# Regulatory Compliance Category > BEE and Employment Equity Forum >  What is the real enemy of affirmative action?

## Dave A

It seems white women have made great strides in the workplace. To the point that some believe they no longer need priority support.



> *Call for white women to bow out of employment equity*
> White women should be struck off a list of groups recognised as previously disadvantaged in terms of the employment equity legislation, the Black Management Forum (BMF) said on Tuesday.
> 
> In its written submission to the National Assembly's portfolio committee on labour, the forum requested that the current employment equity legislation be amended to exclude white women as beneficiaries.
> 
> "We ... assert that white women bow out of employment equity and that this committee help institute amendments to the Employment Equity Act through a sunset clause [a provision that ends a power or programme] for white women," it read.
> 
> This would help re-focus targeting people with disabilities, black people and, in particular, black women, the organisation said.
> 
> ...


The article goes on to list accusations against business, which really reflect the mindset of the parties. But there is a valid point to note in this. White women's lot has improved considerably. Perhaps prioritisation has worked.

But why the big strides among white women and the seeming dissatisfaction among other priority groups?

I'm inclined to disagree with the notion that it is out of racial preference. I'd suggest that business, being somewhat myopic about profits and the need for effectiveness, are far more interested in competence than race (or gender for that matter). There were some gender stereotypes that needed to be broken down. And maybe there's still some work to be done on that.

Clearly there are some racial stereotypes that still need to be broken down, and in my view that particular problem seems more glaring among Manyi and co. than monist business.

But surely the very success of white women under employment equity points to the fact that the real difficulty is elsewhere - competence, grounding, training, experience. In short, it's about being equipped.

So my question is: 
Is the real obstacle to effective affirmative action (employment equity in particular) getting people equipped?

----------


## Marq

I think the biggest obstacle is the understanding of political objectives which promote affirmative action. While there is method and legislation in place to create the advancement of one community/race/gender/group/clan [fill in your own group here] over another we will never have the harmony necessary to grow all beings in a fair manner that will benefit the individual as well as the group as a whole.  

Enforced affirmative action is a political tool that is no different to apartheid, or any of the other practices around the world that enable various race,ethnic,tribal groups to achieve domination over each other. It has negative connotations due to the method in which it is taught, legalised and practised. 

The answer for me has to come out of a fair and balanced scenario where all are able to create opportunities at leading a normalised life. If we continue to throw threatening legal scenarios at the leader/builder groups instead of building the disadvantaged groups in a natural manner to become the next leaders/generation then there will always be a lock out scenario creating a blockage to developing the currently disadvantaged.

A catch 22, but affirmative action in its current form is creating a playing field where the previously advantaged become the currently disadvantaged. Sure one has to recognise apartheid and its role to how the currently advantaged got into their position - but we should build on the advantages rather than try to break the previous lot down and force them out. Otherwise we continually bring everything down to the lowest common denominator and nobody gains. 

A no win situation for all. The real enemy of affirmative action is the label itself and the underlying tensions which it is creating. Release the tension, create a natural bond to the process which I believe is inherent in all of us good folk in this Country and the skills/stereotyping/recognition sets will come into being.

----------


## Marq

I see this thread died a quick death.

Two weeks ago I posted that 


> I think the biggest obstacle is the understanding of political objectives which promote affirmative action.


Surfing for something completely unrelated I came across this on the anc web site here

The first line on this page says - 



> There's an old saying: one person's meat is another person's poison. So it is with affirmative action.


Four short paragraphs down it says 



> We reject the idea of anything in the new democratic South Africa being meat for some and poison for others. That was what apartheid was all about.


So are they [anc] confused as to what this is all about.......or am I?
Basic concepts must be in place and understood before we can discuss obstacles.

----------


## Dave A

That is a truly fascinating document. And a pretty solid foundation for a serious discussion around affirmative action. Particularly as it starkly reveals the ANC's paradigm.

My underlying belief is that the current paradigm is fundamentally flawed - and I'll go into that in some detail perhaps over the weekend when I've got more time to lay it out. But for the meantime I'll draw attention to some "proof" that there is a fundamental problem here. And this part introduces the point quite nicely:



> Two options were being urged upon us. The one was to adopt a Constitution and Bill of Rights that would scrap apartheid laws, but establish the constitution as a Chinese wall against any attempt to alter the social and economic status quo.
> 
> The other and opposite option was simply to require the new government to confiscate the spoils of apartheid and share them out amongst those who had been dispossessed. While this approach had the immediate attraction of correcting historic injustice, it could not be realistically advanced in the context of an anticipated negotiated transition to democracy. Furthermore, its adoption would have led to capital flight, the destruction of the economy and international isolation just at the time when the people would most be wishing to enjoy the benefits of their ages-old struggle.


Let's focus on two parts here (because we certainly are not experiencing international isolation) - capital flight and destruction of the economy.

Let's not kid ourselves. We have had not only a capital (money) flight but a skills flight - a loss of human capital. And policy is the majority conributor to that.

The second is the destruction of the economy. Yes, the economy has expanded - on the back of a global bull run and massive credit expansion. But is it because of our ability to add value - or because we have squandered our capital?

A person buys a house. It doubles in value over 4 years. The person converts that increase in value into a car. Now they have a house and a car. But is that as a result of constructive value-add efforts, or the windfall of favourable (and fickle) sentiment?

The ship has caught a favourable wind, but has made less progress than other ships. When the global economic winds reverse - how will we fair then? Is our economic ship built of solid materials with a solid engine, or a makeshift raft that must burn itself for fuel?

The real strength of an economy should be measured by its ability to turn dust into dollars - and somehow I don't think we've got better at that.

----------


## Dr KGNKhumalo

The leadership gap!

Governement as 'nominated' leader of the people should endeavour to synergise their political appeasement efforts with realistic and holistic economic drives that are universally good for SA.

There is a leadership gap in the many AA efforts by the SA government - yet to centralise control could result in an unwieldy system of delivery.

----------


## Dave A

I have to agree with Dr Khumalo that leadersship is a major contributor here.

It was also interesting to see a lack of suitably qualified people coming up in the report below.



> During 2006 and early 2007, reviews of compliance with the Employment Equity Act were conducted for the first time on six JSE-listed companies by Vanguard Mkosana, the director-general of labour.
> 
> The report says: "Preliminary observations of the six companies were Ã¢â¬Â¦ shocking. All six of these companies did not comply with the full requirements of the act, consult with [their] employees, conduct an analysis of their workplace, prepare and implement an employment equity plan and submit a progress report to the department of labour, using prescribed forms."
> 
> "Many of these employers acquired or appeared to have acquired the services of a consultant to satisfy the reporting element of the act. As a result, employment equity reports submitted by these employers over the years had no clear foundation to work from and thus were baseless," the report continues.
> 
> "Most of the employers reviewed for employment equity cited not having a sufficient pool of suitably qualified candidates as the main reason for not employing black people."
> full story from IOL here

----------


## Chatmaster

I want to raise an issue here. IMO Affirmative Action is a great contributor to the devide in SA. The younger generation that are totally uninvolved in the past has very little if any racial divide. They are starting to enter the workplace atm and have to deal with AA every time they are looking for a job. This causes tension and a renewed awareness of racial prejudice.

I feel it is way past bed time for AA as the only thing it is accomplishing atm is keeping racism alive. There is no evidence that it has helped anyone other than the elite few for the objectives that it was created. The standards of schooling and higher education has reached the level where all pupils regardless of race has received the same level of education for an entire generation! What is the point in continuing with AA? Well imo, it ensures that election time gets based on race and not on results... I mean until recently apartheid was still blamed for incompetency of some of our biggest leaders.

I think that the moment AA walks out the door, a big change will happen in SA. But then again, maybe the ANC created a monster they do not know how to get rid of?

----------


## duncan drennan

> The standards of schooling and higher education has reached the level where all pupils regardless of race has received the same level of education for an entire generation!


I would question that. We still have a long way to go to reach "equal education," at least based on the anecdotal evidence that I have encountered. 




> But then again, maybe the ANC created a monster they do not know how to get rid of?


Or maybe, that they don't want to get rid of?

----------


## Dr KGNKhumalo

I beg you to view it another way! 

It is an interim measure! A model which should be flexible and transparent!  A political party to me should be a mere instrument - servant to its people - BAD Policy or delivery will eventually be punished by those whose support a party often takes for granted. I believe there are those in GVT who have no idea how to manage and make this AA Project a success! It is not a mere excercise in introducing some skin tones in the right places. 

The most beautiful outcome of AA should be to overcome ALL prejudice by first making people acutely aware of it. 

The 'younger' generations of differing upbringings (for I now know no race!) have very anti-parallel views about each other. Little knowledge or experience or participation in the PAST is a rather lame excuse for the apathetic engagement in this present time. 

I would find it selfish not to prepare the ground whereupon my children are going to engage with other people in the future. AA provides an inkling of how that arena is set to play out! 

Non-engagement of racial and other segregative and discriminative issues now is only a disaster postponed!

----------


## duncan drennan

> Non-engagement of racial and other segregative and discriminative issues now is only a disaster postponed!


I fully agree with that! What is challenging is how to effectively engage in a way which uplifts our society.




> The most beautiful outcome of AA should be to overcome ALL prejudice by first making people acutely aware of it.


Would you care to expand on this thought? It is intriguing as, to me, it is counter-intuitive.

----------


## Chatmaster

> The 'younger' generations of differing upbringings (for I now know no race!) have very anti-parallel views about each other. Little knowledge or experience or participation in the PAST is a rather lame excuse for the apathetic engagement in this present time.


Good point!  :Big Grin: 



> I would find it selfish not to prepare the ground whereupon my children are going to engage with other people in the future.


 That is something we both have in common.




> Non-engagement of racial and other segregative and discriminative issues now is only a disaster postponed!


 I couldn't agree more!

First I need to state that I personally am not affected by AA but that I feel it is a concept that can be improved or a suitable replacement can be found. I am fortunate enough to be in a career that offers very little competition in SA so if I was looking for a job I doubt it would affected me. What I am trying to do is get some kind of debate going in terms of the concept of AA and how it should be improved. At this stage it does contribute to racial divide amongst all races. 

However, the speed at which it is being done is not the problem, it is the actual implementation of it. If we look at the serious issues that SA is dealing with in terms of how crime and unemployment can be impacted if the managing of processes was managed correctly. Education processes lack the experience and expertise, nor is it freely available or publicized. Yes there are workshops presented and so forth, but just how much education is being done in the correct manner and how much publicity is given to the topic?

Change ultimately requires a change in culture or the creation of a new culture. By just putting a process together that enables benefits to individuals based on their gender, race or disability means that you can create a monster that can destroy the original intention of the process. Does this now mean that because I am suffered because of apartheid, government now owes me? Does this mean I am special and has allot due to me because I am a product of apartheid? Am I supposed to get all things in life free?

If you look at voting times and comments made by the general public it becomes clear that there is a common feeling amongst South Africans of all race and gender groups that they are owed something by government. If look at the amount of unhappiness day after day, it is also clear. Is it perhaps time that we create a new culture? A culture where we as South Africans educate each other in entrepreneurship and show each other what a difference an attitude change can accomplish? To make each other realize that nothing is for free, nothing is owed and due and that if we work together and hard we can change the future for all of us?

Many white people see AA as reverse racism and blame it for their misery. A natural human reaction when it comes to accountability. It is natural to be in denial for taking responsibility of your own actions and future. But then again what should you feel like if you are ambitious and know you cannot shoot for the top job regardless of what you do because of racial discrimination? Denial of responsibility also seems to be the new culture that has been introduced in SA regardless of race. Perhaps changing the culture by use of the media, advertising, education and team building will accomplish more than AA can.

A culture change can have a great effect on many issues we are facing, including AA. Is there a way we can accomplish this?

----------


## Dr KGNKhumalo

Just some more observations!

Acute awareness (the positive kind) allows one to percieve the effect of apartheid to someone other than oneself. On a counter-note it can heighten one's introspective look and the jeopardy of blame-storming looms large.

The implementation of such a wide-reaching concept can only be difficult. The prejudices have to be very well-defined and yet the programme (as it should only be a programme!) should retain enough flexibility to cater for progressive elaboration. The curent SA situation presents problems on several fronts.

A phased approach could be a solution! Currently it may have to be the quick-fix projects affecting employment and the lower level human needs in Maslowian hierarchy - the physiological. Access to food, jobs, good education etc.

However, as the base human needs are satisfied or at least results are being observed - structured reviews and focus on the medium to higher level needs are then the requisite adjustments that may produce a climate of equitable development for people that have overcome the first few barriers of ACCESS! 

The next need for SAFETY needs to be tackled head-on. This will go along way in bringing reassurance to those outside of AA favour. Crime, Job Security etc

As people see and are presented with transparent reviews of the AA performance the ESTEEM needs of society will be satsfied. It should not be seen - as it can easily be interpreted to be at the moment - to be benefiting the so-called victim at the expensed of the newly-disadvantaged. 'A nation can never be strong (empower its poor) by bringing down its STRONG' -(ATTEMPTED an Abe Lincoln there).

In its final phase all people can self -actualise. A lot of people ar in jobs outside of their experience traaining or education but because they have the right physiological attributes. This is where the reality sets in. All things shoiuld be equal at this point then a meritocracy emerges.

Therefore a time frame needs to be established. Continued dependence on the 'experimental' AA objectives may in the interim produce the right demographics but without the fundamental benefit of deriving the change required to make for a collective society.

At this stage of my career which started even before apartheid was dismantled AA does not appeal to my needs! I have some recognition in my profession in the UK and small parts of SA. I cannot demean myself to be an instrument of AA when it means a bit of show-boating to present the right colour. It is a profession that cannot be satisfied by quotas

----------


## Dave A

> The 'younger' generations of differing upbringings (for I now know no race!) have very anti-parallel views about each other.


I wonder how much of those anti-parallel views are fundamentally class driven nowadays. If I look at my kids' circle of friends, it is very representative of the current demographics of the middle class, and race (and religion BTW) seem to mean nothing to them.



> Little knowledge or experience or participation in the PAST is a rather lame excuse for the apathetic engagement in this present time.


Absolutely agree. But if the enforced engagement is seen as unfair, we can't expect unbridled support either. Which leads me to my main underlying concern about AA implimentation....

Dr. Khumalo refers to the hierarchy of needs - the management of societal thinking and perception also has some fundamental basics. In this instance, one can't remove racial prejudice from society by highlighting and emphasising and judging along racial lines. You are sensitising people to issues of race; increasing the value of race as an issue in the minds of people when the supposed goal is a society that does not even consider race in its interactions.

And yet at the same time we must recognise and goal to redress imbalances in our society that are distinctly racial in nature. A challenge indeed and a seeming paradox if those corrective measures are not to be drawn along racial lines.

Getting *quality* education to *all* our youth is a clear starting point for corrective action. Where you end up in life is more a matter of state of mind and appropriate knowledge gained than the "wealth" of our parents for the vast majority of us. For all but an exceptional few, the main benefit of having parents of some means *is* a quality education. Focusing on this point alone goes a long way to leveling the playing fields.

But we also tend to inherit much of our parents' paradigms - a rather critical point to address if that paradigm is not healthy. And it is here where I simply have to applaud Dr Khumalo's point on depth of leadership. We need youth that are exposed to new paradigms, ones without coloured stereotypes, as soon as possible, from people of sound character that they can interact with, respect and strive to emulate.

----------

