This was not the week to be jobless, poor and a sinner. In the moral schema that underlay Minister of Fiance Trevor Manuel’s budget, little charity was on offer for this category among us. It was those of us in work who got the tax breaks, the rich can afford to pay cunning accountants to help them avoid the worst strictures of the capital gains tax that is due to come into effect in April next year, and the virtuous will not face the hefty hikes on booze and tobacco.
Manuel was able to point to the significant shift that has occurred in social spending in South Africa in recent years from the rich to the poor. He quoted statistics to show that spending on the poor had increased by a third in the five years to 1997. Yet two out of every five South Africans still lives below the minimum household subsistence level. That is to say, they live in grinding poverty.
Elegant as the suits are that Manuel wears, he is well aware of this. When he says that one of the most important challenges South Africans face is to find the best ways “to protect the poorest and most vulnerable in our society”, we do not doubt his sincerity.
Where there is room for disagreement is on the best policies to achieve these outcomes. Manuel’s choice, like that of his president, is clear.
He emphasises that the solutions to widespread poverty in South Africa will come only on the back of high economic growth and the job creation that must result from it. This approach alone is capable, in his view, of producing what he would term “sustainable” solutions to poverty.
This kind of thinking is eminently respectable in these opening moments of the new millennium. It leads to the kind of budget we saw this past week. It was business-, consumer- and saver-friendly. It was a budget for economic growth. Its tax cuts leave more disposable income in the pockets of the middle classes – usually those who drive the consumer economy and provide most of a society’s savers.
Their additional spending in coming months should drive up demand, and their savings should improve our woefully low savings rate, so helping to hold domestic interest rates down somewhat.
Manuel’s approach to helping the poor therefore rests on a paradox. He must create an economic environment favourable to investors and those with the money to consume in order to help those who have nothing to invest and little more in their pockets with which to consume.
Many find this paradox incredible. And it is not difficult to see why. The evidence on the ground suggests very little actual benefit has reached the millions living in the shanty towns around our farms and cities and in the former homelands. Here the survival of a young child or exhausted parent often cannot wait for the promise of eventual delivery under the government’s policy for growth, employment and redistribution (Gear). The need is now, as it was yesterday and the day before.
Likewise the desperate battle to survive drives many, for understandable if not excusable reasons, to crime – a scourge which is visited on all of us, rich, middling and poor alike.
For these reasons, we consider it is time for a serious debate around the proposal resurrected earlier this year by Minister of Welfare and Population Development Zola Skweyiya for a “dole” of sorts – a minimal social security catch net for those of us who have yet to reap the fruits of a government economic policy with which all the major political parties agree.
Whereas some may view it as precisely the kind of expense we cannot afford at the current time, we disagree. We believe it is possible to design a minimum guaranteed income for all South Africans which would not act as a disincentive to job-seeking but which would, rather, facilitate the deep structural changes now under way in our economy by helping secure social peace in a period of difficult transition. A rupture of the social peace could prove a great deal more expensive than the R7- billion a year estimated by Skweyiya.
The government would, it seems, get support from the official opposition and other parties if it pressed ahead with the African National Congress’s long-standing ideal of having some kind of dole system. The Democratic Party, frequently alleged by the ANC to have a callous disregard for the poor, is, indeed, rapidly emerging as a major protagonist of the idea. This indicates a multi-party consensus could be achieved on this issue.
What the country now awaits is leadership from the top and a serious address to the issue. The poor, in the words of Christ, may always be with us. But, without disputing this biblical injunction, we can at least set about reducing their numbers appreciably and alleviating the suffering of those of us who remain behind.
Power to the people
Now that the dust has settled on Zimbabwe’s referendum, it is worthwhile to note one point. In a continent in which gunfire is often seen to drown out reasoned argument, the referendum reminded that democracy can work wonders.
Robert Mugabe’s referendum on Zimbabwe’s new draft Constitution turned out to be a referendum on Mugabe himself. Having personally campaigned for a “yes” vote, the president suffered an unprecedented personal defeat.
Three in four voters abstained. Less than 12% of the total electorate backed Mugabe and Zanu-PF.
There are possible excuses, but none which can save Mugabe’s face. With all the state’s powers at his disposal, including government-controlled media, he has only himself to blame. The poll became a test of popular confidence in the way he is running the country. He should draw the obvious conclusion, and consider very carefully what he does next.
This proof that Zanu-PF’s dominance can be successfully challenged will greatly encourage opposition groups as April’s parliamentary elections approach. There is a long way still to go but, all in all, it was a good day for the people.