Fellow Africans! My name is Grant, I am from South Africa. The 2010 world cup has been an exciting and joyful time for this country and continent. It has brought a unity that has never been seen in Africa. It has brought brothers and sisters from different, races, cultures, languages and countries together in celebration and in sorrow. Strangers have danced together and they have cried together. It has brought hope to the people of this beautiful continent.

In the second round all of Africa rallied behind the Black Stars from Ghana, and after the quarter final all of Africa mourned together with them.
Many of us were left angry and filled with hatred. And now that hatred threatens to steal our joy and to destroy our unity. But we cannot let that happen. We must fight for this new found hope.

Inspired by Bafana Bafana, the Black Stars and all of Africa I wrote a poem which we have made into a video. Please watch it and spread the word to anyone and everyone. We have stood divided for far too long, it’s time we stand together.

For we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed

Africa UNITE!!!!

Inspired by a question from Jeffrey Myers from Germany… “I am interested in learning more about the origin of the name “Chakalaka”. Could you please explain the origin (etymology) of the name of this delicious dish from South Africa?  Thanks so much for your time and help!”

Photo credit: iphilipp

We asked our resident know-the-answer-to-everything person – Alana Bailey – and received this reply on her behalf:

Dear Jeffrey

We contacted the Department of African Languages at the University of Stellenbosch to get an answer to your question about “chakalaka”.

Apparently it is a made-up name (not from a specific language). The “ch”-sound comes from the Nguni languages.

The dish probably originated among mine workers, who took the recipe home, and so spread the dish, which is now so popular that you can buy it in cans.

Kind regards

Tanja Harteveld

And here are links to three variations of the recipe just in case you would like to try this at home…

http://www.recipezaar.com/recipe/Chakalaka-172727

http://www.recipesworldwide.org/food-type/vegetable-dishes/chakalaka

http://www.whats4eats.com/vegetables/chakalaka-recipe

But wait, there’s more!  Here is a recipe for delicious Chakalaka bread from Alana:

Chakalaka bread

Ingredients

2    cups cake flour
3    teaspoons baking powder
4    large eggs (beaten)
1    tin Chakalaka
1/3 cup Cheddar cheese (grated)
1    teaspoon salt
1/2 teaspoon black pepper

Method

1.    Heat oven to 180 degrees C (350 degrees F).
2.    Grease small bread tin.
3.    Sift dry ingredients together.
4.    Add eggs, cheese and chakalaka and mix thoroughly.
5.    Pour into tin.  Sprinkle more cheese on top if you like.
6.    Bake for 45 minutes until it is golden brown.

This past weekend, 25-27 June 2010, we witnessed another catastrophe in Toronto, Canada, where global leaders met in the G20 summit and also in the G8 meeting. These riots that took place from angry protesters, which were anticipated, are estimated to have cost $1 billion on security alone; this excludes the damage caused to property. As I watched the news, seeing a burning car and other objects, I for a moment thought that this meeting was being held in South Africa because we have suffered many service delivery protests that have the burning of tyres as their hallmark. These acts are referred to as hooliganism by those who have somewhat come to master the behaviour associated with civilisation; the activists who organise these riots are known as barbarians by those who believe that they have well defined the art of being civil.

Photo credit: how will i ever

I call these riot participants activists because they have a cause that they are pursuing: what one may question is the manner in which they are going about voicing their agony. Then again, these activists have sent petitions for many years to their respective governments, they have held meetings and demonstrations in their countries of birth and yet the suffering of the world continues.

Over the last 10 years, meetings of global leaders have been targeted by activists around the world; to send out a message to these leaders, to voice the needs of ordinary people who live in squalor and abject poverty every day. Ordinary people of the world are fed up at the direction being taken by these economic power houses of the globe, for the well developed countries, the G8: their primary concern is about how to remain at the top and ensure that they are feared by smaller countries of the world.

The primary objective of the developing countries is to cater for the basic needs of their citizens; providing healthcare and education infrastructure, they have to provide housing, sanitation, electricity, reduce unemployment and also look at Early Childhood Development which is still not well practised. Yes, even the developed countries face the same challenges but they are secondary challenges to them. The areas of focus are too contrasting within the G20 and that is why South Africa went into that summit with a clear purpose that it will not be made to adopt any regulatory framework for the banking sector because we had managed, under the existing policies, to weather the storm of recession. What is needed in South Africa is a slight adjustment on the existing policies, but that adjustment cannot be dictated to by the regulations crafted by America, who are in actual fact responsible for the global recession: South Africa needs to come up with its own adjustment measures that will be responsive to the local needs, taking into account the global developments.

The well developed countries are worried about how to regulate taxes, how to deliver healthcare insurance to as many citizens as possible, how to improve their education to continue putting them on the cutting edge of developing new products: they are concerned about where to go and invest and not about attracting investors – they are the investors for the developing nations.

The global talk show that took place in Toronto was attended by leaders who are not interested in hearing the cries of ordinary citizens from the global village. If they at least cared enough, they could have organised for a petition to be collected by the chairperson of this year’s G20, Stephen Harper, the prime minister of Canada. Instead of coming out and listening to these people, the leaders locked themselves behind closed doors to rub shoulders with each other, make bets over soccer (Barack Obama and David Cameron), making small talk on how best to ruin the world and then rehearse how to put on a front as if they care about assisting developing nations as well as the poor ones that are at rock bottom. The only thing that everyone came out shouting is that they will reduce their national deficits by half in 2013.

My question is how is this going to help the world to alleviate poverty, to reduce infant mortality, to make sure that the Millennium Development Goals are reached by everyone and not only by those who have the money? Reducing deficits is in the best interest of any country, in actual fact they are shouting the obvious; any country wanting to maintain its sovereignty and increase public spending needs to reduce its deficit.

The last global talk show that took place was the one in Copenhagen in December 2009 on climate change; again no binding decisions were taken by this mammoth gathering. I call these talk shows because all leaders go there with the intention to gloat to the world about the money they are wiling to commit to global initiatives but the money never gets to be seen in most instances. This past weekend the G8 nations committed $7.2 billion to the Muskoka Initiative which will provide a roll out of the maternal health plan (which includes infrastructure, a nutrition programme and skills development within health institutions) in developing countries. The activists, rightfully so, said that this funding which will stretch over the next five years is inadequate as the incidence of poor maternal health and infant mortality still remain high. A report titled Global maternal mortality fact sheet by The White Ribbon Alliance says that “Every minute a woman dies in pregnancy and childbirth. Each year more than 536,000 women die due to complications developed during pregnancy and childbirth and 10 million more suffer debilitating illnesses and lifelong disabilities. Seventy-five percent of maternal deaths occur during childbirth and the post-partum period. The vast majority of maternal deaths are avoidable when women have access to vital health care before, during and after childbirth.”

These figures show a need for clear targets and strategic planning from the wealthier nations on how to assist the developing nations. During the 2008 World health organisation report, the global average on infant mortality has now dropped to 65 deaths per 1000 live births. The region of the Americas, the European region and the Western Pacific region are all well below this global average by at least 30-60% and of course these are the dominant economies of the world. The African region has an infant mortality rate of about 145 deaths per 1000 births and it is one of the two regions above the global average and is the only region that reaches beyond 80 deaths per 100 live births. In 2008 8.8 million children below the age of five years are estimated to have died, and of this number about 5 million died in Africa. The big question should be how has the G20 summit addressed this problem within the context of Africa? Another question should be can Africa continue to trust in the good will of the G8 countries or must Africa devise its own forum to address these issues?

This is just one of the critical challenges facing the global leaders and one would expect that such issues are well handled by these so called concerned leaders. There should be a body that is set up to ensure that all commitments made in such summits are actually carried out and that countries that do not comply with these agreements are brought to book. $7.2 billion is a lousy commitment to tackle this problem. The G20 summit should now be discussing how to conduct skills transfer amongst nations, so that the developing countries can come out of this developing stage and become developed in the quickest time possible: this would then allow for other countries to now enter the bracket of being called developing nations. There are no peer review programmes in place in between the G20 summits to actually see what countries are doing correctly in comparison to others, so as to get comparative advantages, in order that countries may get to know their industrial strengths and weaknesses. The oil industry, which provides the world with its primary source of energy, remains unregulated and yet it accounts for most of the fluctuations in most economies as there is no consistent value for a barrel over a long period of time – motorists can attest to this due to the varying petrol prices over a period of six months, at times.

The G20 leaders need to start steering the corporate companies toward an orientation that sees them not being as profit driven as they are today. The more profit driven our economies become the less room we leave for decreasing unemployment because companies are looking at cutting costs by the day. The G20 must give room for countries, especially the developing ones, to be able to put in place some protectionist policies when it comes to trade, so as to favour the local products in the markets. Instead of devaluing our currencies to favour exports, a new approach to industrialisation is needed; we now need an approach that is regional driven. There should also be a commitment with regards to skills transfer that says countries are not allowed to export their raw products, they must at least develop them to the secondary phase before exporting them; such approaches would move countries towards self-efficiency.

The day some of the things I have referred to start being part of the G20 discussions and there are clear commitments made, will be the day that I stop calling these multilateral discussions talk shows. The donations made to Africa by developed countries are seemingly just ways to ease their collective consciences about the looting that they do to African resources even in this so-called “post colonial” era of a liberated Africa.

Africa remains under economic oppression and it will take a concerted effort by all countries of the continent to emancipate Africa from these scoundrels of the world. Young people of South Africa and Africa need to start speaking up: we as young people have never handed in a petition to our president when he is going to attend these forums, to tell other leaders what we expect of them. This should be a huge indictment on us as young people, but it must also be a challenge that we rise to and start making meaningful contributions in the direction that the world must take, as we are its future custodians. The first call must be for the developed nations to make an attempt to drop economic greed and start putting people’s livelihoods first. I am in are you?

It is important to note that as from 1 July 2010, the Department of Home Affairs has advised that they will no longer be permitting entry to foreign truck drivers unless they have work permits.  The Department has advised that any such foreign truck drivers will be required to have work permits, whether or not the truck has been registered in South Africa or outside our borders.

Photo credit: HVargas

If such truck drivers from foreign countries need to enter South Africa for the purpose of driving a truck, which forms part of their trade, occupation or profession, then such person will be required to have a work permit endorsed in their passport.

Previously, the situation has always been that such foreigners were entitled to enter South Africa on visitor’s visas and perform the necessary tasks within South Africa and leave prior to the expiry of such visitor’s visa.  This is obviously no longer the case.

This will obviously have a major impact on the road freight industry due to the tiresome process that is involved in obtaining a work permit.

Should you require any assistance with this kind of work permit, or any other immigration issue, please leave a comment below or send an e-mail to enquiries@immigration.org.za.

“Ke nako” for us as a country to open up our arms and welcome the world to our shores. The time has come for us to let our homes be  homes to strangers if need be, but we need to open our hearts to generate warmth for our visitors through our undying smiles.

Photo credit: JoshuaDavisPhotography

The prophets of doom have been doomed and rendered themselves phoney prophets, because the prophecy that South Africa would never be ready to host the World Cup didn’t see the light of day.  Many people misdiagnosed South Africa, because they saw what was happening in countries like Sudan and thought that they could paint all African countries with the same brush.

Today the people of the world are certain about descending on South Africa, so as to experience the FIFA World Cup 2010 spectacle for the first time on African soil. Africa is rich, Africa is filled with ubuntu and humanity, that is why we are certain that “ke yona” World Cup will never be comparable to any other.

The people of the South never fail to rise to the occasion; many in South Africa doubted how well the white community would support the soccer World Cup – soccer is viewed as a black people’s sport and there are not many white people who support local teams, just like there are not as many black people who support rugby as compared to their white counterparts. However, driven by the spirit of the World Cup I have heard all people, irrespective of race and ethnic group saying “Fevah. Sinayo” to support South Africa and display a united front for our country and be patriotic enough so that our players in Bafana Bafana can believe in themselves even more.

Contrary to popular belief, our white citizens have bought the Bafana Bafana jersey in droves; Indian citizens have equally joined the party and gone out to showcase our national colours. The “football Fridays” have been such a success that not even the initiator of the programme could foresee. I have admired many cars and houses decorated and dressed with our national colours, the mirror fittings on cars, the flags sticking up on car windows and the many homes that have been made colourful by our beautiful South African flag.

Everyday we see South Africans experiencing the spirit of being equal citizens committed to one cause – that being to protect the image of South Africa and to provide the most hospitable reception to the people of the global community as they touch down on African soil. As a nation we have put aside our differences; as a nation we have allowed ourselves to integrate with one another so that the spirit of the World Cup is remembered by all those who will be part of this great show. The national unity displayed by the citizenry shows that we are grateful and pleased by the work done by our Local Organising Committee, under the leadership of Danny Jordan and Irvin Khoza. Sport is once again proving to be a great catalyst in the drive towards nation building and ensuring that though our races may be plural, the fact that we are all human beings unites us to a single race, known as the Human Race.

When the Blue Bulls played their super 14 semi-final and final matches in Orlando East, Soweto, some people in the township had never experienced such a celebratory mood dominated by white people. There were many white people who had never thought of going to Soweto up until the soccer World Cup required that the Loftus Versfeld Stadium be shut down for final preparations for the World Cup. This was seen as an inconvenience by many fans of “die Blou Bulle”, but many of us rejoiced as it offered yet another opportunity for reconciliation to move a step further in our country. One cannot deny the reality that some people’s lives were changed as they experienced Soweto – the hospitality that they received from the residents there was immeasurable. For the residents, many of them had their views dispelled about believing that white people are not interested in learning about Africans. The integration witnessed in Soweto was thanks to the soccer World Cup, without it the Blue Bulls would have never gone to play in Orlando Stadium – again sport being at the heart of nation building. I put emphasis on the race matter because for as long as we see race in each other before we realise the fact that we are all human beings, nation building will remain a far fetched subject. As a nation we need to be comfortable in each other’s presence and never allow anyone to break our ties of connectedness as citizens.

I am proudly South African and that is the message we should all send to the people of the world -  nothing can bring us down. After the World Cup, the Bafana Bafana jerseys may disappear, the flags will be dismounted, the cars will look ordinary again, the smiles amongst strangers will disappear and many of us will retract back to our normality, but one thing that is guaranteed is that as a nation we will never view each other the same as we did before 2010. As a nation we will remain knowing what we are capable of when we are put to task to defend and showcase our nation. Deep down within ourselves we will know that South Africans want the best for this nation and are willing to work towards this objective. The reality is that “ixesha loku bambisana singu Mzansi Afrika sele lifikile” and this we must do beyond the soccer World Cup if we want to build a better nation for all.

The time to say “Feel it. It is here” is disappearing: what we need to stand up and shout out loud while blowing those vuvuzelas is to say, “See it. It is here”. All the critics that thought there was a plan B, C and D in some cases need to come and witness the marvellous work that has been delivered by South Africans. Ordinary men and women who built the infrastructure  – they deserve a standing ovation. When the football crazy community leaves our shores they must be able to say “Siyabonga, nisi phathe kahle”, so that they may surely want to return to our country. The time has come for us to unite Mzansi beyond our differences and our diversity is what makes us a beautiful country. Our plural cultures are what will make the global community experience 11 countries in one. That is why we remain the best option to host this historic African Soccer World Cup.

2010 is indeed a year of realisation of dreams and plans that have taken hard work, planning and commitment. Please join me in throwing my weight behind Bafana Bafana and wishing the boys well in their duty to represent the country. As we are all Africans let us support; Algeria, Nigeria, Ghana and the people of Ivory Coast. To the world we say, “Dumelang, Molweli, Sanibonani, Abusheni, Ndaa, Hello, and Welkom.”

It would be a mistake to underestimate the emotional commitment of many black South Africans to the need for land reform. For them, the revolutionary struggle will not be complete until a substantial – and perhaps demographically proportional – area of South Africa has been restored to black ownership.

ANC statements on land reform almost invariably refer to the historic dispossession of black land by ‘colonialists’. Last week, in a speech to the National Council of Provinces, the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform, Mr Gugile Nkwinti, once again referred to the ‘colonialist’ use of land to subdue the conquered population, to divide and rule them and to break down the traditional system of ‘ubuntu’. He repeated the remarkable statement that he had made in Parliament on 24 March that “all anti-colonial struggles are at the core about two things, repossession of lost land and restoring the centrality of indigenous culture to underscore all nation-building endeavours.”

The Freedom Charter calls for the redistribution of land among “those who worked it” to end hunger and “hunger for land”. The need for land reform has been a constant theme of the ANC government. It was renewed at the 2005 Land Summit which called for an end to the willing buyer, willing seller approach. It was again evident in the resolution on land reform that was adopted by the ANC’s National Conference at Polokwane in December 2007.

The Polokwane resolution described organized commercial agriculture as “the outcome of centuries of dispossession, labour coercion and state subsidy for the chosen few”. It renewed the call for “the redistribution of 30% of agricultural land before 2014” and demanded the abandonment of “market-driven land reform” and the immediate review of “the of willing-seller, willing-buyer” principle.

The Polokwane resolution found expression in the controversial Expropriation Bill in 2008 which, in effect, tried to by-pass the courts in determining fair compensation for expropriated property. Fortunately, the Bill was withdrawn after an outcry from civil society, organized agriculture and foreign and local investors.

In a speech to Parliament on 24 March 2010, Minister Nkwinti launched a new land reform initiative. He said that national sovereignty was defined in terms of land and that land was a national asset. It was therefore ‘fitting and appropriate’ that his department had adopted a strategy of ‘Agrarian Transformation’. The goal was a ‘rapid and fundamental change in the … systems and patterns of ownership and control of land, livestock, cropping and community.’

The new strategy would be promoted by the introduction of a three-tier land tenure system that would make provision for

• state land under leasehold;
• private land, under freehold with limited extent; and
• foreign-ownership under “precarious tenure linked to productivity and partnership models with South African citizens”.

Presumably “freehold with limited extent” means that there might be a limit to the number, or the size, of properties that South Africans can own. The position of foreign land owners would be precarious and would require them to enter into partnerships with South Africans if they wish to retain an interest in their land. These proposals were supposed to have been set out in greater detail in a Green Paper that should have been presented to Parliament by the end of April – but which has still not appeared.

In a subsequent TV interview, Minister Nkwinti made it clear that one of his goals was to break up large farms – despite the fact that they produce 80% of South Africa’s food. The Minister’s position was in line with the Polokwane resolution that called for the abandonment of all policies that favoured large-scale, capital intensive agriculture and proposed a special land tax to encourage the sale of under-utilised land and the deconcentration of land ownership.

Before the agricultural community could fully digest the implications of Minister Nkwinti’s announcement, they were confronted with fresh and apparently uncoordinated proposals for another form of land reform from the Minister of Agriculture, Tina Joemat-Pettersson.

In an interview with Die Burger, she said that the ANC was considering a share scheme for black farmers in terms of which commercial farmers would relinquish 40% of the value of their farms to black shareholders. This would help the government to reach its land reform target which she said had been impeded by the ‘willing buyer, willing seller’ principle. The proposal would apparently be set out in new Black Economic Empowerment legislation for the agricultural sector. This would presumably require the renegotiation of the agricultural sector empowerment charter, which was signed in March 2008 after exhaustive discussions. The proposed agricultural share scheme will apparently be discussed at the ANC’s National General Council meeting in September.

Joemat-Pettersson warned that “If we did not break the deadlock and solve the land question together we were headed for a situation that would make Zimbabwe look like a teddy-bear’s picnic.” However, President Zuma subsequently denied that there would be “similar kinds of land invasions in this country, because we do things within the law.” He said that the current land distribution method would have to be revisited and that significant changes would have to be made in the “willing seller, willing buyer” model. The government was looking for a less costly and more pragmatic approach.

It is clear from all these developments that we can expect far-reaching new land reform initiatives later this year. It would be wise for all those involved to consider the following realities:

• Property rights are at the very heart of the negotiated constitutional consensus. Section 25 makes provision for expropriation in the public interest – which specifically includes land reform. However, compensation must either be agreed by the affected parties or approved by a court in a manner that reflects an equitable balance between the public interest and interests of the landowner. Any attempt to deviate from this principle will have very negative consequences for agriculture; for national unity; and for future foreign and domestic investment in the economy.
• Although land reform enjoys high priority with the ANC, the great majority of black South Africans do not want to become farmers. According to a survey by the Centre for Development and Enterprise in 2006 only 9% of black non-farmers have clear aspirations to farm. Only 2% identified rural land as a priority.
• Although less than 6% of agricultural land has been transferred to black South Africans in terms of government schemes, more than 25 million hectares are either owned by the Government or are in the former homelands. Private non-recorded land sales might have transferred as much as 7% of agricultural land to black owners. All this land added together is not too far short of the ANC’s 30% goal.
• 5% of agricultural land comes onto the market every year. The main problem is most often not that farmers are demanding exorbitant prices but that the state bureaucracy is incapable of effectively handling the transactions.
• Food security is a national priority. It is essential that redistributed land should not result in reductions in food production.
• Successful modern agriculture often requires large farms with high levels of capital, expertise and luck.
• Small scale farming does not present a panacea for black development. The agricultural sector contributes only 2.6% to gross domestic product.
• It is meaningless simply to set percentages as targets for land redistribution. Ten thousand hectares in the Karoo can support fewer people than 100 hectares in well-watered parts of the country.

By the end of 2009 29% of redistributed farms had failed and 22% experienced declining productivity. One of the main causes of the failures was the inability of government to provide the necessary support and assistance.

South Africa urgently needs successful and sustainable land reform. To achieve this we should consider the following approaches:

• Everything we do should be consistent with the letter and spirit of our carefully balanced and negotiated constitution.
• We need a comprehensive land reform audit. How much government land is available for redistribution? How much land has been transferred to black South Africans through normal sales? To what extent has the willing seller, willing buyer principle actually failed?

• We need a rapid and effective approach to granting farmers in the traditional homelands proper freehold or leasehold title to the land that they farm.
• Urgent steps must be taken to improve the effectiveness of the government departments and institutions involved with land reform.

• We need genuine and effective consultation and cooperation between government and organised agriculture on workable approaches to land reform. Organised agriculture has proved repeatedly that it is willing to assist in this regard.
• We must not abandon the willing seller, willing buyer principle as the first option for land reform. We cannot afford a situation where South African citizens – simply because of their race – are forced to abandon farms which their families might have developed over generations.

• We must abandon ideological and racial approaches to land ownership. We need to give very careful to consideration to the implications of Minister Nkwinti’s statement that “all anti-colonial struggles are at the core about two things, repossession of lost land and restoring the centrality of indigenous culture to underscore all nation-building endeavours.” We should pause for a moment to consider the implications of this statement:

1. the first is that the anti-colonialist struggle is not over;
2. the second is that white farmers are evidently still regarded either as ‘colonialists’ – or as the beneficiaries of colonialists;
3. the third is advocacy of the centrality of the indigenous culture. Presumably other cultures will play a peripheral role in the nation that Minister Nkwinti is endeavouring to build.

Such attitudes are entirely irreconcilable with our Constitution and with the need to promote national unity.

Just as it would be a mistake to underestimate the emotional commitment of many black South Africans to the need for land reform – it would equally be a mistaken to underestimate the emotional commitment of white farmers to their land, to their profession and to South Africa. Land reform remains an urgent priority for us all. We will not achieve success if we oppose one another as ‘colonialists’ and ‘anti-colonialists’; as indigenous and non-indigenous; as those who claim a central cultural position – and those who are consigned to the periphery. To achieve success we will all have to work together as fellow South Africans, as equals and as fellow children of the African soil.

—————————–

Dit sou `n fout wees om die emosionele verbintenis van baie swart Suid-Afrikaners, tot wat hulle beskou as die noodsaak van grondhervorming, te onderskat. Vir diegene sal die revolusionêre stryd nie verby wees totdat `n wesenlike – en moontlik selfs `n demografiese proporsionele – gedeelte van Suid-Afrika terug in swart besit is nie.

Die feit word duidelik geïllustreer in die toespraak aan die Nasionale Raad van Provinsies verlede week deur die Minister van Landelike Ontwikkeling en Grondhervorming, mnr Gugile Nkwinti. Daarin verwys hy na die ‘kolonialistiese’ gebruik van grond om die oorwonne bevolking te onderdruk, om hulle te verdeel en oor hulle te regeer en om die tradisionele stelsel van ‘ubuntu’ af te breek. Hy het sy opspraakwekkende uitspraak wat hy in die Parlement gemaak het op 24 Maart, herhaal dat “all anti-colonial struggles are at the core about two things, repossession of lost land and restoring the centrality of indigenous culture to underscore all nation-building endeavours.”

Die ANC Vryheidsmanifes vra vir die herverdeling van grond tussen “diegene wat dit bewerk het” om sodoende `n einde te maak aan hongerte en die “hongerte vir grond”. Hierdie eise vir grondhervorming is `n deurlopende tema van die ANC-regering. Dit is hernu tydens die 2005 Spitsberaad oor Grond waar `n beroep gedoen is op die beëindiging van die benadering van “gewillige koper, gewilliger verkoper”. Dit was weer duidelik sigbaar in die resolusie wat aanvaar is tydens die ANC se nasionale konferensie in Polokwane in Desember 2007.

Die Polokwane-resolusie het georganiseerde kommersiële landbou beskryf as die “the outcome of centuries of dispossession, labour coercion and state subsidy for the chosen few”. `n Beroep is weer gedoen op die herverdeling van 30% van landbougrond voor 2014 en daar is aangedring op die beëindiging van markgedrewe grondhervorming en die onmiddellike hersiening van die beginsel van “gewillige koper, gewillige verkoper”.

In die Onteieningswetsontwerp van 2008 was daar ‘n poging om hierdie sentimente wetlike beslag te gee. Onder andere sou dié wetsontwerp die rol van die howe in die vasstelling van vergoeding vir onteiende eiendom, so te sê afskaf. Gelukkig is die wetsontwerp onttrek ná sterk teenkanting van die burgerlike gemeenskap, georganiseerde landbou en buitelandse en plaaslike beleggers.

In sy toespraak in die parlement op 24 Maart het minister Nkwinti ‘n nuwe grondhervormingsinisiatief van stapel gestuur. Hy het gesê dat nasionale soewereiniteit ingevolge grond gedefinieer is en dat grond ‘n nasionale bate is. Daarom was dit ook behoorlik en toepaslik dat sy departement ‘n strategie van ‘Landbou Transformasie’ aanvaar het. Die doel is ‘vinnige en fundamentele verandering in die stelsels en patrone van eienaarskap en beheer van grond, vee, gewaste en gemeenskap.’

Die nuwe strategie sal geskied deur die instelling van ‘n drieledige grondbesitstelsel wat voorsiening sal maak vir

• staatsgrond onder huurpag;
• private grond, onder vrypag met beperkte omvang; en
• buitelandse eienaarskap onder “onsekere besit verbind aan produktiwiteit- en vennootskapsmodelle met Suid-Afrikaanse burgers”.

“Vrypag met beperkte omvang” beteken waarskynlik dat daar ‘n beperking sou kon wees op die getal of grootte van eiendomme wat Suid-Afrikaners mag besit. Die posisie van buitelandse grondeienaars sou wankelrig wees en sou vereis dat hulle vennootskappe met Suid-Afrikaners moet sluit indien hulle ‘n belang in hul grond wil behou. Hierdie voorstelle sou in groter detail in ‘n Groenskrif uiteengesit word wat voor die einde van April aan die parlement voorgelê moes word – maar wat nog nie verskyn het nie.

In ‘n daaropvolgende TV-onderhoud het minister Nkwinti dit duidelik gemaak dat een van sy doelwitte die opbreek van groot plase is – ten spyte daarvan dat hulle 80% van Suid-Afrika se voedsel verskaf.

Voordat die landbougemeenskap die implikasies van minister Nkwinti se aankondiging ten volle kon verteer is hulle gekonfronteer met nuwe en waarskynlik ongekoördineerde voorstelle vir ‘n ander vorm van grondhervorming deur die Minister van Landbou, Me Tina Joemat-Pettersson.

In ‘n onderhoud met Die Burger, het sy gesê dat die ANC ‘n aandeleskema vir swart boere oorweeg waarvolgens kommersiële boere 40% van die waarde van hul plase aan swart aandeelhouers sou oordra. Dit sou dan, volgens haar, die regering help om sy grondhervormingsteiken te bereik, wat deur die “gewillige koper, gewillige verkoper” beginsel belemmer is.

Die voorstel sal blykbaar in nuwe Swart Ekonomiese Bemagtigingswetgewing vir die landbousektor ingesluit word. Dit sal waarskynlik die heronderhandeling van die landbousektor-bemagtigingshandves vereis wat in 2008 na uitgerekte onderhandelinge geteken is. Die voorgestelde landbou-aandeleskema sal waarskynlik by die ANC se National General Council in September bespreek word.

Joemat-Pettersson het gewaarsku dat, “indien ons die dooiepunt nie breek en die grondkwessie nie gesamentlik gaan oplos nie, stuur ons af op ’n situasie wat Zimbabwe na ’n teddiebeer-piekniek gaan laat lyk.”

President Zuma het egter daarna ontken dat daar “soortgelyke grondbesettings in hierdie land sal wees [...], omdat ons dinge ingevolge die wet doen.” Hy het gesê dat die huidige grondverdelingsmetode herbeskou moet word en dat noemenswaardige veranderinge aan die “gewillige koper, gewillige verkoper”-model aangebring sal moet word. Die regering was besig om na ‘n minder duur en meer pragmatiese benadering te soek.

Dit is duidelik uit al hierdie ontwikkelinge dat ons later vanjaar verreikende nuwe grondhervormingsinisiatiewe kan verwag. Dit sal wys wees vir betrokkenes om die volgende realiteite te oorweeg:

• * Eiendomsreg lê aan die wortel van die onderhandelde grondwetlike konsensus. Artikel 25 maak voorsiening vir onteiening wat in openbare belang is – wat spesifiek grondhervorming insluit. Die betrokke partye moet egter ooreenkom oor die vergoeding, of dit moet beslis word in `n toepaslike hof. Enige poging om af te wyk van hierdie beginsel sal baie negatiewe gevolge inhou vir landbou; vir nasionale eenheid; en vir toekomstige buitelandse en plaaslike beleggings in die ekonomie.

• * Alhoewel grondhervorming `n hoë prioriteit is vir die ANC, wil die meerderheid swart Suid-Afrikaners nie boere word nie. Volgens `n opname deur die “Centre for Development and Enterprise” in 2006 het slegs 9% swart mense wat nie boere is nie, aspirasies om te boer. Slegs 2% het landelike grond as `n prioriteit aangedui.
• * Alhoewel minder as 6% van landbougrond oorgedra is aan swart Suid-Afrikaners, in gevolge regeringskemas, is meer as 25 miljoen hektaar óf in regeringsbesit, óf dit is in die voormalige tuislande. Hierbenewens is daar talle private verkope van grond wat nie aangeteken is nie. Daar word geraam dat dit soveel as 7% van alle landbougrond kan behels. Al hierdie grond saam kom naby aan die ANC se doelwit van 30%!

• Ongeveer 5% van landbougrond kom jaarliks in die mark. Die grootste probleem is nie dat boere buitensporige pryse eis nie, maar dat die staatsamptenary nie in staat is om die transaksies op effektiewe wyse te hanteer nie.
• Voedselsekuriteit is `n nasionale prioriteit. Dit is van uiterste belang dat die herverdeling van grond nie moet lei tot `n afname in voedselproduksie nie.
• Suksesvolle moderne landbou benodig dikwels groot plase met hoë vlakke van kapitaal en deskundigheid.
• Kleinskaalse boerdery is nie `n wondermiddel vir swart ontwikkeling nie. Die landbousektor dra slegs 2.6% by tot die bruto binnelandse produk.
• Dit is betekenloos om bloot persentasies as teikens vir grondhervorming te stel. Tienduisend hektaar in die Karoo kan minder mense onderhou as 100 hektaar in waterryke dele van die land.
• Teen die einde van 2009 het 29% van herverdeelde plase misluk en 22% het `n afname in produktiwiteit ervaar. Een van die grootste oorsake van hierdie mislukkings was die onvermoë van die regering om die nodige ondersteuning en bystand te bied.

Suid-Afrika benodig dringende en volhoubare grondhervorming. Om dit te bereik moet ons die volgende benaderinge oorweeg:

• * Alles wat ons doen moet versoenbaar wees met die letter en gees van ons goedgebalanseerde en onderhandelde grondwet.
• * Ons benodig ‘n omvattende grondhervormingsoudit. Hoeveel staatsgrond is vir herverdeling beskikbaar? Hoeveel grond is reeds deur middel van normale verkope aan swart Suid-Afrikaners oorgedra? Tot watter mate het die “gewillige koper, gewillige verkoper” beginsel werklik misluk?
• * Ons benodig ‘n vinnige en effektiewe benadering om vrypag- of huurpag-titel aan boere in die tradisionele tuislande te gee ten opsigte van die grond waarop hulle bou en verbou.
• * Dringende stappe moet gedoen word om die doeltreffendheid, van regeringsdepartemente en institusies wat by grondhervorming betrokke is, te verbeter.
• * Ons benodig werklike en effektiewe raadpleging en samewerking tussen die regering en die georganiseerde landbou oor praktiese benaderinge ten opsigte van grondhervorming. Die georganiseerde landbou het herhaaldelik bewys dat hulle gewillig is om in hierdie verband van bystand te wees.
• * Ons moet nie die beginsel van “gewillige koper, gewillige verkoper” as die eerste opsie vir grondhervorming prysgee nie. Ons kan nie ‘n situasie bekostig waar Suid-Afrikaanse burgers – bloot weens hul ras – gedwing word om plase prys te gee wat hul gesinne oor geslagte heen ontwikkel het nie.
• * Ons moet ideologiese en rasgebonde benaderinge tot grond-eienaarskap laat vaar. Ons moet sorgvuldig oorweeg die implikasies van Minister Nkwinti se opmerkings dat “alle anti-koloniale stryde in wese oor twee dinge gaan, herbesit van verlore grond en herstel van die sentraliteit van die inheemse kultuur om alle nasieboupogings te onderskraag.” Ons moet vir ‘n oomblik stilstaan en die implikasies van hierdie verklaring oordink:

1. Die eerste is dat die anti-koloniale stryd nie verby is nie;
2. Die tweede is dat wit boere blykbaar nog as ‘kolonialiste’ of as die begunstigdes van ‘kolonialiste’ beskou word;
3. Die derde is die idee van die sentraliteit van die inheemse kultuur. Blykbaar moet ander kulture dan ‘n randstandige rol speel in die nasie wat minister Nkwinti wil probeer bou.

Sulke idees is geheel en al onversoenbaar met ons grondwet en met die behoefte om nasionale eenheid te bevorder.

Net soos wat dit `n fout sal wees om die gevoelens van baie swart Suid-Afrikaners oor grondhervorming te onderskat – sal dit ook `n fout wees om die emosionele verbondenheid van wit Suid-Afrikaners tot hul grond, hul professie en tot Suid-Afrika te onderskat. Grondhervorming is tereg `n dringende prioriteit vir ons almal. Ons sal egter nie suksesvol wees indien ons mekaar teiken as ‘kolonialiste’ en ‘anti-kolonialiste’ nie; as inheems en nie-inheems nie; as mense wat aanspraak kan maak op ‘n sentrale kulturele posisie en mense wat kulturele randeiers is nie. Om sukses te behaal sal ons almal moet saamwerk as mede Suid-Afrikaners, as gelykes en as kinders van die bodem van Afrika.

This from the FW de Klerk Foundation…

We should remember 31 May 2010 because it is the centenary of the day on which South Africa, as we know it, became a country. Whether or not the Union was conceived in sin, whether or not the offspring was legitimate, there can be no doubt that the infant that was born on that day established the form of the present South Africa. The decisions taken at the National Convention that preceded the birth of the Union also created the framework within which our subsequent history took place. Our history would have been very, very different had the delegates to the Union Convention failed to reach agreement or had they devised different ground rules for the new state.

The idea of union was vigorously promoted by the British imperialists of the time. There was a strong sense that the British colonies in South Africa – the Cape Colony, Natal, the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal Colony – should unite to form a new dominion in much the same manner as their counterparts in Canada and Australia had already done. The restoration of self-government to the two former Boer republics in 1907 was quickly followed by moves toward Union. A National Convention – including 33 representatives from the four colonies – was convened on 12 October 1908 and had by 11 May 1909 reached agreement on a draft constitution. The constitution – in the form of the South Africa Act – was adopted by the British Parliament on 20 September 1909. 31 May 1910 – the 8th anniversary of the Peace Treaty of Vereeniging – was set as the birth date for the new Union.

Decisions that were taken at the National Convention – and that were subsequently incorporated in the 1910 Constitution – created the framework for the following 84 years of our history. The most important was, perhaps, the decision that South Africa would be a union in which Parliament would be supreme.

As commentators noted at the time, the new constitution possessed none of the characteristics of a federation: there was no supreme constitution; no distribution of real power between constituent states; and no supreme court to interpret the constitution and to limit the actions of the executive. Most notable was the fact that the new constitution included few if any guarantees for the rights of black, coloured and Indian South Africans. It endorsed the status quo that had existed in the four colonies before union. In the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony only whites could vote; in Natal blacks could qualify for the vote but under conditions that in practice made the franchise virtually impossible. Only in the Cape Colony was there any meaningful franchise for black and coloured people. The theoretical criterion was that any man of any race who could comply with certain property qualifications and who could write his name, could qualify for the vote.

As Keir Hardie, the Scottish Socialist leader, observed during the debate in Britain on the South Africa Act, the purpose of the Act was “to unify the white races, to disenfranchise the coloured races and not to promote union between the races of South Africa”. His observation was accurate: everything in the new dispensation was geared to accommodating, and reconciling, the interests of the white groups – including recognition of the equal status of Dutch and English and protection of white economic interests.

Nevertheless, for the subsequent fifty years South African politics was characterised by the continuing struggle for dominance between the two white communities – between Afrikaner nationalists on the one hand, and whites who favoured participation in the British Empire and Commonwealth, on the other. This struggle reached its conclusion in 1961 with the declaration of the Republic.

After 1910 only limited attention was given to the position of black, Asian and coloured South Africans – while the existing franchise of blacks and coloureds in the Cape was relentlessly eroded and finally abolished. However, after 1961 the focus of domestic politics and international attention shifted inexorably to the constitutional position of blacks. The National Party’s response was initially to try to dismember the geographic entity that had been created in 1910 by granting independence to black homelands. Transkei, Ciskei, Bophuthatswana and Venda accepted ‘independence’ – but the remaining national states steadfastly refused to do so. In 1983 the Government tried to bring Coloured and Indian South Africans into the constitutional system by means of the Tricameral Parliament. However, the new dispensation was rejected by most of the supposed beneficiaries and led to increasingly vocal calls by the UDF and others for universal franchise. By 1986 the National Party had begun to accept the necessity of accommodating the political aspirations of all South Africans in a common constitutional system.

These developments finally culminated in the initiatives that F W de Klerk launched on 2 February 1990. The constitutional process that ensued differed fundamentally from the National Convention that had led to the creation of the Union of South Africa. Most notably, it included representatives of all South Africa’s communities. Whereas the Union of South Africa had been conceived and finally approved by a foreign power, Britain, the negotiations that led to the establishment of the New South Africa were entirely home-grown. The Constitution that emerged in 1996 was very different from the 1910 Constitution: the Constitution – and not Parliament – was supreme; it contained a Bill or Rights that protected the fundamental rights of all South Africans; and it established a Constitutional Court with the power to ensure that all branches of government adhere to the Rule of Law and to the provisions of the Bill of Rights. Most importantly, the new Constitution recognised the equal rights and equal status of all South Africans, regardless of race, gender, language or sexual orientation.

We have travelled a long way since 31 May 1910. Although we are still confronted by many serious challenges, we have a moved to a system that it is inclusive and that is based on the rule of law. Nevertheless, none of this would have been possible – and the history of the past hundred years would have been dramatically different – had the 1908 National Convention not reached agreement on the union of the four colonies and the great variety of people who lived in them. For better or worse, 31 May 1910 was the birth date of South Africa and should be celebrated as such.

—————————————–

Daar is alle rede waarom elke Suid-Afrikaner die honderd jaar sedert die totstandkoming van die Unie van Suid-Afrika op 31 Mei 2010 moet vier. Of die nuwe land wat op 31 Mei 1910 gebore is nou in sonde ontvang is of nie, die realiteit is dat Suid-Afrika, met sy bestaande grense en bevolkingsamestelling, op daardie dag ontstaan het.
Dit is ook waar dat die wyse waarop die nuweling verwek en gebore was sedertdien feitlik elke aspek van ons nasionale geskiedenis beïnvloed het. ‘n Deeglike begrip van die proses wat gelei het tot die geboorte van die Unie van Suid-Afrika help ons om latere ontwikkelinge en ons huidige toestand te verstaan.

Die idee van die unie was sterk bevorder deur die Britse imperialiste van die tyd. Daar was ‘n sterk gevoel dat die Britse kolonies in Suid-Afrika – die Kaapkolonie, Natal, die Oranjerivierkolonie en die Transvaalkolonie – moet verenig om ‘n nuwe dominium op ‘n soortgelyke wyse te vorm as hoe hul eweknieë in Kanada en Australië dit toe reeds gedoen het. Die herstel van selfbestuur aan die twee voormalige Boererepublieke in 1907 is gevolg deur vinnige skuiwe in die rigting van Uniewording. ‘n Nasionale konvensie – wat 33 verteenwoordigers van die vier kolonies ingesluit het – is byeengeroep op 12 Oktober 1908 en het teen 11 Mei 1909 ‘n ooreenkoms bereik met die oog op ‘n konsepgrondwet. Dié grondwet – in die vorm van die South Africa Act – is deur die Britse parlement aanvaar op 20 September 1909. 31 Mei 1910 – die 8ste herdenking van die Vrede van Vereeniging – was vasgestel as die geboortedatum vir die nuwe Unie.

Die besluite wat by die Nasionale Konvensie geneem is – en wat gevolglik opgeneem is in die 1910-grondwet – het die fondament gelê en die raamwerk geskep vir die volgende 84 jaar van ons geskiedenis. Die mees belangrike was, miskien, die besluit dat Suid-Afrika ‘n unie sou wees waarbinne die Parlement die oppergesag sal hê.

Soos wat kommentators in die tyd op gewys het, het die nuwe grondwet geen eienskappe van ‘n federasie besit nie: daar was geen hoogste grondwet; geen werklike verdeling van mag tussen deelstate; en geen hoogste hof om die grondwet te vertolk en gevolglik die uitvoerende gesag te beperk nie. In plaas daarvan was die parlement, en nie die grondwet nie, oppermagtig; mag was nie verdeel tussen deelstate en ‘n federale regering nie, maar het uiteindelik gesetel in die parlement; en die howe het niks meer gesag as in Brittanje gehad waar hulle net opgetree het as uitleggers van die grondwet nie.

Mees merkwaardig is die feit dat die nuwe grondwet weinig, indien enige, waarborge vir die regte van swart, bruin en Indiër Suid-Afrikaners ingesluit het. Dit het die status quo wat voor uniewording in die vier kolonies bestaan het bekragtig. In die Transvaal en die Oranjeriverkolonie kon net blankes stem; in Natal kon swart mense wel kwalifiseer om te stem, maar dan onder voorwaardes wat die kiesreg in die praktyk bykans onbekombaar gemaak het. Net in die Kaap was daar ‘n betekenisvolle franchise vir swart en bruin mense. Die teoretiese maatstaf was dat enige man van enige ras wat kon voldoen aan sekere eiendomsvereistes en wat sy naam kon skryf, kon kwalifiseer vir stemreg.

Soos Keir Hardie, die Skotse Sosialisteleier, opgemerk het was die doel van die South Africa Act “om die wit rasse te verenig, stemreg van die gekleurde rasse te weerhou en nie om eenheid te bevorder tussen die rasse van Suid-Afrika nie.” Sy waarneming was korrek: alles in die nuwe bedeling was gerig die wit groepe te akkommodeer en te versoen – insluitend die toekenning van gelyke status aan Nederlands en Engels en die beskerming van wit ekonomiese belange.

Tog, vir die daaropvolgende vyftig jaar was Suid-Afrikaanse politiek oorheers deur die voortdurende stryd om dominansie tussen die twee wit gemeenskappe – tussen die Afrikaner-nasionaliste aan die een kant, en blankes wat ten gunste was van deelname aan die Britse Ryk en die Statebond aan die ander kant. Dié stryd het afsluiting bereik in 1961 met die totstandkoming van die Republiek.

Na 1910 was slegs beperkte aandag gegee aan die posisie van swart, asiaatiese en bruin Suid-Afrikaners – terwyl die bestaande burgerregte van die swartes en kleurlinge in die Kaap onverbiddelik uitgehol en uiteindelik afgeskaf is. Maar na 1961 het die fokus van binnelandse politiek en internasionale aandag onverbiddelik verskuif na die grondwetlike posisie van swartes. Die Nasionale Party se reaksie was aanvanklik om te probeer om die geografiese eenheid van 1910 te verdeel deur onafhanklikheid te skenk aan swart tuislande. Transkei, Ciskei, Bophuthatswana en Venda het ‘onafhanklikheid’ aanvaar – maar die oorblywende nasionale deelstate het onwrikbaar geweier om dit te doen. In 1983 het die Regering probeer om Bruin en Indiese Suid-Afrikaners in ‘n nuwe grondwetlike bestel te bring deur middel van ‘n Driekamerparlement. Die nuwe bedeling is egter verwerp deur meeste van die veronderstelde begunstigdes en het gelei tot steeds luider oproepe van die UDF en andere vir universele stemreg. Teen 1986 het die Nasionale Party begin om die noodsaaklikheid te aanvaar van die akkommodering van die politieke aspirasies van alle Suid-Afrikaners in ‘n gesamentlike grondwetlike bestel.

Hierdie ontwikkelinge het uiteindelik uitgeloop op die inisiatiewe wat FW de Klerk op 2 Februarie 1990 wat van stapel gestuur het. Die grondwetlike proses wat daaruit gevloei het verskil fundamenteel van die Nasionale Konvensie wat gelei het tot die Unie van Suid-Afrika. Mees opvallend is dat dit verteenwoordigers ingesluit het van al Suid-Afrika se gemeenskappe. Waar die Unie van Suid-Afrika in die lewe geroep en uiteindelik goedgekeur is deur ‘n buitelandse mag, Brittanje, was die onderhandelinge wat gelei het tot die vestiging van die Nuwe Suid-Afrika heeltemal tuisgemaak. Die Grondwet wat ontstaan het in 1996 was baie anders as die 1910-Grondwet: die Grondwet – en nie die Parlement – was oppermagtig; dit het ‘n Handves van Regte bevat om die fundamentele regte van alle Suid-Afrikaners te beskerm; en dit het ‘n Konstitusionele Hof daargestel met die mag om te verseker dat alle vertakkinge van die regering hou by die Oppergesag van die Reg en die bepalings van die Handves van Regte. Die mees belangrike was dat die nuwe Grondwet gelyke regte en gelyke status van alle Suid-Afrikaners, ongeag ras, geslag, taal of seksuele oriëntasie erken het.

Ons het ‘n ver pad gereis sedert 31 Mei 1910. Alhoewel ons steeds gekonfronteer word met vele ernstige uitdagings, het ons verhuis na ‘n stelsel wat inklusief en gebaseer op die oppergesag van die reg is. Nietemin, niks hiervan sou moontlik gewees het – en die geskiedenis van die afgelope honderd jaar sou dramaties anders gewees het – as dit nie was dat die 1908 National Convention ‘n ooreenkoms bereik het oor die vereniging van die vier kolonies en die groot verskeidenheid mense wat daarin gelewe het nie. Vir die beter en die slegter dae, 31 Mei 1910 was die geboortedatum van Suid-Afrika en moet as sulks gevier word.

Dave Steward, Executive Director, FW de Klerk Foundation

South Africans have a rather outdated tendency to think that all of its cities should be the same. As a result we judge Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban and anywhere else in the country by the same criteria, and believe that all our cities should focus on the same industries, compete for the same kind of talent and so on.

Most of the rest of the world has moved way beyond this point. Los Angeles focuses predominantly on the creative industries while New York focuses on financial services. Bangalore focuses on IT, while Mumbai is the home of Bollywood. Dalian focuses on heavy manufacturing and petrochemicals, while Shanghai is the place to go if you’re in the business of cars or high tech.

This ability to spread industries across the country is particularly noticeable in the United States and Germany, both of which have a large number of similarly sized cities that focus on different industries and attract different types of talent. No one city is so big and lumbering that it becomes inefficient and unworkable.

Compare this with the cities of South America. At 20 million people, Sao Paulo, Brazil, is the biggest city in the southern hemisphere and completely impossible to get around in a hurry. Buenos Aires has 13 million people, around a third of Argentina’s population. Santiago has 5 million people, almost half of Chile’s populace, squeezed into a ring of mountains, and almost 90 percent of the country’s population lives within 300 kilometres of the capital. These cities have become very difficult to manage.

Therefore it should be with concern that we note how South Africans, particularly those in Gauteng, seem enamoured with the notion that Johannesburg should be the great magnet that attracts all who should stray near her.

The Mail & Guardian’s recent article, entitled “Lure of the mine dumps”, is a case in point. The article uses a series of anecdotal interviews to support the reporters’ contention that “Cape yuppies are giving up the mountain for mine dumps”. Young South Africans have been leaving Cape Town for Johannesburg ever since some fortunate farmer kicked over a nugget of gold 114 years ago. This is not news.

Nevertheless it has not led to the demise of Cape Town and is unlikely to do so anytime soon. Another M&G article in 2007 entitled “The death of Cape Town?” described Old Mutual’s announcement that it would move its senior leadership to Johannesburg as “the surest sign yet that the Cape metropole has become little more than the visdorp its detractors make it out to be”. One can’t help but think of the famous quote by Mark Twain: “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated”.

Three years after that 2007 prophecy the vast majority of Old Mutual’s staff are still based in Cape Town, and if anything the number is likely to grow as it expands its capacity to deal with back office administration and IT for some of its subsidiaries around the world. Two other companies that have moved their head offices are BP and Shell, both of which also still have several hundred employees in their Cape Town offices.

What has changed in all three cases is that there has been a separation of business activities between the two centres – senior executives and customer-facing staff in Johannesburg because that’s where most of the big customers are, with a consolidation of back office functions in Cape Town. In Old Mutual’s case, about 85% of the company’s non-sales staff members are still working at Mutualpark in Pinelands, where the operations, product, information technology and finance areas of this Cape-founded group have been based since 1956.

This is considered normal practice elsewhere in the world. Just one example is the decision by Boeing to move its head office from Seattle to Chicago, while maintaining the majority of its staff working in the factory in Seattle. That decision was based on a spreading of risk and the ability for its customer-facing executives to be more central and thus have easier access to markets. Here this practice is put forward as proof that nowhere else can compete with the “economic heart of Africa” and that the rest are sure to go the way of Mthatha.

Hopefully we will soon mature to the point where we recognise that different cities have different strengths and should be encouraged to collaborate and complement each other by focusing on different industries and economic activities. Head offices would then naturally gravitate towards those centres that focus on their primary industry, and other functions would be housed where it makes most sense. For example, Durban should logically be the home of logistics. As the biggest port in Africa, it should at the least undoubtedly be the home of Transnet Ports Authority, which is currently based in Pretoria.

In the case of Cape Town, Accelerate Cape Town has done a significant amount of work to develop Cape Town Vision 2030 (see www.vision2030.co.za). This 20 year vision of Cape Town as a “Global African city, a city of inspiration and innovation” recognises the Cape’s ability to attract creative talent from around the country, the continent and the world, and it identifies a number of steps that must be taken to achieve this ideal.

It also identifies several industries that have the potential to grow significantly over the next 20 years. These are agri-processing (wine is already South Africa’s biggest agricultural export), tourism, renewable energy, oil & gas related services, business process outsourcing, the creative industries (especially design, advertising, film and IT), medical research, higher education and asset management.

Many of these sectors consist mostly of medium-sized companies run along entrepreneurial lines and staffed by experienced creative thinkers. The sectors traditionally dominated by large corporates, such as mining or heavy industry, do not feature. It could therefore actually serve our purpose if young professionals leave Cape Town and gain their first ten years of experience in Johannesburg, London or New York, before returning home ready to start their own thing.

Capetonians are also significantly more entrepreneurial in nature to the rest of South Africa, as proven by the Global Entrepreneurship Measurement (GEM) Study. The GEM Study found that Cape Town’s early stage entrepreneurship level is 190% higher than the national average (Johannesburg is rated as 60% higher than the national average). This has much to do with the fact that people choose to start their businesses in Cape Town because of the balance between work and lifestyle. That balance is especially ideal for those in the creative industries and for businesses that employ a high percentage of creative thinkers focused on finding solutions.

Cape Town’s revitalised city centre and other lifestyle benefits are also enormously attractive to companies from abroad and those employing high numbers of expats. This is one of the reasons why an oil and gas industry hub is fast establishing itself in the Cape to service the West African corridor. Consider the alternatives: Luanda, Brazzaville, Libreville or Lagos, amongst other less attractive options. All these are very expensive hardship postings that are not quite as pleasant to live in as Cape Town. Other industries, like asset management, also benefit from Cape Town’s ability to attract people who have the skills and ability to choose wherever in the world they would like to live. This is one of the reasons why companies such as JP Morgan, Macquarie and Close have chosen to have such a significant presence in the Cape.

It is true that most corporates in Cape Town find it difficult to attract and retain young black professionals, often losing them to Johannesburg. Research done by Accelerate Cape Town and others has found that this is related to a number of factors, including the difficulty of forming a professional network, not having access to visible business role models and not being attracted to the beautiful venues that so many young white professionals frequent. As a result, Accelerate Cape Town together with Allan Gray has created the “Inspiration Sessions”, a very successful series of networking sessions where young professionals of all races can meet, while being exposed to presentations by inspirational leaders in the kind of venues that make maximum use of what Cape Town has to offer. In this way the organisations hope to go some way towards addressing the retention of skills in the Cape.

South Africa’s cities are different from one another. They offer different opportunities to different people, who are attracted to them for different reasons at different stages in their lives. We should embrace these differences and encourage the development of all our cities, rather than allowing, and even encouraging, the development of one major city or region at the expense of all others. This would ultimately be at the expense of the country, as the arteries of the economic heart would become so clogged up that it would stop working. One only has to try to do business in Cairo or Bangkok to know what that can look like.

Many young professionals may be moving to the mine dumps, where they can cut their teeth in the head offices of the largest companies. But we should be celebrating the fact that others are choosing Cape Town as the place where they can work for innovative companies in specific sectors that complement those upcountry and help to drive long-term economic growth for the whole nation. That would make us more like the rest of the modern world.

With the the 2010 FIFA World Cup fast approaching, it has become necessary to deal with some of the issues surrounding the entry of foreign nationals into South Africa who are entering the country as spectators of this wonderful event. In order to deal with the “special” dispensation under the Immigration Act, recently announced, it is necessary to perhaps state the obvious regarding the entry of foreign nationals into the country.

Photo credit: vramak

In the first instance it is necessary for a foreign national entering South Africa to be possessed of an appropriate visitors permit.

Generally, a visitors’ permit would be regulated by Section 11 of the Immigration Act which deals with the various kinds of visitors permits permissible under the aforesaid act.

With the anticipated floods of soccer enthusiasts arriving at our shores it has become necessary for the Department of Home Affairs to deal with “soccer visitors” with a different dispensation.

It is very important to note that countries which are visa exempt in respect of South Africa can dispatch their ticket holders to South Africa without having to go through the process of applying for the relevant visitors’ permit or visa.

Visa exemptions are determined by bilateral agreements entered into between governments. Countries such as the Common Wealth Union members, the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand are visa exempt and accordingly can merely enter South Africa, present their passports to an immigration official at the port of entry, enter the country and enjoy the World Cup Soccer.

A list of visa exempt countries can be viewed by visiting our website at www.immigration.org.za and clicking on the link of visa exempt countries. It is important to note that the visa exemption list does change from time to time and accordingly it is important to make enquiries before departure for South Africa as to the current status of the visa exemption list. The list is derived from the Department of Foreign Affairs and can also be viewed on that website www.dfa.gov.za

Reference is made elsewhere in this article to the “express lane” and the comments made in this regard will be equally applicable to visa exemption passport holders.

The crunch comes with foreign nationals who derive from countries which are not visa exempt.

Such foreign nationals would have to apply for an appropriate visitors permit in order to enter South Africa.

Application in this regard would have to be brought to the Embassy closest to where the applicant lives and would have to comply with all of the basic requirements for a general visitors permit.

The only overriding factors, which are plus factors, will relate to the fact that the holder would have to present their authentic World Cup Ticket proving that they have indeed secured a seat(s) as a spectator for the World Cup and that two further elements will be added. These would be the following:

• The normal visitors permit/visa fee of R425 will be waived; and
• The visitors permit/visa will be dealt with on the basis of urgency with anticipated turn-around-times of 3 to 4 days for processing.

It is important to further note that the visa may only be used for the purpose of attending the FIFA World Cup and for the duration thereof and do not permit the holder of such visa to work, take up employment or carry on business.

The failure to comply with the requirements will result in a non-visa exempt country passport holder, being turned back at the airport or port of entry.

The following documentation will have to be presented to the South African High Commission, Embassy or Consular Mission when applying for the permit:

• Visa application form (this form can be downloaded off www.immigration.org.za);
• A valid passport must be presented, valid for no less than 30 days after the intended date of return of the applicant;
• At least two unused pages must be available in the passport of the applicant. Failure to comply with this aspect could result in a refusal of entry. This principle is in line with international best practice in this regard;
• A vaccination certificate will be required in respect of yellow fever if the applicant departs from or has travelled through a yellow fever endemic country;
• A statement will have to be provided and/or documentation confirming the purpose and duration of the visit and this would encompass a FIFA match ticket application number;
• A valid return air ticket will have to be provided;
• Passport size photographs will have to be provided with the application;
• Proof of financial resources in the form of a bank statement will have to be provided; and
• Proof of salary;
• Proof of financial means to cover the living expenses whilst in South Africa will have to be provided, alternatively available cash, including credit cards or travellers cheques could be presented in this regard;
• Proof of medical insurance for the duration of the trip will have to be provided.

The visa which is being applied for is known as a specially designated “event visa”.

Should you require any further information or should you require assistance with your application for your visitors permit/visa then please contact Julian Pokroy Immigration Law Attorneys: enquiries@immigration.org.za.

The 2010 FIFA World Cup is now so close that we came across a website the other day that measures the time until countdown in seconds (luckily there are over 4 million left).

As happens before every big event of this nature around the world, the country has gone into panic mode in the last remaining weeks. There are inter-racial tensions, unions are on strike, the skies of Europe are full of volcanic ash, foreigners aren’t buying World Cup tickets, prices are too high, there is chaos at ticket sales centres, and the list goes on.

It may be of little encouragement, but it is useful to remember that every other country that has hosted major events in recent history has experienced similar problems. Germany in 2006 was on full alert for race attacks by neo-Nazi’s during the World Cup, Athens in 2004 was still completing stadiums days before the opening ceremony of the Olympics and in 1998 Air France pilots went on a ten day strike ten days before the start of the French World Cup.

We must focus now on delivering a flawless World Cup so that the billions of television viewers around the world come away feeling that we’ve got it together and we can deliver spectacular returns for potential future tourists and investors.

We must also focus on maximizing what opportunities we do have to connect visiting business people with local opportunities for them to invest and find business partners while they are in town. Accelerate Cape Town’s website includes a list of some of the business events taking place in Cape Town during the World Cup that provide opportunities to make those connections.

Finally, the nervousness around this one-off World Cup event reminds us of the need to focus on the long-term. Accelerate Cape Town’s mission is to bring together key stakeholders in the Cape Town City Region to develop and implement a long-term vision for sustainable, inclusive economic growth. This vision is embodied in our Cape Town Vision 2030 (see www.vision2030.co.za) and it is one that we will continue to work towards no matter what the short term obstacles.