August marks Women’s Day in South Africa, a day
commemorating the efforts of more than 20,000 women of all races, who marched
to the highest political office in the land, on the morning of August 9 in
1956, to raise awareness around women’s rights and present a petition against
the carrying of passes by women, to the then prime minister.



More than six decades on, the call for the equitable
treatment and acknowledgement of women’s rights remains a battle for a global
community of women – for recognition and also for fair and equitable economic
opportunities.



Think back to the recent FIFA Women’s World Cup, where champions, USA, returned home with the trophy but also a very small paycheck for their efforts. During their return tour, their victory was overshadowed by calls from supporters to ensure authorities offer them salaries equal to their male counterparts. 



READ MORE | <a rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label="No Longer In The Wilderness (opens in a new tab)" href="https://www.forbesafrica.com/woman/2019/08/09/no-longer-in-the-wilderness/" target="_blank">No Longer In The Wilderness</a>



Whilst efforts have been made in this regard, the
discrepancies in pay between men’s and women’s football, much like many other
sectors, remain too large to ignore.



FIFA, the world governing body of football, doubled the
total prize money for the 2019 Women’s World Cup from $15 million to $30
million but it is still a fraction of the $400 million received by players in
the men’s tournament last year.



The disparity across sub-Saharan Africa is even more glaring. Despite a great showing from teams represented by Nigeria, South Africa and Cameroon, the reality for many local players is that there are no local leagues. As such, players are expected to train and perform at a professional level while still managing a separate full-time job to pay their bills and make ends meet.



<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">On closer inspection of recent data, one is hit with the enormity of the task at hand. The Global Gender Gap Report published by the World Economic Forum in December 2018, revealed that at the current rate of change, it will take about 108 years to close the overall gender gap and 202 years to bring about parity in the workplace. </blockquote>



This is a long time to wait for parity of any sort – what
more for the sports field, the political sphere and new digital industries that
are likely to emerge?



As women, we certainly can’t sit by the wayside in hopes of
being rescued from this dilemma. 



I believe that our focus and rhetoric need to be adapted and
realigned. I believe it goes beyond just empowering females, but unlocking
economic opportunities for all through the advancement of women.



It’s well documented that female-headed households lead to
the advancement of all and everyone wins. 



Beyond this, the recent FIFA Women’s World Cup reminded me that while the battle for gender equality remains a major challenge, the real issue is around equal and fair recognition – on the soccer field, in the boardroom and in places of political leadership.



READ MORE | <a rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label="Businesses Of The Future: 20 New Wealth Creators On The African Continent (opens in a new tab)" href="https://www.forbesafrica.com/woman/2019/03/11/the-businesses-of-the-future-20-new-wealth-creators-on-the-african-continent/" target="_blank">Businesses Of The Future: 20 New Wealth Creators On The African Continent</a>



As a society, we should be empowering, supporting and
rewarding those who go above and beyond to achieve levels of excellence in
their respective sectors.



“We should all be feminists,” a popular quote by Nigerian
novelist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie has a lot of truth to it, in driving the
awareness and active citizenry for change.



I believe we should take this a step further and we should
all be activists who reward excellence, regardless of race or gender. 



Let’s reward excellence! And the economic benefits will
naturally follow – for all. 



– Gugulethu Mfuphi is an award-winning radio broadcaster, financial journalist, conference moderator and CNBC Africa alumni. She was recently named one of South Africa’s 200 young leaders in media by Mail &amp; Guardian.

gettyimages-463406923-170667a

Not Just Equality, But Recognition Of Excellence

“Calm down. You’re so sensitive. Where’s your sense of humor? You’re crazy!”
If you’re a woman, in all probability, you’ve heard it before.
Psychologists refer to this as ‘gaslighting’ – silencing techniques used to shut you down after you have addressed someone else’s behavior. In that moment, the speaker is making a judgment about how you should feel.
Gaslighting is when one person systemically confuses the other person into thinking their reactions are crazy, to the point where they actually question their sanity. The term is not very mainstream as it originated from the 1940’s film Gas Light, where a husband manipulates his wife into thinking she is crazy.
While gaslighting is not a universal truth for all women, there are plenty of women who unknowingly encounter it at home, in personal relationships and especially at work.
<a href="http://www.forbesafrica.com/woman/2017/12/05/80-hours-week-work/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">READ MORE: Over 80 Hours A Week At Work?</a>
Sbusi Dlamini, HR Business Partner for ShowMax in Johannesburg, says gaslighting commonly manifests in the workplace when there is a power imbalance, such as a manager and his/her assistant. It starts with simple acts such as withholding key information like dates or details of a project, lying about instructions given or not providing the necessary support when in a position to do so.
For instance, if a woman raises valid concerns at work, she is considered to be whining or moody. If she is insulted and her feelings are hurt, it’s her fault for not having a sense of humor. In both these scenarios, the woman is to blame and both parties are conditioned into believing that women’s opinions don’t hold as much weight as men’s, and what women have to say and what they feel aren’t as legitimate.
“It is malicious because it plays on your worst fears and desire to be understood,” says Dlamini.
Dlamini points out that gaslighting is not exclusive to submissive, introverted women, but confident, assertive women with power are also vulnerable to it.
“Women are traditionally labeled as too sensitive or over-emotional, so they are more susceptible to gaslighting in various roles and industries.”
An example of this is the infamous ‘Google Memo’ written by a now former Google engineer, James Damore. He wrote that women are not suited for certain jobs because of their genetic make up, and the gender gaps at work are not due to discrimination, but inherent biological differences between men and women.
Such gender stereotypes are harmful to women because spending your days working with a colleague who believes you were born incapable of being good at your job can eventually lead you ask yourself: “What am I doing here?”
<a href="http://www.forbesafrica.com/woman/2017/08/14/we-men-for-women/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">READ MORE: We, Men For Women</a>
Dlamini also believes that in addition to gender, race plays a role in the reality of women in corporate Africa.
“People of color, women in particular, are historically taught to be submissive and this undeniably follows them into the workplace. As a result of this, they find themselves submitting to those in power in order to progress, thus allowing abusive behavior,” she says.
Dlamini says the first step in dealing with gaslighters is to detach yourself so you can distinguish between the world of the gaslighter and the real world.
“It’s important to remember that gaslighting only works when you believe what the other person says,” she adds.
In her experience, she advises victims to keep a written record in case they should doubt their memory. Bringing in a third party can also help keep track of what transpires, as well as reporting the case to human resources.
Women deserve the equal, unbiased opportunity to prosper in the workplace without abusive mind games that perpetuate discrimination.
“Once you are aware of it, the hard part is over and you can work to mentally overcome it,” she says.
<h2>7 signs you are a victim of gaslighting:</h2>
<ul>
<li>You are constantly second-guessing yourself and doubting your capabilities</li>
<li>You often feel confused and “crazy” at work</li>
<li>You often ask yourself if you’re being too sensitive</li>
<li>You are always apologetic or feel you’ve done something wrong</li>
<li>You feel your thoughts and ideas are shut down</li>
<li>You are indecisive because you don’t trust your own judgment</li>
<li>You doubt your own sanity</li>
</ul>
&#8211; Written by Cadine Pillay

Gaslighting – Surely, This Has Happened To You Too

Earning more money than her boyfriend proved to be dangerous for Thembisa*, but it didn’t start out that way. Their relationship bloomed from a serendipitous meeting on a bus, but four years later, Bongi* was still taking the bus while Thembisa owned a car and paid for all their household expenses.
Then she bought him a laptop for his birthday. This generosity was the catalyst for all of Bongi’s pent-up frustration and most importantly, his feelings of disempowerment: it boiled into a physical fight so violent she ended up in hospital for a week.
“Often, men can experience feelings of shame and inadequacy at not feeling that they are providing,” explains Clinical Psychologist Richard Middleton. “A central aspect of masculine identity, for many men, is that of being a provider.”
Money has, and always will be, an issue in relationships: because money isn’t about the money – money is about power. Money is about freedom. Money is about choice. And money becomes a symbol of so much more than its Rand value when it’s in a relationship.
As financial advisor Lisa Linfield says: “Money isn’t one dimensional.” This becomes even clearer when there is an income inequality in a relationship, and, as Linfield explains, the money becomes a way to “express the state of the relationship”. Existing issues and dynamics will get played out in the finances. Clinical Psychologist Annette du Toit puts it another way: “The money becomes a metaphor.”
Now, Thembisa’s story may not be the norm, but the relationship wage gap is not a new phenomenon. What’s new about it is in 2017, women are increasingly out-earning their partners and becoming the main breadwinners.
Though this works for many couples, in patriarchal South Africa, both women and men struggle with a power dynamic that is against both their heritage and their expectations. Alison*, a managing director, is now, after a series of unplanned events, out-earning her husband.
She explains: “My husband and I are both Afrikaans – a traditionally patriotic culture, and the cherry on top is that he is a farmer. Although we are both modern, liberal and progressive thinkers, there are certain ingrained cultural quirks which are hard to shake.”
<a href="http://www.forbesafrica.com/woman/2017/07/31/real-cost-changing-surname-turn-mrs/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Real Cost Of Changing Your Surname When You Turn Mrs</a>
One of these was directly linked to decision-making and the role of head of the household. As she told me, “I wouldn’t say it caused trouble in our relationship – but it blurred the lines of authority. My husband unconsciously started leaving all important financial decisions to me – a burden I felt too heavy to carry along with being the breadwinner. He on the other hand felt that the breadwinner had the ‘luxury’ of making such decisions. So although I am the breadwinner, I wanted all traditional roles to remain… something he felt he could not do as it was ‘my money’.”
Money, in fact, is more often than not a key indicator of a relationship’s success. “One of the best predictors for divorce is financial disagreements,” says Linfield, quoting a university study by Jeffrey Dew that “those who argue about money once a week are over 30% more likely to get divorced than those who disagree only once or twice.”
Annette says, “The dynamic isn’t any different to when women are financially disempowered in a relationship. The difference is that it’s not a social norm for men to be perceived as disempowered.” Though the wage gap is still a very real phenomenon in the South African workplace, more and more women are climbing the career ladder and secretly changing a long-standing dynamic.
Why secretly? I can only guess. What I know for certain is that of the seven sources I interviewed for first person stories, whether in good or bad relationships, cutting across the race, gender and career spectrum nationwide, all except one asked to be anonymous. My best guess is it’s probably because, as one source said, “I don’t want to embarrass my husband.”
Embarrassment is a very real fear. Franco Pellegrini, a Peruvian Italian sound engineer and stay-at-home-dad, has found the social shaming associated with having his wife as the main breadwinner an unfortunate phenomenon in South Africa.
“For men, it’s not really common,” he says, “There’s a lot of judgement, and when I say I look after the kids, a lot of men will say ‘my wife does that’.”
It’s commonplace at social gatherings for men to make snide off-hand comments that imply being the nurturer is an easy role; comments, Pellegrini says, that often infuriate their wives doing the exact same thing. And as a ‘stay-at-home’ dad, Pellegrini finds it frustrating how society and infrastructure are heavily skewed towards women as the nurturers.
Most classes are called something along the lines of ‘Moms and Tots’, few malls have gender-neutral or male baby-changing rooms, and a lot of people assume Pellegrini, as a lone male, has an illicit agenda with their children. One thing that helps with this is his group of like-minded, stay-at-home dads who meet once a week to bond, commiserate, and drink wine. Society aside, Pellegrini’s relationship with his wife works financially. His wife’s income is seen as ‘theirs’ and his contributions are valued as highly as hers – even if they don’t match Rand for Rand.
<a href="http://www.forbesafrica.com/life/2016/10/01/nails-nannies-price-women-pay/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">From Nails To Nannies: The Price Women Pay </a>
Another successful relationship is Ayanda* and her husband. Ayanda finds being the main provider extremely rewarding, and loves that her husband encourages her ambition. “Practically, at the end of the day, it’s about the long-term view,” she says, “He is my best friend and we support each other, each doing what we do best for both of us.”
What both relationships are doing right is seeing the money as something practical, not linked to worth, and aligning their long-term goals with what each can contribute to the relationship. As Linfield says: “Secret-keeping, and looking at money as ‘yours, mine and ours’ can cause a lot of trouble in a relationship.”
Managing a relationship wage gap can be challenging, with a wide range of factors affecting the relationship; the main trick though is to respect and value each other.
HOW TO MANAGE YOUR MONEY (IN A RELATIONSHIP WAGE GAP)
<ul>
<li>MAKE A MENTAL SHIFT: Don’t think “I am earning R50,000, he is earning R20,000”, rather think “We are earning R70,000” and plan how to use that money for your shared future.</li>
<li>MONEY EXPRESSES HOW YOU THINK: As financial advisor Lisa Linfield says, money becomes an expression of your personality. Are you a saver or an adventurer? Understanding you and your partner’s financial needs will help immensely.</li>
<li>PAY PROPORTIONALLY TO INCOME: Happy Ngale, a financial wellbeing consultant at Alexander Forbes, has this handy formula to help you work it out:Income 1 (higher income) + Income 2 = Total income 
Income 1/total income x 100 = % split 
g. R50,000 + R20,000 = R70,000 
R50,000/R70,000 x 100 = 71%. 
Therefore Income 1 would pay for 71% of the joint bills meaning Income 2 pays 29% towards the joint bill.This balances the payments and creates a fair share towards the joint bills.</li>
<li>DO YOUR FINANCIAL PLANNING TOGETHER: Transparency really is your best friend here! Retiring together one day is your long-term financial goal, so make sure your sights are aligned to the same end result.</li>
<li>VALUE WHAT YOUR PARTNER BRINGS: As Annette says, this might not be money! Looking after the children, managing the household, and other tasks all are as important as a financial contribution.</li>
<li>IF IT’S NOT WORKING, REEVALUATE: If you do feel the financial situation isn’t working – if the breadwinner is feeling too much pressure, or if you simply don’t have enough money, or if one partner is unhappy, it’s perfectly OK to have a look again at your financial agreement and come to one that makes both partners happy. This might mean one of you going back to work, or one of you working less, advises Kerri Lutz, Wealth Coach and Financial Advisor for Women.</li>
<li>CHOOSE A CARETAKER: As John Manyike, Head of Financial Education at Old Mutual, explains: “Having a joint bank account is a convenient way to manage day-to-day spending and saving, but it can be problematic if one of you is not financially disciplined. Couples must identify who the financially responsible one is and agree on who is best-suited to taking care of the household budget.”</li>
<li>BE TRANSPARENT: Don’t keep financial secrets. Know what’s happening with both of you so you can plan accordingly, for your joint future.</li>
</ul>
(*not their real names)
<ul>
<li>Written by Samantha Steele</li>
</ul>

So… You Earn More Than Your Husband?

Recently, there has been incessant talk about the National Development Plan (NDP) and how it, as our government so eloquently states, will mitigate the triple challenges that South Africa faces: poverty, unemployment and inequality.
Developmental theory tells us that ‘developmental states’ aim to attain industrialization through active participation in the formulation and implementation of industrial policy, while simultaneously implementing policy to redistribute income to minimize the unequal distribution of income resulting from industrialization.
One of the greatest dangers South Africa faces with industrialization is that the tendering processes in the public sector is corrupt. We cannot have a situation where the benefactors of the industrialization will be those with close ties to government and the ruling party. This would be disastrous for the country and will increase social tensions, while widening the income gap. A good education and healthcare system, which is often entirely subsidized by the government, are key characteristics of a developmental state. The equalization of income is also an important factor, with countries, such as South Korea, being considered among the most equal as well as enjoying the highest living standard in the world.
Bureaucratic competence is essential in ensuring that state institutions facilitate the swift and efficient implementation of the NDP. The state will have to bolster its departments with captains of industry and experts to improve its human capital base. In addition, they ought to be able to attract the brightest young minds and look for creative ways to lure them to the public service as opposed to merely giving them higher salaries. How will the National Planning Committee (NPC) fare compared to successful central planning economic bodies of countries such as Malaysia and South Korea? It remains to be seen. In these aforementioned governments, the state had a more interventionist stance in the economy, coupled with establishing a cohesive relationship with the private sector based on common national policy goals.
A competent bureaucracy is an essential, but not sufficient, condition for a developmental state to thrive. Equally important is the political capacity that will ensure that the state is both accountable and transparent. Unfortunately this is an area that the South African government needs to improve.
Although South Africa should draw inspiration and lessons from the developmental states of the Asian Tiger economies, it should note that the blueprint from these nations is not a one-size-fits-all solution. South Africa’s developmental state will require differing arrangements because no single economy is like another. South Africa is a resource-rich nation, whereas South Korea and Malaysia are more technologically-centric and industrialized economies. Our government should focus on formulating our own unique developmental state blueprint that will help tackle and alleviate our pressing challenges within our distinct African context.
The lack of cohesion between the ruling political party, the African National Congress (ANC), and its communist tripartite alliance is also a cause for concern. Very often the two have stark differing ideologies on pertinent issues such as monetary policy. The South African Communist Party (SACP) previously lobbied for a populist stance of growing the economy by removing the inflation target of 3% to 6% and lowering interest rates to stimulate demand for credit. This will result in inflationary pressures in the long-run and will lead to an eventual economic collapse. The communists often fail to understand that in as much as South Africa has pressing unemployment issues, the loss of employment for those who are already employed will permeate levels of poverty throughout our social structures and place an even greater burden on our social welfare system.
The NDP presents the ruling party with the opportunity to make amends for the lag in creation of jobs and reducing poverty. Perhaps the NDP is exactly what the ANC needs in order to salvage some of the lost faith that has resulted in the emergence of opposition parties such as the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) as well as the resurgence of the Democratic Alliance (DA) in last year’s elections.
There is no easy solution to attain economic growth. Placing a nation’s economy on a growth trajectory requires patience and, perhaps more importantly, resilience to astute economic policies.

A lot of work  ahead

Land reform has been as controversial an issue in post-colonial Africa, as it has been emotive. Not surprising given the sheer scale of poverty and inequality that countries had to deal with once they attained freedom.
The last country to be liberated, South Africa, is finding itself in this unavoidable position- having to take land from mostly white farmers and giving it to large numbers of disadvantaged. In its attempt, South Africa is haunted by the chaos and misfortunes of neighbouring Zimbabwe.
This is not a policy unique to Africa, however. Colombia is working towards an accord on land reform. Some socialist movements in China, Mexico and Cuba, as well as democratic regimes in Chile, Puerto Rico and Venezuela have gone through it.
<div id="attachment_1745" style="width: 210px" class="wp-caption alignleft"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1745" class="size-medium wp-image-1745" src="/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/John-du-Plessis-CEO-of-TSB-Sugar-200x300.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="300" />ohn du Plessis, CEO of TSB Sugar</div>
The reason South Africa’s land reform process has become urgent is the 100 year anniversary of the Natives Land Act, on June 19. The act limited black land ownership to 7%, later increased to 13%. It restricted black people from buying or occupying land, except as employees.
Between 1994 and 2011, 6.8 million hectares (ha) were transferred to claimants. This land is allocated on a 99-year leasehold. The minister of rural development and land reform, Gugile Nkwinti, said that 4,813 farms had been transferred, between 1994 and January 2013 and that his department had spent R12.9 billion ($1.43 billion) on land reform.
Political pressure is growing to speed up South Africa’s tortoise-like land reform in the face of unrest among the poor.
The reasons the land restitution progress has dragged range from corruption to government inefficiency. The bigger question is whether allocation of this land means it will be put to work. The reality is that some claimants have opted to take cash instead of title deeds. South Africa’s department of agriculture, forestry and fisheries (DAFF) and the department of rural development and land reform (DRDLR) failed to respond to questions about these issues.
The DRDLR has spent R1.8 billion ($200 million) on the redistribution and recapitalization programs and has set aside R3.2 billion ($355 million) for land reform.
This has been carried out under South Africa’s Restitution Land Rights Act of 1994, which was amended to redefine the ‘restoration of a right in land’ as ‘the return of a right in land or a portion of land dispossessed after June 19, 1913 as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices’.
The government is hoping to finalize the thousands of outstanding claims in the next year. The process has taken 18 years. To complicate matters further, the laws are being rewritten, which is likely to cause even more uncertainty.
The willing-buyer, willing-seller model was scrapped and in November President Jacob Zuma created a stir when he proposed that land be bought from white farmers at “just and equitable” prices. He has also suggested a land policy barring foreigners from owning land in South Africa, in favor of long-term leasing. The policy has yet to be finalized and passed, along with the auditing of privately-owned land.
A good case study of the land reform initiative is the sugar industry in Mpumalanga, in northern South Africa. The country is the world’s eleventh largest sugar producer. According to the DAFF’s February 2013 newsletter, Mpumalanga contributed almost a quarter of the national sugar production, during the 2010/2011 season. The South African sugar sector made around R8.2 billion ($910 million), the bulk of which goes to the local market. The growers get around 64% and the millers get more than 35% of the industry’s divisible proceeds.
In 1998, TSB Sugar began work with the government on land reform. TSB gave up around 90% of its land, which the company is currently in joint ventures (JVs)—with communities—over. The land used to be owned by the company, to secure its cane supply.
The company’s CEO, John du Plessis, has been in the sugar industry since he left university. He says the industry has been through tough times due to drought, land reform initiatives and pressures on margins. Du Plessis feels that land reform initiatives caused feelings of uncertainty, leading to lost efficiency in the milling sector and lost production in the agricultural sector. Pressure on margins has been caused by competition from imports, inflation and rising input costs, mainly due to electricity and fuel increases.
Du Plessis says that the biggest problem with the transference of land was high expectations by those who receive it.
“There is a huge expectation that ownership and management can be taken over, sooner rather than later, and we know that’s not a reality,” he says.
Land reform has definitely caught on in the sugar industry. Sixty seven percent of the 49,598ha in the Nkomazi cane area, in Mpumalanga, is owned by beneficiaries and 88% of this percentage is functional.
TSB and its JVs contributed 34% of the cane for the Nkomazi area during the 2012 season. The area has exceeded the national ownership target, while productivity on some of the land has increased slightly, largely due to the fact that some farms were run down. Small growers are a concern. These growers operate as sub-economic units, some producing only 35 tons per hectare against an industry norm of 100 tons per hectare. They are trying to solve the issue by forming co-operatives but this is often hindered by squabbles among owners.
“Sometimes it’s social issues that are undermining the sustainability of land reform and not production,” says Dave Thomson, the manager of land reform at TSB.
The global reality is that there are fewer farmers farming larger areas. The National Development Agency and the South African Sugar Association (SASA) raised R2.8 billion ($310.5 million) last year to improve the competiveness of small-scale sugar cane farmers.
One of the new cane farmers on the block in Mpumalanga is Petros Silinda, who used to teach agricultural science and biology in the province. He held numerous positions including commercial manager, company director and chairman of a trust. His three children are also learning the business.
Silinda believes that new farmers need to work with the old.
“There’s no chop and change in farming,” he says.
Each community in the area formed a trust in 2004, TSB has no say over how the trust manages its finances. The trust in charge of Silinda’s community’s interests has a 22-year deal with TSB, which was signed in 2008. The first 11 years are a 50-50 partnership and the next 11 will be in a 60-40 split between the trust and the company respectively. The trust represents around 1,464 households.
New political party leader, Mamphela Rampele, who was speaking at the opening of the Land Divided Conference 2013, said that there needs to be a balance between the need to redistribute land and retain existing commercial farmers.
At the sugar fields of Mpumalanga, Thompson says that trying to tinker with land prices isn’t going to speed up land reform. He thinks that government needs to look at the process and red tape. Land waiting to be transferred is in the hands of the government but who is there to manage the farms and ensure that there isn’t a dip in production before the beneficiaries receive it.
In Mpumalanga, they tell the story of how the owner of the 576ha Outeniqua farm sent government an offer to purchase the farm but the officials were slow. The farm fell into ruin as the farmer walked away. It was looted and vandalized and by the time the government made its R13 million ($1.4 million) purchase and transferred it to Silinda’s community, it was nothing but fallow land.
When Zimbabwe pushed through the Land Acquisition Act in 1992, the government was entitled to designate mainly-white commercial farms for resettlement.
Little happened until 2000, when the ruling party lost a referendum over a new constitution, that would have absolved the government of paying compensation. Bands of war veterans took the land by force, effectively paralyzing the industry. Professor Sam Moyo, from the African Institute for Agrarian Studies, feels that the downfall of the sector was due to the three droughts that occurred between 2002 and 2008, along with the economic meltdown.
The other issue is that when experienced commercial farmers leave, they take their skills with them. This was the case in Zimbabwe.
SASA is trying to make sure that doesn’t happen to its industry. What some fail to see is that having worked the land for generations is very different from being in charge of a business. If the sugar industry can embrace an adapt-or-die mentality, then there may be hope for the rest of the country. The road is long and the squabbles plenty.
Silinda’s parting words speak volumes.
“The moment you start fighting, over nothing, this business is going to perish and when it perishes, it perishes with us.”

Land And Honor

American civil rights activist, Reverend Jesse Jackson, is no stranger to South Africa. He came to Africa many times as he led radical African-Americans against apartheid in the 1970s and 80s.
<div id="attachment_322" style="width: 211px" class="wp-caption alignleft"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-322" class="wp-image-322 size-medium" src="/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/DSC_0241-201x300.jpg" alt="" width="201" height="300" />Reverend Jesse Jackson</div>
The Baptist minister, who was also a US presidential candidate in the late 1980s, landed at OR Tambo Airport in Johannesburg in January as a guest of honor for the centenary celebrations of the African National Congress. It was a South Africa very different to the one he encountered three decades ago.
“The contrast between arriving in [what was then] Jan Smuts Airport and [what is now] OR Tambo airport, that in itself is hugely impactful, beyond this generation’s imagination. Back in 1979 there were no black pilots or flight attendants. The only blacks you saw were pushing brooms, they were under great intimidation and walking around with pass books in their hands.”
In 2012, the political issues of South Africa are far from over. This time around, Jackson, who marched alongside Dr. Martin Luther King Junior in the 60s in the civil rights movement,  landed in the heat of debate over one of the great issues of Africa: nationalization.
For many months in Africa’s biggest economy, there has been argument over whether South Africa should nationalize its crown jewels like the mining industry. Radicals like suspended ANC Youth League leader, Julius Malema, who is appealing his suspension from his post as president, has called for nationalization now in the cause of helping the poor with education and employment.
Jackson says it needs to be on the ruling party’s to-do list.
“The idea is to somehow create a fairer distribution of resources. [ANC] must determine the timetable for that, but too few people own too much wealth and too many have too little. Therefore, there must be some plan for re-investment so you have a fairer distribution of drinkable water, housing, healthcare and education,” says Jackson.
When Jackson reached the ANC celebrations, South African president, Jacob Zuma, used his speech as an indication that the party may want to put the issue to bed, saying government had acquired the state’s resources and would be using them appropriately to the people.
In August 2011 Mineral Resources Minister, Susan Shabangu, said: “Foreigners will not invest in South Africa; Nationalization is a bad idea… The correct question should not be whether or not we nationalize; the question, in my view, should be: How do we make use of our vast mineral wealth to eliminate [poverty, inequality and unemployment]? Is this perhaps not a more productive debate?”
Shabangu’s comments came to the dismay of many young black, unemployed South Africans as well as activists like Jackson.
“This is government induced wealth and neglected poverty so South Africa’s having to overcome centuries of mal-distribution of opportunity. Some of your best minds were driven out the country, others were not allowed in the country. So you cannot dismiss the devastating long term, continuous resonation of the economic apartheid system. This South Africa is different today; you are now free but unequal. Freedom required the will to sacrifice, to overcome barbarity and indecency. Now the challenge is equality, which requires a different set of skills,” says Jackson.
The nationalization question will be decided in December 2012, at the ruling party’s elective conference, which will also be held in Mangaung, Bloemfontein.
For now, Jackson says, the country’s democratic progress is headed in the right direction, but there is still a lot to learn about transparency, checks and balances.
“It’s still early in the morning for the new South Africa,” he says.

Tag: Inequality

FORBES AFRICA SOCIAL MEDIA

Not Just Equality, But Recognition Of Excellence

Gaslighting – Surely, This Has Happened To You Too

So… You Earn More Than Your Husband?

A lot of work ahead

Land And Honor

Caring Is Sharing, Says The Good Reverend