Barking up the wrong tree
A foundational principle of any functioning democracy is the robust exchange of ideas, even those that are unpopular or challenging.
EDITOR’S NOTE: An abridged version of the following article was originally published by the Sunday Times. The full article can be read below.
Written by: Gail Day
Peter Vundla’s piece, “Punish opponents of apartheid redress” (Sunday Times, 29 June), advocates for a dangerous precedent in South Africa’s policy discourse. The call to legally punish individuals for holding and expressing dissenting opinions within a democratic society is reprehensible at best, and profoundly dangerous at worst.
A foundational principle of any functioning democracy is the robust exchange of ideas, even those that are unpopular or challenging. To criminalise thought or speech, simply because it counters a prevailing narrative or policy, is to abandon the very essence of a free society.
The Free Market Foundation (FMF), founded in August 1975 to promote and defend the principles of individual liberty, private property, free enterprise, and limited government for all South Africans, has built a consistent record on race-based policies. It opposed affirmative action under apartheid and remains opposed to race-based policies post-1994. This stance is not born of a denial of historical injustice, but from a principled conviction that such policies inherently fail to achieve their stated goals, generate unintended consequences, and exacerbate racial tension. Fundamentally, any measure that undermines equality before the law is immoral, regardless of its stated intention.
Mr Vundla equates opposing BEE with opposing redress. He writes: “In 1973 the UN declared apartheid a crime against humanity. The democratic South African constitution mandates redress for past injustices. In my view, the fight against redress is tantamount to apartheid denialism, which should be punishable in law.” The real “crime” here is not the critique of redress policies, but the perpetuation of BEE which masquerades as ‘broad-based’ transformation, but demonstrably serves a small, politically connected elite, and costs the economy dearly.
The only sustainable and equitable path to genuine transformation lies in baking a bigger pie, not merely redistributing a shrinking one. Attempting to address systemic unemployment and hopelessness by reallocating limited existing wealth will not yield the desired results. Only robust economic growth can create the opportunities necessary to uplift millions from poverty.
Did you know that an economy growing at 7% annually doubles in size every 10 years? Did you know that had South Africa grown by 7% per annum since 1994, our GDP per capita would have increased from $4,000 to $30,000 per annum?
Achieving growth is entirely within reach if politicians prioritise pragmatic economic principles over ideological biases. The FMF’s “Liberty First” initiative outlines clear and simple proposals designed to unlock this potential and deliver genuine economic growth for all. Here are just some recommendations:
Reduce the number of Cabinet portfolios to 10.
Adopt legislation that requires National Treasury to balance spending with revenue.
Open up the field of electricity production, distribution, and transmission.
Privatise Eskom, Transnet, Denel, the Post Office, SAA, and PRASA.
Add an opt-out clause to the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.
Amend the Labour Relations Act to prevent bargaining council agreements from extending to non-parties.
Repeal the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act.
Enable medical schemes and health insurers to offer low-cost healthcare to the indigent.
Adopt legislation that empowers and directs the courts to uphold the standards of the rule of law.
Adopt legislation that makes the conducting and publishing of impact assessments mandatory.
Adopt legislation that limits the number of regulations a specified body may adopt.
Raise the maximum monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court amount from R20,000 to at least R100,000.
Repeal the Expropriation Act.
Adopt legislation that rejects the paradigm of redistribution and places renewed emphasis on the principle of restitution.
Repeal the Hate Speech Act or amend it to only be concerned with hate crimes.
Reform the doctrine of crimen injuria to safeguard free expression.
Decentralise policing.
Increase the number of prosecutors and develop support mechanisms for private prosecutions.
Implement a moratorium on new or increased tariffs.
Eliminate Apartheid era foreign exchange controls.
Adjust the inflation target from the current range of 3-6% down to 0-3%.
Amend the Reserve Bank Act to strengthen the emphasis on the Bank’s core mandate to protect the value of the currency.
Amend the Reserve Bank Act to create additional degrees of separation between the Bank and the executive.
Opposing BEE is not a “war on black people,” as Mr Vundla claims. Opposing policies which undermine growth and therefore investment and therefore jobs is a war in defence of the poor, be they black or white.
In arguing against BEE, perhaps the William Gumedes and Moeletsi Mbekis of this world offer a crucial insight. It requires intellectual honesty and considerable courage to acknowledge when preferred policies simply do not work. It is past time for the proponents of the failed BEE policy to opt instead for something that will indeed raise the poor out of poverty.
Gail Day, Head of Operations, Free Market Foundation.
Peter Vundla was handed a thriving business as part of the then US State Department affirmative action program (formerly known as the Sullivan Principles). He should be asked what the outcome was of this generous act of "redress". Bankruptcy and closure? Should he not be punished for wasting this opportunity and causing so much pain in job losses? Peter Vundla is a professional black whose opinion should not be taken seriously.