regional representation were major considerations in selecting authors for the final chapter reports. She was astonished to discover the extent to which leading figures from activist groups had been infiltrated into senior positions in the IPCC. She points out that activists are people with agendas, and that science and agendas don’t mix.

Barack Obama’s scientific advisor calls the IPCC “…. an immense edifice of painstaking studies published in the world’s leading scientific peer-reviewed journals. ” The term “peer-reviewed” is repeated like a mantra by the IPCC and its admirers. Chairman Pachauri states “… we carry out an assessment of climate change based on peer-reviewed literature. We don’t settle for anything less!” Here Ms Framboise’ research reveals yet another fairy tale. With the help of a team of forty volunteers, she examined the references at the end of all 44 chapters of the 2007 report. The result was astounding: of 18,531 references in the 2007 report no less than 5,587 were non-peer reviewed! Included were magazine and newspaper articles, unpublished masters and doctoral theses, and Greenpeace and Wild Life Fund documents.

The IPCC ignores the consensus among hurricane experts that there is no discernable link to global warming. And, purely on the strength of an article by non-experts in a popular science magazine, it disseminates a scare story that climate change could be blamed for the spread of malaria.

But the author’s most disturbing revelation is summed up in a statement by Chairman Pachauri: “I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible forum the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That’s the real issue. Climate change is just part of it.”

Donna Laframboise has written a siege gun of a book. One that looks set to blast the IPCC to its foundations.

AUTHOR: Alwyne Todd is a freelance writer, formerly from Cape Town, now living in Australia. This review may be republished without prior consent but with acknowledgement to the author. The views expressed in the article are the author’s and are not necessarily shared by the members of the Free Market Foundation.
Source: www.freemarketfoundation.com

Proponents of the “local is lekker”, “Buy South Africa” and the more recent “Proudly South African” initiatives argue, essentially, that buying local keeps the money in the economy and boosts growth and employment. Not surprisingly, ex-trade unionist turned Economic Development Minister Ebrahim Patel is one of the architects behind this latest “local procurement accord”. After doing his utmost to deter the Wal-Mart deal, Patel is now recklessly determined to force through this blatant protectionist agenda.

It’s easy to recognise the simple logic of the protectionist movement argument: if we encourage people to buy locally (mostly by pulling on patriotic sentiment) then we increase demand for domestically manufactured goods and with more goods being produced locally more South Africans will get jobs. But when it comes to understanding the economics behind this simple logic, we cannot avoid seeing the flaws and realising that by compelling people to buy local will make the very people we want to help, namely, the poorest of the poor, a lot worse off.

Let’s assume that I am a successful car manufacturer. By successful I mean I run a profitable business without relying on special privileges from government at my fellow taxpayers’ expense. To manufacture my make of car, I import the engine from Germany at a cost of R100,000 per unit. Now, suppose I have a neighbour who, using South African labour, can manufacture an engine of equal quality but with a price tag of R1 million. Should I support the ‘local is lekker’ drive and buy the engine from my neighbour? According to the proponents of the “Buy SA” initiative, this is the best option because the money will ‘stay’ in the country and my neighbour will be able to create jobs and build up a local engine manufacturing industry.

Well, this option is certainly better for my neighbour and his workers, but not for me, my workers, or the South African economy at large! And this is especially so if, instead of making an engine of equal quality but significantly more expensive than the German engine, my neighbour makes a really shoddy engine that doesn’t work quite as well.

The smart business thing for me to do would be to continue buying the engine from Germany if I want to produce my car at the best price and make enough profit to keep my workers suitably rewarded. The savings I make by importing the engine will allow me and my workers to buy a lot of other goods and services, some produced locally and some imported.

Adam Smith wrote over 200 years ago, that trade is the engine of economic growth. And the reason we trade is simple: because it’s a win-win situation – after a trade, both parties are better-off than they were before they entered into the transaction. The tried and tested way to prosperity is to produce goods and services that other people actually want and at a price they can afford or are prepared to pay. I cannot be expected to buy the engine from my neighbour just because he lives in the same country as me, irrespective of the price or quality of the good he produces. In my quest to obtain the most suitable engine at the best price, the fact that the person who can provide may be someone who lives in Germany or someone who lives in Uitenhage, means the same to me – nothing!

I could well decide to buy the engine from my neighbour out of compassion or because I like the guy, but this would amount to charity. If business, government and labour force me to buy from my neighbour and I receive less value for my hard earned cash, the net result is that I am simply transferring some of my wealth into my neighbour’s bank account and foregoing the full benefit I would have derived from this money, money which could have been used far more productively in other sectors of society. People buying my cars would have purchased an item built to the best of my ability. I would have received the best price for it. My workers would have retained their jobs and have had extra income to spend on their own family wants and needs.

Individuals who choose voluntarily to help their countrymen by buying products at a higher price or of a lower quality, do so as an act of compassion and must do so at their own cost. There is no decent reason to force or compel people and businesses to do what the simple logic of proponents of the “Buy local” initiative deem is right at a cost to the country in general and the poor in particular. Should we ‘buy South African’ regardless, to preserve money and jobs domestically? No, obviously, if it means we would be buying non-operational, overpriced goods from each other. If this happens, with the best will in the world, after only a short while, there wouldn’t be any money left for us to buy anything worthwhile from one another.

By restricting everyone to buying from and selling their goods and services to fellow countrymen only, we limit the range of products available as well as the people we can buy from and sell to, and ultimately everyone is worse off.

Finally, Mr Patel said that new regulations on state procurement will come into effect on December 7, aimed at significantly expanding the value of goods and services the government procures from local producers. Scandalous is the idea that government will now purchase expensive locally produced goods with taxpayers’ money in order to prop-up inefficient special interest groups within the South African economy – a totally inefficient use of scarce taxpayers’ money. Every tax paying South African should demand that their scarce resources be spent on the best available goods and services so that every South African obtains the best possible value from our limited resources.

Every South African should claim it as a fundamental non-negotiable right to purchase the goods and services they desire and can afford from whomever they choose. Anyone that proposes, or worse, forces their fellow citizens to do anything to the contrary should immediately be labelled as exploitative and uncaring. This is not mere rhetoric. Those who lobby for protectionism after being warned of the inevitable consequences, cannot care about the mass of ordinary South Africans who need the best possible opportunities to live the best lives they can.

AUTHOR Jasson Urbach is an economist with the Free Market Foundation. This article may be republished without prior consent but with acknowledgement to the author. The views expressed in the article are the author’s and are not necessarily shared by the members of the Foundation.
Source: www.freemarketfoundation.com/

Sol T Plaatje documented in Native Life in South Africa how black farmers trekked along the country’s roads with their livestock, searching in vain for land to hire or partners who were prepared to replace the ones who had buckled under the new law proclaiming that in future black farmers had to work for wages and were no longer allowed to trade their labour for a share in the crops. In their desperate plight, the sharecroppers remained unaware that the Land Act made it an offence, punishable by a substantial fine or six months imprisonment, for any white landowner to lease land to a black person, or to farm in partnership with a black farmer.

Like those early landowners, current-day employers dare not disobey the laws in view of the sizable penalties for transgressions. The Land Act that set the 1913 black farmers trudging futilely from farm to farm looking for a place to settle and resume farming, deprived those potential black tenants and sharecroppers and every white farmer throughout the country of their contractual rights in respect of land. Today, it is the jobless who trudge futilely from firm to firm looking for employment, also unaware that it is the labour laws that deprive them of their right to contract. And also unaware that these same laws deprive all potential employers of this same right.

There is not a single employer in the whole country with whom job seekers are entitled to enter into a contract if the terms are in conflict with a labour law or regulation. Employers face fines and other penalties for contravening the laws, even if they do so out of ignorance. This pushes up the cost of taking on new employees so that low-skilled job seekers are priced out of the market. The jobless do not understand the subtlety of blanket laws and how these laws make employers reluctant or unable to contract with them by agreement. The wishes of the unemployed receive no recognition in our labour laws and their right to decide for themselves what terms of employment they find acceptable has been taken away.

The belief of those behind the drafting of such laws is that employees should be protected against making possibly adverse decisions about their own working lives. In their efforts to protect these employees, the laws that have been formulated statutorily remove the employees’ freedom of contract.

That the labour laws and regulations are supposedly enacted for the benefit of working people is cold comfort to the unfortunates who are unemployed and will remain unemployed because of them. Laws and regulations that can protect them only once they are employed are a heartbreaking hindrance and of no help to more than a third of our potential workforce. If government would only return their freedom of contract to them, the unemployed would find jobs and work their way out of poverty. Potential employers would not hesitate to take on additional staff and the job market would grow along with the country’s economy in general.

The onerous termination requirements, minimum conditions of employment, compulsory minimum wages and other regulatory conditions imposed on employers, all serve to consign thousands of people to the ranks of the permanently unemployed. This is because the sum total of their wages plus what it costs the employer to comply with the labour regulations exceed the economic value of their expected production. Compliance costs include the time required by employers to understand the legislation and implement administrative processes that will reduce the likelihood of contravening the laws, as well as the executive time, professional fees and other costs related to potential accidental contraventions.

The manager-owners of small firms and individuals cannot deal with the complexities of the regulations and are afraid that they may unintentionally break the law. Some believe that the law and the courts are biased in favour of employees. Their response is to forego expanding their businesses, even closing them down, anything to avoid hiring additional staff members. More jobs and potential jobs are lost and the number of the unemployed grows accordingly.

Costs of complying with labour laws are similar for high-wage and low-wage employees, so the compliance costs for hiring low-wage workers make up a larger percentage of the total cost of employing them. Compliance costs are therefore a greater deterrent to the hiring of unskilled workers, and create a bias in favour of hiring skilled and experienced workers.

Mass unemployment is an unavoidable consequence of the conditions that have been created in South Africa by a combination of lack of skills, poor education, unavailability of on-the-job training, and the aversion of employers to hiring unskilled, inexperienced, poorly educated, young, first-time, old, long-time unemployed, and otherwise disadvantaged individuals. The aversion to hiring such individuals is a direct result of the current requirements such as the onerous termination procedures and minimum wage laws.

When employers face costly (time and money) procedures for the termination of contracts of employment (unjustifiable or wrongful dismissal procedures), such as requirements for written notices to employees, internal disciplinary hearings, and potential hearings before the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) and possibly the Labour Court, they understandably become more careful about hiring. Some employers will even cease hiring altogether if they believe that the level of statutory intervention in the process of entering into and terminating contracts of employment has become unbearable.

Most of the cases coming before the CCMA are for alleged unfair dismissal disputes (79 per cent) and unfair labour practices (8 per cent) according to statistics provided by the CCMA, April 2011. Typically, the great majority involve small businesses. This is not surprising as the procedural requirements demand careful study of the legislation and meticulous attention to detail – skills that are not generally found in small firms.

Being kept unemployed by laws aimed to protect them from dismissal if they were ever employed is what some economists call a ‘negative benefit’ for the jobless. If unemployed people realised that the unfair dismissal provisions constitute such a major barrier to their employment, it is likely that the vast majority of them would readily forego this doubtful privilege in exchange for the right to contract freely with potential employers.

AUTHOR Eustace Davie is a director of the Free Market Foundation. This article, which is an excerpt from the new book Jobs Jobs Jobs launched today by the Foundation, may be republished without prior consent but with acknowledgement to the author. The views expressed in the article are the author’s and are not necessarily shared by the members of the Foundation.

Note: Jobs Jobs Jobs is available from the Foundation at a price of R180.00. To buy copies of Jobs Jobs Jobs / Nationalisation click the link http://www.fmfevents.co.za/Event.aspx?ID=16

What is economic freedom in plain language and in newspeak? It has such a well-established and universally acknowledged meaning in that anyone who predicted a few months ago that it would be used to connote its opposite and be taken seriously would have been asked what they were smoking.

Last Thursday, a few thousand people marched for “economic freedom”. No, the march was not organised by the Free Market Foundation. Nor did anyone taking part seem to be “for” economic freedom or to actually know what it means.

Imagine that! Marching for something without knowing what it is you’re marching for. It’s like marching for “Christianity” without knowing what religion is in a march organised by atheists. What happened was so surreal that people in other countries can be excused for assuming that what really happened was misreported.

Economic freedom is simply the economic aspect of freedom, that is, the relative absence of government ownership and control of human and non-human resources. Documents explaining why the march was organised envisage the opposite … in the extreme.

Let’s start with the boring stuff, how dictionaries define “economic freedom”. They don’t, at least not as a single concept. Economics is about the allocation and use of scarce resources, and freedom is, for example, “freedom to prosper … without intervention from a government”(2), “the state of being unrestricted”(3), and “exemption or liberation from the control; liberty; independence”(4). What recognised definitions entail is personal liberty, especially secure and freely tradable private property rights.

Advanced definitions are used for such scholarly purposes as measure economic freedom, formulate policy, and make international comparisons. After a decade of research by over sixty economists, including four Nobel Laureates, there is “wide agreement on central elements: secure property rights, freedom to engage in voluntary transactions, freedom from governmental control, and freedom from governmental expropriation.”(5) The “four cornerstones” of economic freedom are “personal choice, voluntary exchange coordinated by markets, freedom to enter and compete in markets, and protection of persons and their property from aggression.”(6)

The two most widely recognised measures of economic freedom are the Economic Freedom Index(7) and Economic Freedom of the World.(8) According to the former “government control … limits economic freedom” and “the highest form of economic freedom” is “an absolute right of private ownership” and “an absolute absence of coercion or constraint” beyond that necessary “to protect and maintain liberty”. In other words, freedom to “work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they choose.” The latter uses corresponding definitions and measures economic freedom according to nearly fifty weighted and independently published criteria of freedom from government interference with private property, rule of law, absence of red tape, freedom from labour market regulation and low taxes.

In short, what all coherent definitions share is that there is economic freedom to the extent that people are free from government control, governments protect rather than threaten assets, and the means of production and distribution are privately owned.

Because the word “freedom” is ambiguous, it is sometimes used to connote “freedom from”, such as freedom from disease, poverty, stress or crime. To the extent that the ANCYL wants freedom from poverty and unemployment all decent people agree. Since prosperity and decent employment are promoted by, and only by, real economic freedom in free market economies, that is what the ANCYL ought to be demanding. Instead, the march was joined by the ghost of an incredulous George Orwell’s witnessing ‘economic tyranny’ being called ‘economic freedom’ with scarcely a commentator noting the irony.

All decent people agree with the ANCYL that something effective should be done about the crisis of unemployment and poverty, and there is much in its sources on economic freedom consistent with the concept, such as the vision of a “non-racial, non-sexist, democratic, united and prosperous nation, wherein all people will live together in harmony with equal access to social and economic opportunities”, “political social and economic emancipation of the black majority” and the idea that economic freedom is the solution. The problem is confusion about what economic freedom is, and how and why it is clear from the world’s experience that it works.

Needless to say, what ANCYL sources propose, if implemented, would benefit its leaders obscenely. They stand to be the enriched and empowered commissars of massive government empires. The erosion of economic freedom is the primary means by which people unwilling or unable to produce wealth become megalomaniacal elites. That wouldn’t bother me much. The problem is that it would be at the extreme expense of the unemployed and destitute youth they represent. Decent people are more concerned about the plight of those “at the bottom” than the fortunes of those “at the top”.

There is something the poor know that eludes people who protest too much about poverty. Always and everywhere they migrate, risking and often losing their lives, from countries with less economic freedom to those with more. Americans don’t escape to Cuba, South Koreans don’t flee to North Korea, and Botswanans aren’t flooding into Zimbabwe. The poor know that the best place to be poor is where there is more economic freedom; that government can do more for the poor by doing less.

AUTHOR Leon Louw is the Executive Director of the Free Market Foundation. This article may be republished without prior consent but with acknowledgement to the author. The views expressed in the article are the author’s and are not necessarily shared by the members of the Foundation.

FMF Feature Article / 01 November 2011

(1) The main sources on what the ANCYL means by “economic freedom” are (a) its Declaration of the 24th National Congress, (b) the “Final Document for the ANC Youth League 24th National Congress”, A Clarion Call To Economic Freedom Fighters: Programme Of Action For Economic Freedom In Our Lifetime (April 2011), and (c) Memorandum to the Executive at the Union Buildings (28 October 2011). These and related sources are characterised by contradictory and convoluted language at times consistent with economic freedom and at others advocating its opposite in its name.
(2) Business Dictionary.
(3) Oxford.
(4) Webster’s.
(5) Alvin Rabushka, 1991.
(6) Matt Mitchell, What is Economic Freedom and What Can it Say About Prosperity? Economic Policy, 2011.
(7) Heritage-Wall Street Journal.
(8) Economic Freedom Network.

Author: Leon Louw
Source: www.freemarketfoundation.com