Why are some people opposed to black empowerment policies?

AfricanGirl

When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they said to His disciples, “Why is He eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?” 17And hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

– Mark 2 : 16 – 17

I’ve often been perplexed by the vehement opposition with which some people have against black empowerment policies. It’s quite strange since those policies are infact an attempt to remedy the clearly unacceptable situation where in countries like South Africa, the majority of the wealth is owned and controlled by a tiny white minority, while millions of black South Africans go by with too little.

And it’s not only in South Africa where this problem exists. Instead in most parts of Africa, we have a situation whether a tiny elite of individuals, businesses and corporations owns disproportionately huge amounts of resources, whereas the native population has very little in comparison. In the United States policies that embody what some call ‘positive discrimination’, for example Affirmative action,  have for decades attracted widespread and unfair criticsm. Having spent some time studying the views and opinions of people who are against Black Economic Empowerment (BEE),  I think I now understand their position more clearly, including the deep flaws in their arguments.

Racist

Over the last couple of years I’ve read opinions for and against BEE.  I’ve been both entertained and shocked, but in boths instances marvelled at the passion or lack of nuance in some of the attitudes in this space. Among the most common accusations against BEE is the cheap and totally lazy accusation that BEE policies are racist.

But hang on a moment….when you have millions of people in South Africa, and hundreds of millions of people across the African continent, who as a result of racist ideas such as Colonialism, Slavery (over hundreds of years), discriminatory and in some cases highly questionable if not altogether racist policies of western institutions, live with poverty and struggle to get by each day, failing to improve their lives, how can you be taken seriously when you attack such countries / leaders for trying to reverse the consequences of European racist Ideology?? How dishonest is that? If you agree that colonialism and slavery were wrong, then surely you should by implication also agree that those who have been affected by the long-term effects of these toxic ideologies deserve a helping hand to enable them to be financially independent. It’s only equitable.

But often these critics don’t suggest anything better that will have real tangible effects (provide affordable housing to people on incomes that are so low they cannot afford house prices unaided at the current levels;  create well-paying jobs to people who were previously unemployed, and unable to get a job; enable loans to be extended to people with bad credit histories – who would otherwise be unable to get loans elsewhere, etc), but are very good at ignoring the history that has created the deprivation in the first place.

Further, if after decades the disparities we see in society today continue to linger (and in some cases they have increased), are you saying the situation that is failing to rectify itself, and indeed can’t rectify itself without intervention- should be left just as it is?

If thats what they propose, then in whose interest and benefit will such be? If you ask me certainly not in the interest of black Africans who are the people who need help here.

And so you really have to wonder why these critics are making those accusations  when they have got no workable alternative idea to offer?

Wasteful

Another flimsy but entirely predictable accusation that is often levelled against the state in regards to BEE policies is that they are inefficient; that they suck up too many resources, for very little return. In essence these critics are applying well known business principles of investment and return to a social cause that is not readily measured in numbers. If a family is happy that they now have a new home, which is safe, and does not leak like their old house in the ghetto, how can you translate that into a mathematical or financial equation? It’s not possible, yet that happiness and safety is a legitimate measure of success of the initiative.

The rationale behind the accusation of wastefulness is rather questionable if not outright elitist. Think about it; when colonial governments across Africa acted in the interests of European countries alone, to extract huge amounts of resources from colonised lands for the benefit of Kingdoms and the Aristocracy in Europe, to build their cities and sustain their economies, forsaking even basic investment in healthcare, job creation, infrastructure, education, social services, the general well-being and economic advancement of the indigenous populations across the African or Carribean colonies, is it really that big a transgression for African countries to begin spending money on their people (who historically were maligned for hundreds of years)? What is so bad with aiding people who are unable to afford decent housing get good homes? Or helping low income workers get well-paying jobs- which their forefathers were prohibited from holding?

It will cause them to be lazy is the often the insensitive response you get from critics of BEE policies. But that’s not entirely accurate because by improving their lives you are also helping them be  in a position where they can take advantage of certain opportunities which they couldn’t previously be able to take advantage of. For example, if I now have a safe house to live in, with a refrigerator, I may want to start a business selling cold soft drinks in my neighbourhood – something which I wouldn’t be able to readily do in my old shack in the slums. I have electricity, so my children will be able to stay up late and use the lights at night to read books, and hopefully get better grades in school (books which they borrow from the newly built Library down the road – when previously they had to walk over 3 miles to get to a Library). They will be better protected from the elements – reducing the likelihood of disease, especially since that now I have better sanitation… Overall, there will be a great and immeasurable improvement to our lives.

What all this is, is spending money that the predecessors of these African governments (colonial and apartheid governments) should have spent on the indigenous populations decades ago, but which they didn’t spend for all sorts of reasons….

I mean, is it really such a bad thing for African countries to decide to achieve genuine economic equality? … when you have so much poverty and want across the continent…

OpenSewer-Nairobi
A boy sits near an open sewer in Kibera slum, Nairobi // Source: Wikipedia

The way I see it, if there had been fairness, and if throughout history black populations were treated humanely, and in the same way as white populations, with no systematic bias or ideological repression of one kind or another, there would be no need for BEE policies today, because the income disparities would not exist. The only reason we have BEE policies is because there is an unacceptable problem that was created throughout history, that in many countries still remains, and that urgently needs to be rectified.

Like the first accusation, those who attack BEE policies with the wasteful accusation fail to understand the real benefits these policies have on poor people. They too won’t suggest anything better that would achieve real results.

Here, please allow me to digress: I seem to see this pattern operating in the world today; that any leader of a non western country, who stands up to the global financial oligarchy, and who bravely begins ambitious Social  Policies to improve the lives of the poor people in  his or her country, almost always becomes the victim of vilification and attacks from the western media and the Bretton Woods institutions, who ignore all the good he or she has done. Two years asgo, soon after Hugo Chavez died, I overheard one member of my family saying to someone over the phone that Chavez was a bad man. After the phone conversation ended, I asked her how  she arrived at such a conclusion, and she recited back pretty much all the drivel that was written about him on the pages of newspapers such as the Times and the Guardian. Biased and one-sided tosh. When I explained to her  in detail what Hugo Chavez had actually achieved for the millions of people in his country, from the perspective of some of the people who had benefitted – the stories of which I had read, she could only muster a very feeble I didn’t know that…

Corrupt

This one is the loudest accusation, but like the other two, it also is not entirely accurate. Critics of BEE policies claim that the adminstration of BEE funds often becomes mirred in corruption. That institutions mandated to administer BEE funds become channels through which party officials and other corrupt types siphon state funds, and that there is widespread corruption involved in the process.

The question which those who throw this accusation fail to answer is why is the corruption happening in the first place?  Is it that there are too many Africans who are so deprived that when suddenly exposed to money, many embezzle funds? How much of that corruption is down to foreign companies paying bribes to gain business?

I’m not giving excuses for the corruption, but I think it’s important to ask the question what is at the root of such corruption?

In the UK for example, throughout the years there have been many corruption scandals (most recently the MP’s expenses scandal) which have thus far disappeared into the archives of history – it’s as if they never happened in the first place. It’s the same scenario in the US, Canada, Australia, Israel, Brazil, India…in all these countries with established democracies, politicians and people with close ties to politicians have been prosecuted, fined or even jailed for corrupt conduct of one type or another. Yet we don’t hear of it often partly because in some of these countries corruption (which still happens) was more widespread many  years ago than it is now, and the scandals occur further and further apart. Therefore,  on this basis alone, and considering that many African countries have been independent for little over 60 years, it is not crazy to surmise that the corruption  we see in Africa today, not only that said to be happening within BEE initiatives but across the board, must be understood as glitches in the developmental phases happening on the continent, just like the developed countries of today also had their dark days (when corruption was rife), during the early days of their representative democracy.

Opponents of BEE would thus be better advised to use their energies and precious time not in the vain and pointless exercise of shooting down policies that will help millions of black people, but to find ways of curbing the corruption most decent people are against- so that those policies are strengthened, and achieve better outcomes….

After all, we all want equality, don’t we ….? 🙂

In the next article on this topic, I will attempt to address the accusation of incompetence (whereby some critics claim that black Africans are unable to run or be in control of successful and profitable businesses rendering certain aspects of BEE policies harmful to business). I’ll also conclude by stating what I think to be the real reasons behind these accusations.

This story exemplifies the immaturity of #African Politicians – #Malawi

Summary: A fierce government critic decides to hold a public lecture, and books a conference room in a hotel…. then this happens.

ABOUT THE CANCELLATION OF THE PUBLIC LECTURE:

At 4:30 pm, we arrived at Victoria Hotel to make all the preparations for the lecture. Every thing was ready up until around 5pm. Then the hotel told us that we had to cancel because of load shedding. I responded that load shedding was not a problem because one can always negotiate with ESCOM to turn the power back on where there is an event going on.

After hearing this, the hotel changed tunes and told us that it was in fact not load shedding but an electrical fault that had put the whole hotel in a blackout. We asked about the backup generator, we were told the Genset wasn’t working. We asked about standby electricians that normally every hotel employs to address such emergencies. We were told that the hotel electrician had gone to Mangochi and his phone was off.

We asked to bring our own genset. We were told that that is not allowed. We asked to bring our own electricians to work on the electrical fault, and we were told that that was not allowed either.
We even suggested using a car battery to power our equipment and a few lighting devices so that the lecture could go ahead.

That was when we were told that the order had come from the chairman that since there was no power at the hotel, the lecture should be cancelled and no alternative powering methods should be explored.

As soon as we left the premises, I passed by the hotel again an hour later and the Power was back on. An employee of the hotel has confided to me that there was no electrical fault. He said the chairman of the hotel, MR Gani, called the Events and Conference manager of the hotel and shouted at her, instructing her to ensure that the lecture didn’t go ahead at the hotel and he would pay any compensation and damages incurred afterwards. The informant also told me that it was the order of the Chairman to turn off the power at the hotel and use that as the reason for canceling the event.

We remain undaunted, however, and we will soon announce a new venue and date. There’s no power like the power of an idea whose time has come. And the time has come to end corruption and impunity in this country. How many public lectures and private citizen initiatives are they going to sabotage and block?

To the 200 or so people that showed their support and came to attend the lecture, we apologize and thank you for showing your solidarity and patriotism. We can assure you that these primitively savage methods to deter us will only encourage us to keep going.

Source: Maravi Post

Racism and Bigotry is encouraged from the top, but the real enemy is Global Inequality

The other day – about two weeks ago, the British Prime minister referred to the migrants at Calais trying to cross into the UK as ‘swarming..’ It was an insensitive term and many people rightly took offence. On twitter, many condemned such a wording as dehumanizing.

A few days ago, Philip Hammond, the British Foreign Secretary joined Mr Cameron, speaking of ‘marauding migrants‘ threatening the standard of life of British nationals in the UK. Again, Like Cameron, you have to wonder on which planet these people live on. Amnesty International called the language shameful. The Liberal Democrats Home Affairs spokesman Alistair Carmichael had this to say:

“The Tories’ language is becoming increasingly hostile and unsavoury. In reality, they are too scared to deal with the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Calais.

“Britain can’t escape the problem just by sounding ‘tough’, it needs to take a lead.

“It’s time we proved our worth on the world stage, signed up to the EU asylum policy and accept our share of vulnerable refugees, rather than expect other countries to do it for us.”

I think it is insensitive to describe other human beings in such animate and dehumanizing terms, and just goes to show how out of touch politicians really are. It also shows that humans from Africa, Asia and the Middle East are not valued in the same way British or European people are.

It’s a fallacy to see British leaders going around the world preaching democracy and peace, when right on their doorsteps, they are treating foreigners like crap. You can’t make that up, and you’d hope the world is watching.

Asylum Aid criticised the Foreign Secretary’s words as

“inaccurate and inflammatory statements”,

I agree, they present a skewed picture that divorces nuance for the situation. I’m waiting for the day a sensible British politician will rise up who will say to the people of the world that the actions of British leaders in the past have caused immense human pain, and damaged other lands far away from British shores. And some of that damage is still being felt today. I may not be alive when that happens, but I hope one day someone will be honest and brave enough call a spade a spade.

Knowing what I know about British History (both what you are taught in school, and what you find out for yourself), and having experienced first hand the institutional racism in the UK, I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that in some sections of the UK population non-white people are treated differently to white people. There is extreme hostility against foreigners, which is not entirely surprising since the media fans hatred all the times. But it’s kind of strange seeing migrants contribute so much to the UK (not only via the NHS, but in the taxes they pay).

The government’s attitude towards immigration is so frustrating precisely because it is so wrong-headed. There is endless proof that the long-term benefit of migrants and asylum seekers are manifold – Ugandan refugees, for instance, have created approximately 30,000 jobs in the Leicester since 1972. Last year the Treasury’s independent advisers said that immigration is beneficial to the economy as new arrivals are most likely to be of working age – and even the chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility, Robert Chote, stated that growing immigration to the UK “does tend to produce a more beneficial picture” for the economy. Read more here

So then why would a leader or a minister speak so negatively about migrants? Cameron and Hammond are hardly Nigel Farage, they can’t possibly be that ignorant not to see the repurcussions of their statements.

Isn’t such talk exactly the kind of talk which sows the seeds of racism, hatred and bigotry in society? Are these the kind of behaviours these leaders want to encourage in Britain? I think not, my guess is there is an agenda – some political capital is to be carved from all this.

To me this is how it looks: they are saying migrants, whose ancestors, Europeans took advantage of, looted their lands of every natural resource, enslaved their peoples, raped their women, made wars against them, divided up their lands along nothing but profit-driven motives, and generally reduced to poverty entire peoples – as they did in India and China; and whose descendants – the migrants – are now trying to find a way of escaping hardship, poverty, discrimination and violence in their own lands,  are not worthy of peace, of security, of assistance – seeing their past troubles, of prosperity. Essentially that they are subhuman, thats what the actions say.

https://soundcloud.com/rttv/calais-ryan

The Greatest Cover-Up in History ? How Imperial Britain’s Racist India, Africa & China Narrative ‎Still Persists

Actions speak louder than words, and what we are seeing here is an entitlement mentality. That it’s okay for historical European abuse of non-European peoples to be swept under the carpet; that the bombing of Libya, Iraq and support for Syrian rebels is irrelevant to the migrant crisis and must be brushed over, that if you plunder resources of other countries, and create economic and political instability…  its okay because if s**t happens, you can always close the borders. It’s the sort of things these people on this poster would say

criminals

During Nazi Germany’s reign, Hitler’s honchos put out propaganda which was later enacted upon to make life difficult for foreigners in Germany, in particular for Jews. What followed was a human atrocity that culminated in the holocaust, but which the Nazi machinery justified with all sorts of abominable stories. But there was a sinister motive behind the hostile rhetoric, and the Nazis made a lot of money out of it.

There’s always a sinister motive behind hostile rhetoric.

Today, the migrants at Calais are not being threatened by gas chambers or execution, but the language directed towards them – by politicians, not least the likes of the Daily Mail – is no better than that which was used by the Nazi machinery. Still, most of these migrants have no access to land or capital in the countries they flee; a polar opposite to Western corporations operating in Eritrea, Ethiopia, the various West African Countries, Syria and Iraq  – who have access to land and capital in those same countries.

The migrants have no security, and indeed may be at the mercy of criminal gangs and trafficking networks – something which expats in the aforementioned countries do not have to fear. The expats can get on with their easy and comfortable lives seamlessly, while the nationals of those countries – and their migrant brothers and sisters drowning in the mediterranean – struggle with day to day living, and can’t afford an existence, never mind a luxurious lifestyle.

Why do we keep on blaming the poor migrants whose poverty the West is partly responsible for? Countries where corruption, tax-evasion, profit-shifting and white-collar crime are responsible for the loss of over US$1tn in illicit financial outflows

ChristianAidDeath & Taxes – the true toll of tax-dodging

That is the real problem driving migrants to Europe – Inequality. Because if you have security, a good job, great educational and financial prospects and a social life – in your own country, why would you want to leave and risk your life for a pie in the sky?

British Red Cross managing director Norman McKinley recently said about the cuts to the money asylum seekers receive in the UK:

“These cruel cuts will plunge families into further poverty, making it agonisingly tough for parents to feed their children, and practically impossible to buy clothes and other essential items.”

What he forgot to mention is that many foreigners support family members back home. I know people who send as little as £20 every other month to a relative in Africa for one thing or another; to help someone pay for school, or for food, or to settle some bill. It’s not much, but it does the job, and helps people at the other end.

So then, if a government introduces policies that have the effect of creating economic hardship for an already deprived community/ section of the population, how will they be able to help their relatives abroad – who are in worse financial circumstances? It doesn’t make sense and if anything it’s counterproductive…

One final thing I should say is this. How many Swiss ‘migrants’ do you bump into everyday? Or how many ‘Norwegians’ or ‘Mauritians’ do you know or do you bump into on a regular basis?

Switzerland, Mauritius and Norway are rich countries, and their nationals live in their own countries because the countries have the capacity to create jobs and distribute wealth fairly amongst their people. When you look at Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia and most countries in West Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa, the story is rather different.

Further, European and American corporations are not paying bribes (in exchange for lax tax arrangements) in Norway or in Switzerland, or are they? At least you rarely hear of such corruption, unlike in the countries from whence migrants come.

If Western businessmen continue to fleece the countries from whom migrants originate,of valuable resources, how can European leaders realistically expect migrants to stay in their own countries? When the funds the country is losing is exactly the kind of money that would create jobs and an economy that can support that country’s citizens… Let’s be honest here… it’s not going to happen, and some of this rhetoric is a smokescreen to the real problems.

Mr Cameron, and Mr Hammond, if you are really serious about reducing immigration, begin by pushing for real global economic equality, at national level, within the EU, within Commonwealth, at UN level and beyond. That in my view has got a much higher chance of curbing migration to Europe than anything else.

Part of the problem or Part of the Solution?

Remember my post on Boris Johnson, titled What Boris Johnson’s ‘Greed’ speech reveals about the rot in Politics‘, over a year ago, in which I argued that the mayor of London was part of the problem by virtue of a speech he gave in which he said Greed was good?

This video right here by Russell Brand makes a similar point, although not word for word, except this time its in relation to terrorism, and a whole loads of other things that cause extremism.

Please watch it …

 

Prevention: Better than finding a cure…atleast in the case of ebola

ebolaPrevention: Better than finding a cure, when it could be too late…and when a cure costs considerably more. Atleast that appears to be the experience in the case of the ebola crisis.

Save the Children 2015 report: A Wake Up Call: lessons from Ebola for the world’s health systems

Leadership for the Africa we Want – Kigali, May 2014

Sponsored by the African Development Bank.

Shorter version focussing on points made by Thabo Mbeki and Benjamin Mkapa:-

My Comments

  • Education has not been a priority for most countries across Africa. As a consequence, Africa doesn’t have enough high quality and decisive leaders and effectors capable of transforming not only their own countries, but the continent. Thus, Africa needs to develop and entrust young people with the knowledge that will empower them to be agents of change. Agents of change capable of prioritising what the continent needs.
  • Further, African people are disunited. Most African people have been divided on political lines such that they often fail to distinguish when our economies are failing because of external influences (or external cause) – which calls for supporting the leadership – and when a national leader’s policies are failing – which calls for criticism.
  • The Neo-liberal Institutions such as the IMF have fed African governments a crippling poison of conditionalities that work for them and their backers but that has made it extremely difficult for sustainable progress to be made across Africa. Before countries like Great Britain, the US, Canada and New Zealand had market based economies operating under market forces, there were long periods of a planned economy in these countries. In fact in Britain, it was only beginning the 70’s and 80’s that state-owned companies were privatised. Before that most infrastructure (not only in Britain) from Railways, Hospitals, Factories, Utilities (Energy companies, Water companies and Gas companies), Mining, Telecommunication companies belonged to the state (or the state was a large and active player in such industries). And that ownership provided employment, tax revenues and dividends to the State. Yet when the likes of the IMF and World Bank came to Africa, they told African leaders that the state must not own anything. The reasons they gave was that it was inefficient for the state to be in business. They were right to an extent but only because the inefficiencies came as a result of the inherent limitations which those state companies possessed. Specifically, these parastatals were not run efficiently as profit-making businesses in a business sense:- you had the wrong kind of leadership calling the shots (not innovators of the calibre and ingenuity of say Lord Alan Sugar, Sir Richard Branson or Sir Philip Green). So how do you expect an organisation to be profitable and innovate if it’s run by the wrong people? Secondly, there was little investment in employee training – so lifelong and transferable skills in tune with technology were not being passed down. To see understand this anomaly consider this: What percentage of over 60’s who were civil servants in the 70’s and 80’s or who were working in government institutions at the time of the privatisations of major UK industry were comfortable with using computers and other technology at the time or even today? Most were not, and even now only a small percentage is conversant with technology. The reason :- Because when they were working for  these government-owned businesses, there was little or no investment into their skills development. In other words when technology was changing, they didn’t have the skills to keep up. Further, there was little competition between these companies and other independent companies so not enough incentive for innovation. No surprises then that parastatals were inefficient and didn’t perform particularly well. But since we now know all these things, as I clearly articulated here, I don’t believe that its impossible to run a government-owned company profitably in this day and age.
  • Ageism is a real problem in Africa. So is Regionalism and Tribalism. Until we begin to entrust people with responsibility on a merit-based criteria (and not by how old they are or from which region they come from, or what religion they are) we’ll struggle to find an edge.
  • Advanced Business Training If Steve Jobs had a business school which he run, what kind of graduates would the school produce? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think formidable ones. Africa needs to train its young people to be formidable in business…
  • Capital Without money Africa can’t advance, because where will the tools of development come from? Financial Investment in young people (and I’m not talking minute $1000 – $2000 type business loans) is a necessary tool to development.

 

Inequality in graphs and images

Lately, talk of inequality has dominated the media. Everybody is talking about it. Probably because of this year’s Davos Summit, but everyone seems to be keen on reminding us just how economically unbalanced the world is. Just how a few people own huge amounts of wealth, while the rest live on breadcrumbs.

Global Wealth 14Yesterday, it seems Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England entered the fray, when he said:

“Without this risk sharing, the euro area finds itself in an odd position,”

While the context of Mr Carney’s statement may have been different to the subject of this post, and directed more to institutions on a country level, on a personal level, I don’t believe in the RobinHoodesque notion of ‘stealing’ from the rich to give to the poor. I don’t believe that such an approach works because it’s a dangerous idea that is not only open to abuse, but that can backfire. And before you jump on me and criticise my socialist credentials, let me qualify it.

I know inequality is real, and I know its crippling effects on people and communities across the world, especially in poor countries.

My contention is that if people work hard to earn their money, if they pay their taxes and do not accrue wealth using dodgy (or outright illegal means); if they do not use tax havens or other immoral ways of depriving governments of the much-needed lifeblood of corporation tax; if these business magnets are no more than scions bequeathed of inherited blood money (money tarnished with the proceeds of slavery and colonisation), if they have earned their way to the top, why should anybody sensible think it is a good idea to take it away from them?

Why!?

wealth-gap-2I believe in fairness, I believe that corporations must pay their fair share in taxes. That the government must act in the interests of the people, not just working for the interests of corporations. I believe that those who are rich, or who have the means, must do more to help the disadvantaged – whose spending ironically often drives the profits. Doing all these things will likely lead to less inequality, less strife, and better social harmony.

And here’s why:

If you look at recent events, not only comments made at Davos, what you find is that it’s not so much that the money isn’t there. Instead the problem is that the money which is made on the back of extremely liberal national and international tax regimes – is stashed away in enclaves where cash-strapped governments be they in Africa or elsewhere cannot get to it.

As a result the government cannot sufficiently invest in services, cannot create jobs or help those at the bottom of the pyramid improve their lives. This increases inequality, including spurning side effects such as crime and social unrest.

So then, where’s a good place to start, when addressing this problem of inequality?:-

1. Change the laws to ensure that companies pay a fair share in taxes from the revenues they generate.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Essentially, it also means being firm with tax havens to reveal the sources of blood money or any untaxed funds.

offshore_tax_jurisdictions

2. Crack down on corruption, and stop illicit financial outflows.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

3. Streamline services (a streamlined small government that is cheaper and efficient to run is preferrable to an inefficient large and bloated government that is expensive to run).

4. Stop unnecessary privatisation. But encourage responsible Investment

US_Africa_Summit_Day_1If you privatize everything, from where will the state earn its income??

Everybody knows that employment tax revenues are not a sufficient revenue source. That’s why there are so many governments across the world that have budget deficits, simply because all the tax companies pay plus the tax their employees pay – IS NOT ENOUGH to sustain all the functions of government. From Britain, the US, France, Ireland, Italy and Greece to South Africa, Malawi,  Ethiopia and Mozambique, and many others, budget deficits and debt are commonplace. As a consequence most of these countries fail to adequately invest in healthcare, in poverty alleviation, in education, in job creation for young people, in women’s health and advancement…because there isn’t enough money coming into the government coffers for them to spend on these things.

Simply put, the state has no full-time job and is only employed part-time. So how the hell can it spend, or raise its family properly?

5. Instead of privatisation, countries should enter into joint venture partnerships with businesses, for win-win deals because these will not only provide tax revenues from employment tax, and corporation tax,  but will additionally earn the government dividends (which can be significantly higher than corporation tax and employment tax combined).

CossartDevelopment_webfg2

It also means deals that involve raw materials should principally benefit the people of the country in which the raw material is first (NOTE I’m not using ‘politicians’ or a country’s leaders here. Contracts must benefit the people not a handful of politicians). As I like to put it, when was the last time an African mining company was given a 70% mining/ oil drilling stake in Europe or the Americas?

africas-natural-resource-wealth6. Empower young people by training them to acquire advanced entrepreneurial skills so that they become assets capable of adding real value to communities.

Providing Aid is not good enough, emphasis on ‘Trade not Aid’ (other than Fairtrade or better) is becoming cliché. Further, I think the advantages of possessing a first degree are overstated. In my experience they rarely equip students with entrepreneurial skills.

business-paper-clipWhat is required to begin denting inequality is to train young people to be ‘go-getters’. And that is a different ball game altogether over and above merely providing a quality education.

7. Finally invest in services (hospitals, transport, policing and security, infrastructure, the youth and women, etc) including investing in things like ecofriendly energy. Because if everybody paid their dues, such investment would create jobs. And they’d be enough funds for people to receive living wages.

Floods hit parts of Malawi & Mozambique

floods-mwTorrential rains have caused major floods in southern parts of Malawi and parts of Mozambique.

The president of Malawi has declared 15 districts as disaster areas, and has appealed for humanitarian assistance to deal with the crisis. The Vice President Saulos Chilima has called on members of the general public to help fellow citizens affected by floods that have hit the nation.

Malawi’s department of climate Change and Meteorological Services has warned of heavy rainfall and flash floods in the country for the next two to three weeks.

Reports from Malawi say that up to 100 people (the government says 48) have died across Malawi as a result of the floods and around 70,000 people have been displaced. In Mozambique,  20,000 people have been displaced. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has created a map (via http://reliefweb.int) showing the affected areas.

We’ve also received reports that there has been water cuts in Blantyre for at least 3 days now, and electricity supply has also been cut off.

The Malawi President will visit some of the affected areas tomorrow, according to the Government’s press release:

FloodsMore details here and here

Some people have set up funding initiatives, including one on Go Fund Me here to try to raise money for the humanitarian assistance.