There are no angels in this dangerous game

It took an intervention by President Jacob Zuma on his return to the country from a state visit to France to finally bring some perspective and hopefully some sanity into the dangerous game of national Russian roulette that exploded around proposed amendments to the Employment Equity Act. It is clear that there were few if any angels in the race drama that unfolded over many weeks.

Up until a statement by Zuma on Monday night the raging racial war of words was based on the assumption that the amendment bill proposed that in future only a national demographic profile will be used as the yardstick to judge employment equity and regional (read provincial) profiles are dropped from the act.

Monday night’s statement makes it clear that “it is important to note that nowhere in the proposed change is there a proposal to remove regional and leave national; in fact, both national and regional are removed.

It goes on to state that the reason for removal of the two elements was that employers had been inquiring over the years from the labour department how they should implement both regional and national demographics of the EAP in their workplaces. This is what triggered the proposed change.

The intended outcome of the new proposed amendment was that the employers would have the flexibility to decide whether to use regional or national demographics depending on their operations, it is claimed.

Indeed in terms of the proposed yardstick in the relevant clause, if passed by parliament will in future read: “… the demographic profile of the economically active population.”

The sinners

This immediately poses the first question: Why did the trade union movement Solidarity ignore this fact in its initial reaction to the publication of the proposed bill and created the impression that it would impact negatively on Coloured people of the Western Cape and the Indian population of KwaZulu-Natal?

The media en masse, including this newsletter, allowed itself to be taken for a ride by Solidarity by not immediately first checking the facts against the text of the proposed bill.

Why did the minister of labour Mildred Oliphant and her department not immediately step in to set the record straight?

By keeping quiet she and the department not only allowed, what they now claim is a misperception, the impression of a play at social engineering and political motives (in the Western Cape in particular) to be perpetuated. Their silence  also could be interpreted as a guilty plea.

Legal experts point out that the new proposed formulation of the “demographic profile of the economically active population” is vague, open to a number of possible interpretations, including a “national profile” and at best, as bad legislative formulation.

For the minister and the department the elephant in the room all along was the racialistically loaded pronouncements in a TV-interview last year by government spokesman Jimmy Manyi (then still director-general of the labour department) about an over-supply of Coloureds in the Western Cape.

When Solidarity, apparently with cynical timing on the eve of the municipal elections and maybe thinking they are onto a good thing here, a year after the fact, played this card it was enough to get minister Trevor Manuel to come steaming out of his corner and add oil to the raging racial fire. Maybe a conversation with his colleague, Ms Oliphant, like the president has now done, might have caused him to rather help calm things down.

The opposition parties, which sit in parliament and were in a much better position than most to actually first refer to the bill, could also not resist the political temptation to get involved in the racial card game.

The fleas

And, then  of course there were  a number of fleas, who could not resist the temptation to jump on to this mad racial dog.

As has come to be expected among these was ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema, who just could not resist the temptation to warn white monopolies and white men that blacks would rise against them unless they shared more of their wealth with the blacks.

Newspaper columnist Kuli Roberts helped to stir the racial pot by her stereotypical portrayal of Coloured people, which she later in a highly qualified tokenistic apology tried to soften by saying she only had Cape Coloureds in mind.

The list can in effect become pretty long if one wants it to be fully comprehensive. Few, however seem to have paused to consider the possibility of rather attempting to calm things down instead of adding to the wind that was driving the flames.

Not out of the woods yet

That the country is far from out of the woods on this one and that government in general and the labour department in particular still  have some work to do to clear up the mess is evident  from a statement by trade union federation Cosatu last night.

Having been probably the most balanced party in the debate to date, Cosatu last night, in welcoming assurances by minister Oliphant said it “… backs SACTWU's call to the minister to ensure that her commitment ‘finds expression in the final version of the bill, prior to it being tabled in Parliament.’ The amendment to the law must be clear - that employment equity policies will reflect provincial and local demographic statistics and not just national figures.

“Cosatu reiterates its condemnation of statements by Jimmy Manyi, former director-general of the department of labour, now the government's spokesperson, that there was an ‘over-supply’ of Coloureds in the Western Cape, and that ‘Indians have bargained their way to the top’ by getting 5.9% of management positions, when ‘they should be having only 3%.’

“Such racist comments are totally unacceptable and the federation will continue to insist that employment equity policies and laws redress past discrimination and do not unfairly disadvantage any population group.”

The whole saga has dramatically demonstrated to what extent racial diversity and sensitivities are still an unavoidable reality in South African society posing challenges on all in leadership and influential positions to act with great responsibility at all times.

Maybe the time has come for government to consider a procedure in terms of which all intended legislation which can be of a potentially racially sensitive nature is first  referred to an institution like the Human Rights Commission before it goes to cabinet for consideration.

Piet Coetzer