Analysis

The Tyranny of Red Lights

Written by Gavin Chait On any given Sunday, the streets are empty.  At any given traffic light solitary vehicles stand idling before red lights while no vehicles traverse the green.  For most, it would never occur to break the rules and cross against red.  It may as well be a steel bar.

It is a microcosm of society, that red light.  It isn’t real;  it is simply an agreement for the convenience of the many.  We limit our freedom to act in exchange for the stability of a safe traffic experience.

Laws are like that.  They are intended to create convenience, stability and safety.  But they limit freedom.

The problem with those red lights is when people forget that it is possible to go against them.  At night, in a dangerous area, with no other traffic, it would be foolish to stop.  Some people are so law abiding it leads to their harm.

And South Africa has a problem.  We have lots of laws and 40% unemployment.  There are plenty of red lights preventing economic development with limited understanding of what traffic they are regulating.

There are legislated standard sizes for bottles for various categories of alcoholic beverages.  This law is not set by the liquor board but by the Department of Agriculture.  There doesn’t appear to be any particular reason.  And there is no way to change the law in any reasonable way.

The enforcement of laws in South Africa behaves a lot like an unreasonable parent:  “You can’t do that!”  

“Why?”

“Because I said so!”

Yet, the government asks for participation.  The public is asked to comment on ideas for job creation, to create jobs by starting businesses, to take on risk.  When anyone questions prevailing legislation that may prevent them starting a particular business, they get the standard negative, “Because I said so!”

With so much negativity it is no wonder that so many opt out.

If individuals have no ability to actively engage, then they don't bother.  When land is taken away and there is no ownership, when workers don't experience the products of their labours, when politicians are only allowed to express the party view - then there is no active participation and so they don't bother.

It is a recipe for disaster in any economy.  If the vast bulk of society has no incentive, then there will be no desire.  When their opinions are discounted, then they are worth nothing.

It is like those traffic lights.  They glow and proclaim, “We know what is going to happen, obey and you will be safe.  Break the law and you will suffer the consequences.”  And so we sit and watch the red lights.

Governments have no monopoly on the future.  They have no idea what is going to happen next any more than we do.  But we do know what we like and don’t like and we should be allowed to express our desires.

The government should act more like a concerned but allowing parent.  

If your child wants to find out if they can swim across the deep end of the pool, you could panic and stop them.  They may never try and never overcome their fear.

Or, you could watch as they try.  If they succeed, fantastic.  If they fail, you’ll be there to catch them.

For people to try starting businesses they need to know that they aren’t going to be abruptly stopped by officiousness that acts to enforce laws rather than the needs of society.  Laws were written by people with all the limitations of their knowledge and understanding at the time.  

All laws are inherently flawed.  A red light is just a light.  It helps you to see into dark places, albeit with a slightly red tinge.

May I have the bill, please? A lesson in wilful ignorance ...

Written by Gavin Chait One day, in the distant future, someone with more money and time than I shall conduct an experiment on waitering staff across the planet.

From Rio de Janeiro, where waiters peer over one’s shoulder studying the menu with morbid fascination;  to London, where staff glare at you for rudely interrupting their analysis of who was sleeping with whom on Crossroads; to India, where wallahs bring you exactly what you didn’t order, cold and an hour later when you have already succumbed to starvation;  to Cape Town, where servers glide effortlessly past you as you wave your arms about like the nearly drowned attracting a life-guard.  Each a microcosm of business disregard for their patrons.

“I wonder if it’s on purpose?” I asked myself as I mopped up the water dammed behind piles of my clothes.  The flooding was caused by a plumber who opened the main tap without first emptying the geyser.  He built the dams to prevent the water escaping into the rest of my flat.  Then he fled.

It can’t be that every business owner embarks on a quest to make life unpleasant for their customers.  Certainly there are those who despise their clients but most are genuinely shocked when you have had an unpleasant experience.  Their complaint is usually that they did not know.

This is wilful ignorance on the part of business owners.  They are fully aware that clients are getting a shoddy deal but – for as long as clients don’t make a fuss – they are able to ignore the problem.  People tend to avoid confrontation and business owners are happily capitalising on our fears.

But businesses, at least, suffer the frequent indignity of having their crasser habits exposed in local newspapers or blogs.  Development organisations can get away with even lower standards of care since their clients, on the whole, are desperate and uneducated (otherwise they wouldn’t be in need of charitable services) and hardly likely to complain.  The donors don’t experience the service directly and have no idea what should be done either.

In this organisations are doing themselves a disservice.  It is not just that clients have no loyalty for their service providers.  It is also that organisations are losing a wonderful opportunity for innovation and product development.

Clients do know what they like and don’t like.  When offered a reasonable choice they will switch to the service that offers them the most reward for their investment of time, energy and (occasionally) money.  If the relationship has become confrontational – one of complaint and apology – then it is unpleasant for both sides.  If clients are considered a component of business development and improvement then they become part of the overall strategy.

People change their preferences on a daily basis.  The changes are subtle, but they are there.  They change the amount of sugar they consume in coffee.  They prefer it slightly stronger, or weaker.  McDonalds was caught completely by surprise by the obesity movement and has had to launch a dramatic turn-around, introducing salads and low-fat alternatives.  Yet the discussion over increasing obesity has gone on for over a decade.

The low grumble of clients is not a personal attack on the organisation.  It is the gentle murmur of consumers hungry to be part of the development of their favourite products.  It is an opportunity for business owners to listen and remain a part of the economic landscape of winners.

And, when they do get round to testing those waiters, I hope it involves lots of electricity.

Should charitable organisations be allowed to compete with businesses?

Written by Gavin Chait

Charities and development organisations frequently like to supplement their incomes from donors by selling items.  Some organisations have become major brands in their own right (such as Oxfam or Greenpeace).  Should these organisations continue to be treated as non-profits, and not subject to taxation, if part of their operations generate profits?

It is a difficult question.  The organisations can point to the way in which they use their funds.  But businesses can point out that they are being disadvantaged.  Since development organisations don’t have to pay tax, and many of their inputs are sponsored, their goods can be sold much more cheaply.

Consider the not-too-far-fetched example of a development organisation specialising in sewing training selling its students stock against past graduates of its school.  But at much lower prices, since the fabric, sewing machines and infrastructure are sponsored and the profits aren’t taxed.  They would be working against their own beneficiaries.  Textiles workers are in an especially vulnerable industry and so don't need unfair competition.

While the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA) may disagree, the South African Revenue Service has made the correct decision in deciding to tax these profits.  In order that business be a level playing field and development doesn’t become a protected industry.

The ANC government of South Africa declares its comfort with violence and brutality

Written by Gavin Chait In 1964 Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela was imprisoned for life by the then Apartheid government in South Africa.  They moved rapidly to disband democracy movements in that country and imprison all their leaders.  The African National Congress (ANC) was banned and its leaders went into exile, spawning an international movement to demand freedom in South Africa. The ANC regularly called for sovereign nations to intercede in the South African state.  After the Sharpeville Massacre , in which 566 children were killed during a peaceful protest, the world chose to express their condemnation of the internal behaviour of a sovereign state - South Africa.  In 1993 Nelson Mandela was presented with the Nobel Peace Prize, to highlight his plight, as well as reward his bravery, in standing up to a bunch of autocratic anti-democratic thugs.  He became South Africa's first democratically elected head of state when the ANC became the government in 1994.

Recently South Africa, and the ANC government, won the right to sit at the UN Security Council.  Now they have the opportunity to pitch their own vision to the world.

In 1990 Aung San Suu Kyi won elections in (then) Burma decisively.  She was immediately detained and placed under house arrest by the military junta who are still in power.  They moved rapidly to disband democracy movements in that country and imprison all their leaders.  In 1991 Aung San Suu Kyi was presented with the Nobel Peace Prize, both to highlight her plight, as well as reward her bravery, in standing up to a bunch of autocratic anti-democratic thugs.  She remains under house arrest. Her people remain brutalised and oppressed.

Which is why the South African government sided with the Burmese military junta against a UN resolution calling on the Burmese government to ease repression.  The resolution was proposed by the United States and took two years to agree upon within the United Nations.

A lot of people have had a lot to say about the US since it went it alone - without the participation and support of the United Nations - in their war with Iraq in 2003.

The unlikely alliance of anti-US anti-war protesters include: Bare Witness (who pose naked to protest); Iraq Body Count (who attempt to count the fatalities); Muslim Association of Britain (a Muslim group against the war); to the World Socialists.

Everyone has an opinion on how awful and stupid the US response has been.  Many claim that the US has undermined the United Nations and reduced their authority. Maybe people, and nations, should be asking whether their own hypocrisy has earned them the right to be heard by the world's most powerful democracy.  If the United Nations is a toothless, gutless and totally hypocritical talk-shop it is hardly the fault of the United States.  It is the fault of its members.

As Jonathan Katzenellenbogen says in the Business Day, "Voting this way, SA emerged looking comfortable with one of the world’s most brutal military regimes.  Whose side is SA on, anyway?"