The word “transformation” is one of the most-used terms in South Africa today. It is used by politicians to justify all manner of growth-destroying laws, from NHI, to expropriation, to new racial employment quotas.
Transformation is often framed as a moral imperative, one which all right-thinking South Africans should be going along with.
The ANC and others also often like to throw around phrases like “anti-transformation” to undermine their opponents, implying that to be anti-transformation is to oppose that which is right and good.
For example, the DA’s recent court challenge against employment quotas was called “anti-transformation” by labour minister Nomakhosazana Meth, with President Cyril Ramaphosa saying that the party must explain why it was opposed to “transformation”.
Rhetorical tool
But here is the rub – nobody actually knows what transformation means. It is increasingly used simply as a rhetorical tool by the ANC to shut down debate and beat opponents over the head.
And if we cannot agree on what “transformation” is and what it means for an organisation to “transform”, then any debate around it is futile.
If we truly want South Africa to transform then we need some clarity on what the word means, and what the aim of transformation is.
Since 1994 South Africa has transformed, of that there is no doubt. Some will argue that it has transformed for the worse, pointing to degradation in infrastructure and the rise in violent crime, and so on.
But on balance, South Africa’s transformation since 1994 has largely been positive. While it may not feel like it, in constant US dollars, South Africans are about 40% richer than they were in 1994. We probably don’t feel that this could possibly be true, because of the stagnation of the Zuma and Ramaphosa years, with much of the world overtaking us.
There has also been extensive expansion of infrastructure since 1994. The number of people with access to electricity and sanitation, particularly in rural South Africa, has increased markedly since the end of apartheid.
In addition, both the number and the proportion of black children with access to decent levels of education have increased since 1994, and the number of babies and young children dying before the age of five has been decreasing constantly since the end of apartheid.
There is also the simple fact that South Africa is now an open democracy. Some will pooh-pooh this idea. But the fact is that this is a country in which political activity is free, along with all the other liberties that come with living in an open democracy, and these things confer dignity on all of us.
Serious problems
This is not, of course, to say that South Africa is perfect, or that the country does not face serious economic and political problems, but on balance the “transformation” of South Africa has been positive.
That said, the obsession with “transformation” (however defined) would hardly exist if the economy was growing at 5% or more per year. If economic opportunities were abundant then the obsession with transformation would be non-existent or a complete sideshow.
As Michael Avery argued in a BusinessLive column this week, “SA doesn’t have a transformation problem. It has a growth problem”.
The world of sport has something to teach us here, specifically the Springboks. The national rugby team is the best in the world at present; it has won two World Cups in a row, and is the most successful Rugby World Cup team in history, having won four tournaments, more than any other team, despite being banned from the first two, played in 1987 and 1991.
According to the government, however, the team has failed to meet “transformation” requirements. It is clear, on the other hand, that the public does not care – the Springboks are phenomenally popular across the country. And one can also see that despite the varying backgrounds in the side, it is one where people work together towards a clear goal, with the contributions of all being valued.
In Springbok teams over the years there have been rumblings of unhappiness – either tension between players or towards the coaching staff, from Geo Cronje refusing to share a room with a coloured player, Quinton Davids, to Kamp Staaldraad, to the rumoured players’ revolt under Heyneke Meyer. But one doesn’t hear stories and rumours like this from the current Springbok side. The team works well, is managed well, and the players, no matter their background, get on well together.
But are the Springboks “transformed”?
If one had to compare current Springbok squads to those picked in the 1990s, or even ten years ago, one would say yes. The team is racially diverse, with a black captain and a number of black people on the coaching staff. But if one looks at the rigid quotas as determined by the government, the team is not transformed. Yet, except for isolated race nationalists, it is clear the public doesn’t care about this. The team is winning and clearly represents South Africa in all its diversity.
Transformed
Which brings us to the meaning of the word “transformed”?
When is a company transformed? Is it when its demographics reflect broad national demographics perfectly? Is a company transformed if it has a black CEO, or is there more to it than that?
Furthermore, when a company is “once transformed” is it “always transformed”? Or do things like the race of its CEO and staff mean that transformation is a perpetually moving target?
The constant refrain about “transformation” is simply a fig leaf used by the ANC to distract people from its failures. It is far easier to implement hare-brained racial employment quotas in the name of “transformation” than to take the hard decisions necessary to truly transform South Africa into a country where there is abundant economic opportunity.
This is the transformation South Africa needs – a country where the economy is growing rapidly and where anybody who wants to work has the opportunity to do so. Instead, “transformation” will be used as a weasel word by the ANC in an attempt to disguise its own failures.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend
Image: Grok