ECONOMIC EQUALITY

SOUTH Africa is not the first country to throw a law book at historical inequalities, so in theory, we should be able to avoid mistakes, especially the maniacal excesses and spectacular failures of former communist nations, although history suggests that attempts at social engineering tend to be only “Good in Parts” – like the curate’s egg.

At least we seem to be following, although not entirely, the Malaysia model, which makes more sense than seeking the communists’ utopian nirvana.

Malaysia is much like South Africa. Successful minority groups, Chinese and Indian in origin, have taken the opportunities of the Western model of development based on business enterprise and private property – and prospered. Although suffering no legal discrimination as we did, the majority of indigenous Malays missed the economic bus, so they were (and are) the group scheduled for upliftment.

The treatment has been applied so far for close on 40 years, ever since Malaysian independence, but there are no signs of a triumphant conclusion.

India was the first to use laws to reverse economic and social inequality. The task was not to uplift the majority, as in Malaysia, but a minority that had been condemned to cleaning latrines, picking up human ordure from railway tracks, and a form of indentured agricultural work not much different from serfdom. There are still some 100 million such people. Mahatma Gandhi called them Harijans (Children of God). Today they call themselves Dalits. It means, “The Oppressed”.

Back in 1948, full of revolutionary zeal and socialist ideas, the new Indian govern- ment made discriminating against Dalits illegal. The intention was to lead them out of poverty and up the social ladder into the new, modern India. Jobs were reserved for Dalits in the Civil Service, as were places in schools, technical colleges and universities. Bursaries and scholarships were earmarked for them. Then the law of unintended consequences got in the way.

Firstly, the preferential treatment of Dalits that was supposed to take 20 years, has taken 50 years with no end in sight.

Secondly, and not in the script as well, special treatment was granted to 100 other Indian groups (castes). With an unmistakable whiff of snobbery, they are referred to as “Other Backward Classes” (OBCs).

Thirdly, far from ending discrimination against the OBCs, some observers think their special status has increased it. There are regular riots against Dalits, assaults and even killings. Reported assaults are running at 10 000 a year. The police rarely pursue the culprits. One officer when asked why is reported to have candidly replied that enforcing the law would mean arresting half the population.

A new and dramatic unforeseen consequence was vividly demonstrated when 500 000 took to the streets to demand that they too be regarded in law as OBCs so they also could get into universities and colleges and have jobs reserved for them. If not, they demanded the abolition of the system. When the demonstration turned into riots it became so bad the army had to be called in. Seven people died.

But this demand to be OBCs did not come from another downtrodden section of Indian society. It came from the group known as Patidar – or Patels – the people known throughout India and indeed Africa, for their business acumen. Not surprisingly, other Indians greeted the Patels’ demands with jeers. Patels were hardly a disadvantaged group like the Dalits; Gujarat State has a Patel prime minister.

As for the original targets for upliftment, the Dalits, there are still an awful lot who remain toilet cleaners and collectors of human dung. Mostly women do this job. Indentured labour is the lot of the men, if they are lucky. It is still better to be a member of an OBC in India if you want a government job or get into university or school – nevermind individual excellence or qualifications. The Patels would seem to have a point. Indian efforts to legislate an end to poverty, discrimination and its associated ills are like the curate’s egg, “Good in Parts”. Its only complete success is that it keeps many bureaucrats employed.

And so to Malaysia where affirmative action policies have – in four decades – more plus marks, if not Gold Stars. But they too have met unintended consequences.

Malaysia’s policies were applied in earnest from 1969 after riots that pitted the majority Malays against the minority Chinese and Indian citizens. The beneficiaries

This has been done by carrot-and-stick regulations, one of which is the takeover of recalcitrant businesses by state-owned companies. It is all very cheering to those of a socialist disposition for it seems to prove that social engineering works.

However, human nature has a habit of getting in the way of all such schemes. Eventually, this penny drops with a clang loud enough so even true believers in social engineering hear it. Take the comments of Malaysia’s longest serving (22 years) prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad (sic). To say that he is disillusioned would be an understatement. He went so far to as to tell the Utusan Malaysia newspaper that he had concluded that “Malays are lazy” and that young Malay men “prefer to become Mat Rempit (Malay motorcycle gang Those who receive shares from companies prepared to comply with regulations often sell them as soon as they get them. And, like here, bribery and corruption centres on government tenders and what we call “fronting”.

There is a major snag. To pay for the programme Malaysia needs a growing economy. The question now is whether the global economic slowdown will affect Malaysia’s brave experiment in social engineering.

All in all Malaysia’s social engineering – like India’s – qualifies as another curate’s egg. It still needs proving that it is the better, quicker and more sustainable way of righting historical wrongs. Is it by using laws and regulations, and other people’s (taxpayers’) money, or by making a country so business-friendly that investors will queue up to do it for you, in half the time?

None of the above is to suggest that addressing poverty should not be attempted, but it does suggest that there are quicker and more sustainable ways to do it. It is no secret. There is a choice between winding up like Taiwan or Cuba; a country where everyone has the freedom to improve themselves without bureaucrats constantly policing them; or one where everyone is equal but politicians and bureaucrats are more equal than everyone else.

Keith Bryer is a retired communications consultant.