WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.
Original Post Date: 2010-07-29 Time: 23:00:01 Posted By: News Poster
By Frans Cronje
Johannesburg – INTERNATIONAL banking group Bank of America Merrill Lynch has done SA a great service in its frank assessment of SA’s mining policy environment. It is no secret that the views expressed in the report are widely held across many business sectors in SA.
The report, released earlier this month, on the merits of splitting Anglo American into international and South African assets to unlock value, suggested SA’s mining environment was a big problem. “In short, while we want to be positive on the outlook for the metals and mining industry in SA, we really struggle,” it reads.
However, for too long, too many business leaders have been too afraid to express these views openly. One need only think back to the criticism directed at Anglo American’s Tony Trahar by president Thabo Mbeki after Trahar dared acknowledge the prospect of political risk in SA. The belated withdrawal of an anticrime campaign by a major bank was another high-profile example of the fear that the government has instilled in many corporate executives.
The general silence that greeted the recent Sishen mining rights snatch suggests that much fear remains in the business community. This point is made especially strongly when our miners’ silence is compared to the open and unambiguous public campaign launched by Australian miners against controversial tax proposals in that country.
In intimidating its critics in business, the government may have believed that it was defending its own interests. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In the absence of an open and frank engagement on policy, the government made many mistakes. The nationalisation of mineral rights, which precipitated the slowdown of SA’s mining industry, was one of these. There are many others – from failures to encourage competition in electricity provision and telecommunications, to the inefficient and poorly conceived sector education and training authorities. Had business leaders been encouraged to speak out, might the government have been better advised on some of the policies it adopted?
There was no reason for the government to be afraid of this interaction. With a two-thirds majority, it could do whatever it pleased on policy, regardless of what business had to say.
The great tragedy is that the government has got so many other things right – including ensuring a secure macroeconomic policy environment through bringing down interest rates, the budget deficit, debt levels and inflation. This remains the African National Congress’s (ANC’s) greatest success in government, and one that very few African states managed to achieve after their independence from minority rule. SA, therefore, took its first steps as a democracy from a sound economic platform that promised the country the chance of emerging as a lower- middle-class economy.
To become such an economy, growth rates of more than 5% of gross domestic product are necessary for 20 consecutive years. That has not been achieved, although it still can be – a point Bobby Godsell has been almost alone in making in public among SA’s more prominent business leaders.
Few, if any, political leaders make the point strongly or often. One wonders if many of them have even seen the graph that shows the extent to which this level of growth can boost per capita incomes over just 20 years. Too often they speak of “halving” poverty or unemployment, when a far more ambitious economic target is within reach.
There is no chance of SA achieving that goal without the private sector being given the space to place the country on such a growth trajectory. The government has neither the expertise nor the resources to do this on its own. The private sector can, however, do it only if it is encouraged to engage frankly and publicly with the government on policy.
Some of SA’s more high-profile business groups may say they have done this all along. They may indeed have achieved some successes, but they also tolerated standards and ideas from the government that they would never have allowed in their own companies.
Mainly because of policy mistakes, growth rates have not been sufficient to increase living standards fast enough. Because of this, the government is now facing pressure to adopt dangerous policy interventions, such as the nationalisation of mining operations and private land.
Considering SA’s levels of poverty, unemployment and inequality, such policy initiatives may win enough popular support to be adopted.
It would, for example, disappoint but not completely surprise us as a research institute if steps to confiscate private land were taken within the next five years. If this is allowed to happen, it will undo all the advantages that favoured SA over other post-colonial African states. Growth rates will never assume the levels necessary for SA to become a generally middle-class society. South African corporations will lose a lot of money.
The government may be tempted to respond angrily and defensively to some of the things said by Bank of America Merrill Lynch. This would be a mistake. For what the banking and investment group has done is to offer the government an invaluable resource – the frank and honest opinions of its experts. There is no obligation on the government to change policy because of what has been said. The government can adopt any policy proposal it chooses, and there is nothing private sector investors can do to prevent that.
The government would be wise to see the report as a refreshing example of true corporate social responsibility – so different from the cliched vegetable gardens or soup kitchens that have come to pass as corporate social responsibility for many companies. While each of these little projects is important in that they may meet an urgent need, they have also served to conceal the fact that many companies are afraid or unwilling to engage the government on some of the root causes of underdevelopment.
In a country with as dire socioeconomic needs as SA, real social responsibility should dictate acting in a manner to support policies that will ensure the greatest possible economic success – while warning on policy missteps or mistakes. Unfortunately, there are few major corporations in SA that can claim that track record.
One thing that does remain certain is that there is widespread policy disagreement within the Cabinet and the ANC. This means there are important and influential political figures in the country who could easily be convinced that an economic model in which growth is led by the private sector remains in the best interests of the country.
However these few people are going to come under enormous populist pressure as the ANC approaches its policy and electoral conferences, not to mention the 2014 election. The decisions that are taken on the way to that election will define the type of economic model the government adopts as SA enters its third decade of democracy.
The opportunity is there for concerned business leaders to do the government and the country the courtesy of speaking out frankly and openly on policy positions taken by the government.
Likewise, the opportunity is there for the government to listen to what business leaders have to say, and to welcome those views as an invaluable asset as they set about putting SA on the road to becoming a modern middle-class economy.
Cronje is the deputy CEO of the South African Institute of Race Relations.
Original Source: 
Original date published: 29 July 2010
Source: http://allafrica.com/stories/201007290370.html?viewall=1