The myth of radical economic transformation

Radical economic transformation has become a household name within the circles of political oligarchy.

But the concept has lost is actual meaning because it’s used for reasons not related to the upliftment of the economically marginalised.

Rather, it is an attempt to advance individuals’ financial interests, to the disadvantage of the masses.

The rationale behind this euphoria is to raise the expectations of the black electorate in the hope of keeping them under their wing.

The noise about this concept is an attempt to drown the voice of reason, and that of political opposition.

Political hype is not sustainable: it leads to intolerance and intellectual decline. This noise is used to distract the people from questioning malfeasance.

For example, the recent social grants fiasco was manufactured to set up the Constitutional Court Judges against social grant recipients and the populace in general.

Tacitly, Concourt was coerced into a situation where it had no other option but to find a balancing act between legal imperatives and the needs of the vulnerable. Failing to arrive at a pragmatic decision could have led to an explosive situation.

The law is abstract and the layperson might not have a full grasp of its intricacies.

Relevant agencies should take it upon themselves to make the public aware of their constitutional rights (legal, Christian Mbekela political and economic) in a simplified manner.

The struggle for economic emancipation in particular cannot be de-linked from the rights enshrined in the constitution. Social grants recipients should also understand that in one way or another they contribute to the social net reservoir.

The President should stop bragging about social grants provision. Instead, he should table a quantifiable and sustainable blueprint aimed at reversing colonial and apartheid frontiers.

There is an untested view that says, if poverty levels can be reduced, it could have a negative effect on the electoral base of the ANC.

The architects behind the social grants fiasco were consciously aware of the likely outcome should Concourt decide otherwise.

Only sleeping political partners or proxies might be able to shed light on why the country was held to ransom.

“Radical economic transformation” of a special type may have other dimensional connotations. Concourt should expect more surprises of this nature.

A new propaganda has been hatched that the Constitution is a hindrance to transformation, in particular in relation to land reform.

Interestingly, no one has come up with valid evidence as to how the Constitution has inhibited transformation. Valid reasons should precede a structured and inclusive national discourse that would validate the need to temper with aspects of the Constitution. It’s my contention that the Constitution has not been used effectively to effect transformation.

To cite one example, the Constitution is not implicit on the question of expropriation. The latter should be executed in terms of the rules set down.

Populism is not an answer to South Africa's complex questions. Rather, it is good at ushering in a state of anarchy and misery.

Populism benefits kleptocrats, securocrats and henchmen in the plundering of resources. Impunity becomes the order of the day.

Populism ultimately opens the space for the survival of the fittest within framework of the law of the jungle.