/ 9 March 2001

Lottery helps the poor enrich others

Thebe Mabanga

This weekend South Africa’s national lottery celebrates its first anniversary, marking 52 weeks of self-induced, unnecessary angst for punters among whom hope springs eternal that their lives will be changed by luck.

The lottery is a strange beast of our generation. Every week hordes of punters go through a process that culminates in long queues on Saturday afternoons. The cost of time one wastes in these queues is borne only because of the prospect of growing rich beyond one’s imagination. Trouble is, the probability of that prospect materialising is far less than that of being hijacked for the spanking new flashy car you will buy with your windfall.

The real problem with the lottery is that it doesn’t really create new wealth; it merely redirects existing spending. It alters the popular refrain from “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer” to “a lucky few get rich, while millions are left worse off”. A disturbing feature of the punter’s profile is the poor, who throw in a relatively large proportion of their hard-earned cash to enrich others.

A popular selling line for the incorrectly spelt slogan “tata ma chance, tata ma million” (it should read thatha) is how for R2,50 the jackpot can change your life. This would be funny were it not so tragic. Apart from a construction worker who spent R5 and hit the jackpot, people who win throw in a lot of money to improve their chances of winning. One winner is rumoured to have spent R120 on lottery tickets; there are people who spend even more every week.

A priest with whom I am acquainted recently observed how people pray to win the lotto, and when they win even the smaller prizes of a few hundred rand they neglect to give the required 10% to the church.

Also, like Christians who seem to practise their religion out of the fear of burning in hell rather than for the love of God, it is not quite clear if the lotto is designed to enrich those who play or to benefit good causes.

According to lottery operator Uthingo, the lottery has generated R382-million for charity. Over its seven-year licence period, the operator must give 30% to good causes. To date the good causes portion stands at 16,57%, mainly due to repayment of loans used to set up the lottery. This means that in later years the portion must go up to around 45% to satisfy the requirement.

Earlier this week Uthingo announced that it is finally to distribute the proceeds, in addition to R4,1-million dished out last year as emergency funding, to 80 charities. Well, as most people in the NGO sector have noted, they’ll believe it when they see it.

In many ways the structural operation of the lottery is a model of the flaw in the world econo-my. The smoothness and efficiency with which the lottery has gone about accumulating proceeds of about R50-million a week and dispensed prizes is an example of how a nation’s desire to get rich in this case very quickly and with luck can be channelled to a vast pool of funds. In a real economy this would be newly created wealth.

When one looks at the manner in which the lotto’s distribution process functions, the way the world works becomes clearer. By giving out prizes, paying taxes, giving vendors their share and keeping a check on the operators’ share of the proceeds, the system keeps satisfied those stakeholders whose collective clout it needs to run smoothly. What it also does is to ensure that they keep mum about the injustices perpetrated against the lotto’s neglected beneficiaries: the charities that serve the poor.

The manner in which the charities’ pleas for assistance have been drowned in the frenzy of chasing the big prize shows how the needs of the world’s and our country’s poor are trampled by the pursuit of profit and other selfish interests. It remains a mystery why the punters cannot put pressure on the government to clarify its stance on the distribution of the lotto proceeds as loudly and colourfully as Uthingo reminds us of the jackpot prize.

Our neglect of the marginalised is also indicative of a more serious potential problem. It shows how even when we reach a point where we create wealth that is sufficient to eradicate joblessness and ultimately poverty through economic growth, and not the lottery we still run the risk of leaving the poorest of the poor to fall through the cracks as we clamour to swell the ranks of our middle and upper classes.

The government frequently reminds us of the difficulty in setting up distribution agencies to channel the proceeds. This is just not good enough. A senior official in the NGO sector recently told me how, as early as January 1999, they tried to engage the government in investigating ways of distributing lotto funds. This included an invitation to Janet Paraskeva, the England-based director of the United Kingdom’s National Lotteries Charities Board, who warned a year before the first draw of the difficulties that lay ahead.

On then to this week’s “double-up draw”, where all prize money except the jackpot will be doubled. This is likely to entice the lapsed punters who lost hope during the course of the past year.

Whoever wins the jackpot will join the ranks of the 64 millionaires already created by the lotto. As they enjoy the lotto loot, they should spare a thought for Dingiswayo Gumede. The KwaZulu-Natal schoolteacher became an instant millionaire and bought himself a Toyota Corolla only to be killed in a car crash shortly afterwards. A sad reminder of how quickly fortunes can change.

As for how you should spend your money, set an example to the government and give a bit to charity.