Solidariteit Blog

Hier is dr. Dirk Hermann se artikel wat gister op www.politicsweb.co.za gepubliseer is. Die artikel is geskryf na aanleiding van kritiek wat die politieke kommentator Eusebius McKaiser op dieselfde webblad teen Solidariteit se veldtog teen FNB gelewer het.

FNB: Transformational vs constitutional state

Dr Dirk Hermann, Deputy General Secretary: Solidarity

In many respects, South Africa is currently losing its character as a constitutional state. In its place, a new transformation ideology or, if one wants to put it more bluntly, a racial ideology is being established. In other words: in certain areas South Africa is changing from a constitutional state into a transformation state. This means that transformation is not being interpreted within the context of the Constitution, but rather in the context of transformation. This was at the core of Solidarity’s battle with the exclusive bursary scheme of FirstRand and FNB. They exchanged the statutory democracy for an ideology of transformation.

Democrats need to stand up against this. The FirstRand group established a trust to help the children of employees at the companies in the group, including FNB, with their studies. FNB wrote the following letter to their employees: “If you’re battling to meet the demands of rising education costs, then we may just have some good news for you. FNB is committed to ensuring education for all, and as part of this initiative, offers financial assistance to black employees (as defined by the FirstRand staff BEE Scheme: African, Indian, Coloured and Chinese) earning R100 000 or less per annum. The Staff Assistance Trust formed by FNB Trust Services, offers educational financial aid for the children of staff members in primary school, up to Grade 7 level, helping to ease the financial pressure of parents within the bank.”

Clearly this is wrong. You cannot write to your employees that you would like to help everyone in need as long as they are black. What democracy can justify this? The South African democracy also doesn’t justify it. The intention of section 9(2) of the Constitution is not to be exclusive. There is no legislation emanating from section 9(2) that determines that whites must be excluded. The Employment Equity Act opposes absolute barriers for whites. Not even the financial services charter, which emanates from the black economic empowerment legislation, determines that whites must be excluded from all transactions. On the contrary, the charter states explicitly that beneficiaries should be primarily (not exclusively) black. Not one of the targets set in the charter is aimed at exclusion, but FirstRand established a deed of trust with exclusionary stipulations. There are many examples such as AngloGold Ashanti and SASOL where black economic empowerment transactions were inclusive. The spirit of the transaction had a lot more energy than the exclusive transactions.

I still remember the energy at the launch of AngloGold Ashanti’s employee empowerment transaction. Just like FirstRand’s, the transaction focused on impoverished employees and, as was the case with FirstRand’s, the majority of beneficiaries were black. However, unlike FirstRand’s transaction their race was not exclusive. An inclusive transaction, but part of a large black empowerment transaction. I remember the smiles on a photograph of Frans Baleni of the National Union of Mine Workers, Flip Buys of Solidarity, the black capitalist Sipho Pityana and the white capitalist Bobby Godsell. It was successful inclusive empowerment in action. Everyone was happy. Lees verder ‘Dr Dirk Hermann se reaksie op McKaiser-kritiek’

Die volgende artikel is deur ‘n sogenaamde politieke kenner, Eusebius McKaiser, op www.politicsweb.co.za geskryf. McKaiser het die groot fout gemaak om diskriminasie teen arm wittes te probeer regverder net omdat wittes (‘n veralgemening) vir soveel diskriminasie tydens apartheid verantwoordelik was. Sy argument is dat geleenthede van alle wittes ontneem kan word net omdat swartmense in die algemeen deur apartheid benadeel is. Hy het verseker nie Solidariteit se argumente teen FNB se beurskema mooi bestudeer nie, maar het eerder dit net as nog ‘n geleentheid gesien om nuwe rasse-diskriminasie te probeer regverder. Dr. Dirk Hermann, adjunk uitvoerende hoof van Solidariteit sal later hierdie week kommentaar hierop op die blog lewer. Hier is McKaiser se artikel. Gaan lees gerus die kommentaar daarop, hier.

FNB’s needless concession to Solidarity
Eusebius McKaiser

Solidarity used the Christmas lull to score a quick victory over First National Bank by getting the bank to hastily and needlessly concede that a blacks-only bursary scheme it is operating is not entirely kosher.  The compromise agreement is that the bursary scheme can remain provided that alternative schemes open to all race groups co-exist with this race specific one. This is utter nonsense. A good pragmatic response from FNB, perhaps, but one that betrays FNB’s lack of appreciation for why a blacks-only bursary scheme is both acceptable and even necessary. By conceding the substance of Solidarity’s argument, FNB thereby undercuts its own justification for the blacks-only scheme. Lees verder ‘Solidariteit word deur ‘n sogenaamde politieke kenner aangeval oor FNB-veldtog’