The phrase “an uncle in the furniture business” was, in fact, a thinly veiled and rather lazy allusion to a stereotype long associated with the Indian community.
Indians – both Hindu and Muslim, particularly those from the Gujarati community – were stereotypically portrayed as people who could always call on a relative or close friend to secure a job, land a business contract, get repairs done cheaply, or even jump a queue for a travel booking. While exaggerated, this perception became entrenched over time
.The idea later spread to other Indians whose forefathers had migrated from northern and southern India as indentured labourers. During apartheid’s Tricameral Parliament and House of Delegates era, similar “connection-call” practices were evident, especially within Indian education, where jobs, transfers and promotions
were often handed out to friends and allies. That is an uncomfortable part of our past.However, like chilli, garam masala, haldi and dhania – culinary additions that helped lure Jan van Riebeeck to the Cape on his sea route to India – this practice of leveraging personal connections has long since spread far beyond one race or community. Today it cuts across races, religions and political systems.
A brief look at appointments made by Western leaders in Britain, Europe and the US shows that cronyism and nepotism are alive and well. In fact, by comparison, the excesses of the old House of Delegates era seem almost modest.
The most glaring example is Donald Trump, who placed several family members in influential positions, both domestically and in foreign affairs. His daughter, Ivanka, and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, served as senior White House advisers. Nepotism at this level conveniently serves multiple purposes: loyalty, control and insulation from inconvenient scrutiny.
Seen in that light, perhaps we should feel slightly less embarrassed about our own past indiscretions at Truro House and Malgate. | Ebrahim Essa Durban
South Africa is facing an economic crisis that has resulted in countless people being excluded from the workforce and an economy that is not growing at the same pace as its population.
Wholesale deregulation does not appear to be favoured by some members of the South African commentariat and political sphere; however, what about limited deregulation?
The solutions to create prosperity are well known: deregulation, reducing state intervention, lowering taxes for the population, and ensuring that the infrastructure (water, roads, and electricity), funded by citizens, and which the state monopolises, is functional.
South Africa faces a crisis of unemployment and economic growth. The solutions are well known, yet their adoption across broader South African society remains limited. Why not experiment with these tried and tested ideas within Special Economic Zones (SEZs)?
SEZs are designated geographical areas subject to a regulatory regime distinct from that of their surrounding regions. Generally, an SEZ serves as a location to conduct studies or experiments involving regulatory frameworks that differ from those applied in the rest of the country.
It is usually an area that facilitates activities that generate prosperity and capital. Most notably, suchSEZs can be found in places like Shenzhen, China, which is regarded as the centre of the world’s electronics manufacturing. Shenzhen is a designated SEZ, where businesses are permitted to operate with greater freedom than in other parts of China.
These areas are typically established to achieve the best of both worlds. If a national government is unwilling, for one reason or another, to adopt more liberty-based policies – which are the only way to build prosperity – it then creates a zone where such policies are permitted within a controlled environment.
South Africa is meant to have SEZs, with one in the Eastern Cape serving as an example. However, the South African government has not observed the outcomes typically associated with SEZs, even in the regions where they are established, let alone at a national level. Why is this the case?
The South African government appears never to have fully understood the rationale behind SEZs. Most SEZs in South Africa depend heavily on state largesse in the form of affirmative action. The SEZ model employed by our government involves designating specific geographical areas for increased state intervention, rather than reducing it.
OurSEZs South Africa are not fully capitalising on the unique circumstances faced by South African society. The challenges of structural unemployment, particularly among the youngest members of our population, present a distinctive opportunity to adopt a bold policy outlook.
State intervention of some kind has been attempted. From the Public Works programme, which is rife with corruption, to the idea that the state can employ unemployed youth through various initiatives, the phenomenon of teacher assistants is one such programme.
Instead of allowing the state to take the lead in addressing this issue, liberty – through deregulation and minimal state intervention – should be the solution. By deregulating our labour market, which is often cited as one of the primary causes of high unemployment, we can tackle the unemployment problem, even if only in a limited area such as an SEZ.
Our law permits differentiated regulatory regimes. In other words, it allows for variations in the regulation of certain activities or processes that may be similar. For example, it is possible to establish a SEZ where businesses operating within it are subject to a different, often less stringent, regulatory regime than their counterparts or competitors outside the SEZ.
We need to re-evaluate the approach to SEZs in our country. Their implementation has the potential to provide the impetus our broader economy requires to recover. For this to happen, we need a genuine SEZ that represents a clear break from the orthodoxy of stringent labour laws and other restrictive regulations.
Failure to embrace the principles of liberty in the economic sphere, even in a limited form such as through a SEZ, will only lead South Africa further down the road to serfdom. | Zakhele Mthembu Policy officer at the Free Market Foundation
The IEC is failing South Africa’s democracy by allowing the Patriotic Alliance (PA) to funnel undeclared money into politics unchecked.
Through what appears to be an army of paid influencers, the PA has done a remarkable job of misleading South Africans, portraying its recent by-election successes as organic voter choice. In reality, these victories have little to do with genuine growth or dissatisfaction with other parties. Instead, they reflect a deeply unethical mix of misinformation, unrealistic promises, and, most importantly, the spending of vast sums of money.
In every by-election, the PA floods streets with T-shirts, hands out food parcels, prints posters and leaflets, and flies or buses in hundreds of activists who require accommodation and food. All of this comes at enormous cost, yet the public is left guessing where this endless stream of funds originates. The PA has not declared a single cent since 2024, just before a major election.
Is the money coming from organised crime, as alleged by PA councillor Juwairiya Kaldine in January 2024? Or from convict Jermaine Prim, who claimed his family funded the party? Or is it still reliant on funds accumulated through Zuma-era BBB-EE contracts, as reported in the media?
The Political Party Funding Act, 2018, compels political parties to disclose private donations to prevent secret money from influencing South African politics.
The public deserves to know who is funding the PA and what their true agenda is. It is time for the IEC to step up and investigate. | Louis Cason Cape Town
Dear Editor,
With elections due in 2026, a frustrated populace will once again cast its vote, and the outcome will shape South Africa’s future for the next decade.
In 1994, after decades of oppression, our nation became a constitutional democracy. We began to breathe fresh air infused with hope and wisdom. Few could have imagined that this very air would, over time, turn foul and so contaminated that it would poison our democratic system. Even more disturbing is that those entrusted with governing the country have become the source of this contamination.
The law is the fulcrum of democracy, and democracy is what binds people together without force. Yet elite profligacy in the face of widespread poverty highlights the core problem confronting our troubled land: corruption. Most South Africans would agree that corruption lies at the heart of the many challenges the country faces today.
Our so-called leaders appear to have accepted that bribery and nepotism trump merit, and they participate in these practices to preserve their own self-interest. Far from being punished for their deceit, such individuals are rewarded not with shame or ignominy, but with power.
The fury and frustration this breeds run wide and deep, fuelled by anger at a political system that is failing to do what it is meant to do. Many citizens sense that something deeply repugnant is at work in our politics, and that it should not be masked by humour or empty rhetoric. Too many leaders resort to lies and deception to manipulate the electorate.
The tragedy of our time is that we have allowed money politics to become the norm in our political culture. Unless this changes, democracy itself will continue to erode. | Farouk Araie Gauteng
DAILY NEWS
Related Topics: