The ANC, the BEE and the firepool.

A link to this article was recently posted in the shoutbox, and I think it warrants its own thread for further discussion.

In a nutshell the ANC argument seems to go like this:

Due to the possible wrongful actions of some officials and architects,

  1. the taxpayer is harmed, and
  2. president Zuma is advantaged.
    But president Zuma had no knowledge of any wrongdoings.
    Therefore president Zuma need not pay back the money to the taxpayer.

Or more generally:

Due to A behaving unethically

  1. B is harmed, and
  2. C is advantaged.
    But C had no knowledge of A’s wrongdoing.
    Therefore C need not be disadvantaged in order to compensate B.

The author then claims that the ANC, if they wish to be consistent in their reasoning, must take the following view of affirmative action:

Due to the archaic Job Reservations Act

  1. today’s young, black job seekers were harmed, and
  2. today’s young white job seekers were advantaged.
    But today’s young white job seekers had nothing to do with the Job Reservation Act.
    Therefore, a young white job seeker should not be discriminated against in favour of a young black job seeker.

Do you think the ANC government is in danger of agreeing with this logic? Probably not, but then why would they see the two instances as different? ARE there valid differences?

Rigil

ETA: I recall that someone drew he parallel with e-tolls in the past as well: We did not ASK for e-tolls, so why pay for e-tolls!

But president Zuma had no knowledge of any wrongdoings.

Right there is where my objection starts.

Probably not, but then why would they see the two instances as different?

White youth still has better education and more opportunities to succeed than black youth, the “benefit” they get wasn’t a one-time thing, it continues. It is easy to argue you are not “discriminating” against the whites, but merely “benefiting them less”. Since their advantage comes from an injustice, and that advantage lies in (relative) generational wealth, it is reasonable to try and mitigate that advantage. Key word being “try”. I don’t think BEE does much to level the playing field.

This is the problem with BEE, it doesn’t address causes, it addresses effects.

As does Zuma’s enjoyment of his firepool.

But the point is that IF the ANC argues that Zuma was ignorant of any wrongdoing, then they should also, by the same token, admit that today’s young white jobseekers are ignorant of any unfair legislation that lead to their continued advantage.

They ANC can’t have its cake buttered on both sides.

Rigil

It seems to me a clear case of special pleading (or perhaps “the end justifies the means” or even “might makes right”.) As far as I can see, the only difference is in which side sustains harm or disadvantage: If it’s us, then it’s wrong; if it’s them, then it’s okay.

Any governing party’s #1 priority, in this case the ANC’s, is to remain in power. Irrespective of any moral considerations, such a party will assiduously avoid engaging in any action that could threaten its supremacy. In SA, we have the unique situation where a large majority of income tax payers do not vote for the ruling party, yet each non-ANC-voting taxpayer supports on average four or five ANC voters through funding their social grants. In effect, the ANC has cunningly contrived to offset the loss of one vote against a gain of four or five. This situation is obviously unethical (for similar reasons as those described in the article re BEE), yet it’s hardly likely to be changed, at least not by the ANC.

While one could debate at length the relative extent and severity of any harm or disadvantage, including over the longer term, if the question is one of even-handed application of a principle, then there should be no quibbling about when it does or does not apply. And our present government proudly claims to be committed to such principles, e.g., “user pays”, another one whose application is flawed for being situationally determined.

It’s why politics and politicians generally are held in such low esteem. They think the people they govern can’t see their misdirection and duperies (or aren’t much fussed about such) when their principles change according to the situation at hand. And they can’t claim unawareness of wrongdoing because they’re the ones behind it.

'Luthon64

Exactly: Sure, let’s have user pays, universally. I’m all for it, it’ll sure lower my tax burden by orders of magnitude, most of the services I get so nicely taxed for I have to pay for again with after-tax money anyways.

I don’t really buy the argument that young white people are disadvantaged in today’s job market.
With the right skills and attitude you can get a job. Older white mails defiantly are on the shorter end of the stick.

As for Zuma and his fire pool.

If you had constructors at your house and they put in a pool with out you asking, and then after words,
there auditor said you should pay back the money, would you?

The brilliance of Zuma is he does not have to ask. People are falling over backwards to please him and
willing to jump in front of anything to protect him.

It’s why politics and politicians generally are held in such low esteem. They think the people they govern can’t see their misdirection and duperies (or aren’t much fussed about such) when their principles change according to the situation at hand. And they can’t claim unawareness of wrongdoing because they’re the ones behind it.

Politicians and especially old freedom fighters are held in HIGH esteem by the masses and indeed placed on unjustifiable pedestals hence the problem with democracy in Africa…it does not subscribe to logic.

The traditional view of what the leaders do or have done, is that it is their ‘god-given’ right and as 'fathers" of the nation in a paternalistic society, we the subjects are called upon to obey without question…how cool is that position to exploit?

Governments are faced with a bit of a dilemma: keeping control of power vs devolving power to the masses: to achieve both they are obliged to either use coercive methods (inter alia force/legislative measures) or keep the masses basically malleable through ignorance (e.g. brainwashing/low education levels/needy).

You’re right, of course. I should have qualified it as, “It’s why politics and politicians generally are held in such low esteem by thinking individuals.:wink:

'Luthon64

In Fullinwider’s driveway illustration, the “enemy” who causes one party to benefit at the expense of another is an independent third party. Even if one accepts the highly dubious position that, in the Nkandla analogy, Zuma did not “knowingly and willingly benefit” and that his personal architect was the “enemy”, it has to be taken into account that said architect was not an independent third party, but Zuma’s personal agent. The relationship between principal (Zuma) and agent (architect) therefore has to be considered. It is common practice to view an agent as an extension of the principal. While the principal and agent relationship lasts, the principal can usually be held accountable for the actions of his agent even if those actions are not explicit instructions by the principal. For the Fullinwider principle to apply, it would therefore require a different “enemy”.

In any event, it seems to me as if the supposed beneficiaries of AA legislation end up becoming victims more than winners. A culture of entitlement has now been created which, combined with the destruction of the public schooling system, has created a generation of utterly helpless, uneducated and discontented people, living in shacks on social grants, when they might have been part of the productive middle class. In the meantime, the white population, supposedly the victims of the AA laws, have turned themselves into something akin to 19th century European Jewry: unpopular, effectively barred from some professions, but on the whole better educated, more focused and wealthier than ever before. And this happened, I would guess, partly as a result of the discriminatory legislation.

So to Zuma and his cronies I can only say: thank you. My generation used to be a rather decadent lot. Just as decadent as you, in fact. We no longer are. So thank you, Mr. President, for making us stronger and richer, even if your intention was the opposite. >:D

That’s true. In order to apply the Fullinwider analogy to Zuma we must be willing to believe that agents can also be enemies, and that the principal is absolved from the actions of his agents. That is perhaps a bit of a stretch.

But if we suspend all disbelief for a second and take the ANC premises as valid, then it immediately deals a crippling blow for the rationale behind affirmative action. Not that it will make one iota difference in the real world, as was pointed out already. There’s no hope of appealing to reason with this lot.

Rigil