tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-39289265966063613522024-03-13T18:13:42.827+02:00The ACDP InsiderPolitical parties are usually something of a black box, spitting out all kinds messages for the media, but leaving the general public wondering just what goes on behind the scenes...Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3928926596606361352.post-61492256998407865372010-09-16T11:18:00.002+02:002010-09-16T11:51:08.496+02:00Neither of EitherTeach a man to fish rather than give him fish. That's the kind of principle I use regularly when I drive up to a red traffic light and wave away the beggar that rocks up to my window with his grubby hands and filthy attire. The light turns green, I engage the accelerator and pull away. I do neither of either.<br /><br />I want to look briefly today at a legitimate concern raised at conservatives, of which I am one. It seems that every time some kind of crisis occurs in the world, small or large, the liberals want to drive in some new legislation, some new safety by-law or some new disaster relief fund. Whenever a new flood occurs in Bangladesh, there are massive cries for emergency funds, without ever questioning why the Bangladeshis seem to never learn from their experiences. The conservative counter to the constant band-aid approach of the liberals is to use catch-phrases like the one I alluded to earlier.<br /><br />The question is: do the conservatives really stick to their suggestion of teaching a man to fish instead of giving him fish? Or do they simply do neither of either? As an example, instead of dishing out millions in aid to Bangladeshi flood victims, is there a group of strategic thinkers drawing up plans to avert future flood disasters, and then presenting these in an aggressive "sort it out now" fashion to the Bangladeshi authorities? Or do the detractors simply carry on living their comfortable Western lifestyles, safe in the knowledge that their cute catch-phrase alleviated them of responsibility?<br /><br />Let's take another look at the culture of education. In Western society, for example, it is considered standard duty for parents to take responsibility of their children up to about 18 years of age. When a child wanders into the road and gets hit by a car, it's not the child who is blamed, but the parent. The child grows up to follow the example set by the parents, and in turn takes care of their offspring. There's a cycle that continues here.<br /><br />Now you might argue that the nurturing behaviour of a parent is purely instinctual and received genetically at birth. I'm not convinced. Either way, why am I bringing this up? Well, by the same logical deduction, you might want to reason that the Bangladeshis should genetically have been born to avert the consequences of their future disasters. If they keep dying from the same floods and don't learn from their experiences, whose fault is it? It's a very interesting point. Let me ask the harsh question because it has to be asked: are they stupid?<br /><br />Perhaps some roleplayers in the Bangladeshi administration are stupid. There are enough stupid administrators in Western bureaucracies not to discount an equivalent in Bangladesh, but there are more issues here. For one, spiritual bondage, such as the spirit of gaya that teaches reverence for a mother earth, instead of the dominion which God gave as a specific instruction to Adam and Eve. Look for example at the Dutch approach to dealing with low-lying land - that's taking dominion of the land. Secondly, I pull back to my earlier point that there is a cycle of education that needs to start turning in a society. At some stage, parents take on a culture of problem solving, and children adopt that culture and perpetrate it themselves.<br /><br />When does that cycle kick off? In my mind many of the disaster recovery programs don't help in this regard, because they seem to prevent the benefactors from being forced to review their situation. Why bother to redress your situation when help from the West is on its way? Now I'm not suggesting that we never help, but as the West we need to recognise when we're helping and when we're keeping the needy locked in a cycle. I remember social workers instructing Cape Town residents not to give money to the beggars on the streets, because you keep them trapped. It's true - desparation is so often the first step towards the cure.<br /><br />While you administer sufficient help, there needs to be a long-term focus on the bigger problem, and more than that, a culture of medium and long term problem solving. There is a cycle of education, and it is taught as much as inherited.<br /><br />But are we doing that? If we have been given knowledge and problem-solving knowledge by our parents and our teachers, do we pass it on? Do we look at the problems, use cute catch-phrases and then get back to the golf course or the pub? Do we acknowledge that one solution is better than the other, but then still do neither of either?Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3928926596606361352.post-59269714458025619562010-08-31T18:38:00.000+02:002010-08-31T19:39:20.897+02:00Strikes: Who Is To Blame?On a typical sunny South African day, a group of citizens don bright coloured clothing with logos and banners in hand and go enjoy some song and dance on the streets of their city. What brings them there and is it work or play? What is the driving factor? Is it a sense of the collective achieving something or is it a desperation with their personal circumstance that drives them here as something of a last chance saloon? Is it a patriotic duty or a distinctively selfish pursuit?<br /><br />Honestly, I can't say. Coming from my white Western background, the whole idea of marching down the street, burning with anger like that is not part of my culture. In fact, I don't like it at all. I don't like the idea of people mouthing off about what the world owes them and how their state of victimisation requires the world to level up the scores without the victims playing a significant part in their own recover. And yes, whites can be equally guilty in this regard.<br /><br />Let me explain briefly where my thinking comes from. A big part of Christianity is personal responsibility for your own decisions. Despite being put under grievous personal circumstances, each person has ownership of the choices they make within those circumstances. It's this kind of thinking that drives the free market system against which these strikers are protesting.<br /><br />Let me explain. When you begin training to be a teacher, do you do it because the paycheque will guarantee a Mercedes Benz and bi-annual holiday to Hawaii and Maldives? Of course not. You know that, I know that. If you want those luxuries, you know you'll need to be a doctor, a CEO, a successful enterpreneur or a Premiership footballer. If you say it's not fair that teachers don't get paid the same as doctors, then you're saying that a 5th division footballer should get paid the same as Lionel Messi. That's absurd. By logical deduction, if you believe the former, you must believe the latter, to the cent.<br /><br />The key is incentive. If you're getting paid R20,000 per month as a street sweeper, why would you put yourself through 7 years of study and exams to become a dentist and smell people's breath the whole day? If teacher's salaries are too low and teachers are being lost to other sectors of the industry, it leads to parents paying higher school fees in order to guarantee a good education, thus re-balancing the game. This is exactly what is happening with private education, and there's no significant reason why the same principle can't work for all.<br /><br />So how did we get here and who's fault is it? It's the ANC's fault! I accept that the government are resisting many of the wage demands and I give them credit for it. In addition, I recognise that strikes are not necessarily a government initiative (is Cosatu government?), and it would appear that this is a case of the people against the government. However, I believe that this kind of militant strike action is the ANC's fault on two parts.<br /><br />Firstly, the ANC have continuously made unrealistic promises. The blacks could have looked at white lifestyles in 1994 and imagined that driving a BMW is a normal life they would have lived had they not been denied by apartheid. The ANC rocked up promising housing, services and jobs as though it was normally a government duty to provide these and not the fruit of personal endeavour. With each new election we have the ANC repeating their service delivery pledges, giving people fish and not teaching them to fish, as the saying goes (and in fact giving them neither much of the time).<br /><br />Secondly, the ANC are particularly proud of their "struggle" past, especially as the spirit of that struggle was not a passive activism in the Gandhi mould, but a militant one enshrined by events like June 16 and Andrew Zondo's supermarket bombing. What you plant is what you sow, and here we see the fruit. Union leaders might distance themselves from stories of rioting, property distruction and shambock-wielding activists, but these fringes are the fruit of the organisations' group-think.<br /><br />You could counter-argue that the ANC is the product of the cultures of the voters, who are now the strikers. That would be a point worth considering and worth debate. In other words, you would be arguing that the ANC is simply a front for the strikers themselves, dissatisfied with their own state of affairs. Basically the voters created a party to create a perfect world for them, and then became angry when the perfect world continues to elude them. Once again, unrealistic expectations.<br /><br />Is there a place in the world for strikes? I would say so. The Bible does warn in several places about the wages of workers and about the rights of the poor and I struggle to see how you can get redress without some form of strong-handedness. The trouble is that the current strike action is chasing a financial platform that isn't warranted. The economy and tax base cannot carry the claims of the strikers, and what they are asking requires sacrifice of other services or the broadening of the tax base, which will reduce incentive for investment and contribute to further job loss.<br /><br />Yes, my approach is hard-line. I believe that the spirit of ubuntu does not always serve the people that it tolerates. Genuine progress does require ubuntu, but in a sense where each pulls their weight to improve the situation, not in demands on a government to cure the victim's problems.<br /><br />The solution is not increased wages and better workplace legislation. The solution lies in the strikers recognising that their lifestyle comfort depends on their personal endeavours. If they want to be paid more, they need to study harder, work harder, change jobs, start their own businesses or be more intelligent with how they spend their money. My mom is a teacher, and she's been doing fine on her paycheque, and that's a product of making quality personal choices.Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3928926596606361352.post-57182553774940427362009-04-02T19:33:00.003+02:002009-04-02T20:01:58.696+02:00Criticism is a Dirty SportI've been perusing Zapiro's cartoons. It felt dirty, like viewing a hideous, twisted soul. To get a better picture, imagine those dark horror movies, or even the all-action blockbusters, where the character development starts and you're given a clear indication of the bad guy. They have certain features that mark them out, a twitch, a limp, lip-licking, shifty eyes or an elitist pet that they stroke. At any rate, they're designed with a feature that makes you feel dirty being around them, as though their mind is so dark that you dare not soften in its presence lest you become corrupted.<br /><br />I paged through Zapiro's latest cartoons, one at a time. Inevitably there are aspects that draw you in - you say to yourself: "Yes, he's so right about Zuma" or "Oh, I understand the shower head he's drawn permanently pertruding from his head". For a while you afford yourself a smile, but the further you go, the more you begin to realise ... this guy doesn't let up. His drawings of Zuma are hideous, everybody gets the sledgehammer, it feels like you're caught in a deathtrap and there's never a softening in his spirit.<br /><br />I didn't write this peace to slate Zapiro, but rather to illustrate what it's like to be a permanent critic. For a long time the DA have worn the opposition party badge and the feeling has been growing stronger and stronger that they believe their only job is to oppose. Too often you listen to the DA in a debate, and while you agree with their criticisms, you stop at the end and try to recall what solutions they had suggested.<br /><br />In truth, the ACDP can also be guilty of being constantly critical. It gets tiresome, and moreover, it becomes depressing. I've experienced those branch meetings where you talk about nothing but the evils that are overtaking us. You come out depressed and you find less energy to return.<br /><br />But what then is the opposite of criticism? Approval? Sometimes. Sometimes you have to summon the extraordinary courage to admire what your enemies have achieved. There are things I admire about the ANC. I respect that they managed to get 66% of the vote - that they could pull together a huge majority spread across 9 different ethnicities. Think about the Rwandan conflicts and you'll understand that kind of significance.<br /><br />There is another alternative ... to provide a viable alternative. In other words, for every "don't", provide a feasible "do". I've talked about "criticism" in a negative vein, but we also talk about "constructive criticism" in a positive way. The one diminishes and the other enhances, at least potentially, depending on how well you receive it.<br /><br />My guess is that the ACDP has been better positioned than the DA to be a critic, because the ACDP's approach has been to measure the ANC up against the Bible. If the Bible says that theft is wrong, then the DA can criticise for the sake of criticism. But by having a reference to work against, the ACDP can say theft is wrong, but also has the manual that provides the solution. The Bible has plenty to say about what good morals look like and what kind of life the righteous lead. Do the DA have a manual they work against?<br /><br />Either way, we have to train ourselves to be solution-minded. People who solve problems become likeable. They also become good candidates to win elections. The ANC won in 1994 because they were the solution to apartheid (at least in the voters' minds), and the ACDP must gear itself to win elections by being the solution to the ANC.Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3928926596606361352.post-47766766298147600572009-03-30T21:39:00.000+02:002009-03-30T21:41:46.369+02:00Wise As Serpents, Tame As DovesA great man once said: "Be wise as serpents and tame as doves." When you put it into practice, you understand how remarkably perceptive it is.<br /><br />To be honest, the ACDP is a meeting point of some potentially divergent views. Some of the views could be regarded as conflicting, but in truth, when you bring them together, they form a more complete picture of the kind of government I believe God expects. Let me explain.<br /><br />Some ACDP members join the party because of its hardline values. End abortion, bring in the death penalty, punish criminals. Others join the party because they believe it cares for the community, that it will all alleviate poverty and help the needy. A study of politics usually finds these two fields of thought on opposite sides of the fence. Not so with the church, and not so with the ACDP.<br /><br />The same Bible that tells us to kick divisive people out of the church, tells us that true religion is feeding the widows and orphans. The same Bible that tells of Annanias and Saphira being struck dead instantly for lying (in the New Testament don't forget) also reminds us that Jesus saved the adulteress who knew her actions would require her life.<br /><br />The truth is both simple and complex. There is a time to be moved by anger over the sin of your country, and there is a time to be moved with compassion as you see the suffering. And very often the two work hand in hand, where the very suffering that moves you is caused by the corruption that angers you. The obvious complexity is to know the time for compassion and the time for wrath, and so often parties like the ANC get both wrong.<br /><br />The end result of the ACDP's melting pot is that we cater remarkably well for both sides of the equation. We are very strong in the area of tough action and we're very strong in the area of compassionate care. Of course our moral stance has never been in doubt, but a brief visit to the ACDP's website will reveal how intensely the party has campaigned to defend the weak, coupled with its continuous emphasis on community projects. It's a rare combination, but then the ACDP is a special party.Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3928926596606361352.post-68443404502918464642009-03-19T19:47:00.003+02:002009-03-19T20:19:47.921+02:00Criminal Proceedings: The Parliamentary HotlistThere's admittedly a lot of fictitious junk mail that goes around, but I did like this one. I'm not sure how accurate these stats are - if they are true then some serious research has been done with access to detail that the general public probably can't see. Either way, there is a lot of truth here, and while some details are possibly exaggerated, no doubt many are guilty.<br /><br />29 have been accused of spousal abuse<br /> 7 have been arrested for fraud<br /> 19 have been accused of writing bad cheques<br /> 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses<br /> 3 have done time for assault<br /> 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit<br /> 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges<br /> 8 have been arrested for shoplifting<br /> 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits<br /> 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year <br /><br />That's 373 in total or approximately 70% of the 535 South African parliamentarians. Nobody in South Africa is perfect, including ACDP politicians, but some are certainly more honest than others. If politicians have a bad name, then look no further for reason.<br /><br />The question is: what do politicians measure themselves up against? Without a moral framework, you could argue that the number of votes you get justifies your actions. Similar excuses might do, but at the ACDP we keep measuring ourselves against the Bible, which has been a worldwide authority on moral values for millenia. We regularly fall short, but at least the standard hasn't moved when we pick ourselves up again.<br /><br />With a liberal party like the DA, the moral fibre of society keeps getting stretched and worn thinner. If it's not abortion, then it's gay marriage. If it's not disarming of parents, then it's disarming of churches. Very often the ACDP is painted as a group of far-right extremists. The truth is that the ACDP has simply held firm to its values, while the non-value-based parties have drifted so far by now that the difference is scary. And if you don't think the DA are that liberal, do your homework.Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3928926596606361352.post-27551098233629887712009-02-16T13:59:00.005+02:002009-02-16T21:51:44.480+02:00"Grant" is a Bad WordMy involvement with the Department of Health has exposed me to many of the shenanigans that circulate through the social welfare circles. The current problem I'm dealing with involves the forgery of documents that show HIV test results. But get this: the perpetrators are trying to prove that they're HIV positive so they can get the grant.<br /><br />My understanding has always been that a grant is meant to serve as a "compensation", but here it clearly works as an "incentive". I was aware of the same problem in Britain, another showcase for handouts. In Scotland, young single women were deliberatly getting pregnant so they could get the single mother grant. The outcome is very much opposite to the intent. I don't doubt the department's good intentions, but they seem to misunderstand human nature.<br /><br />The Basic Income Grant (BIG) is a hot topic ahead of the elections. Parties are going around promising free money for everyone, effectively, and no doubt those promises are worth some votes. The ACDP investigated the BIG and found a very sizeable problem: the cost of administration was the same as the grant itself. Not only that, but the system is open to huge amounts of fraud. In the end the BIG comes back full circle to where it started, because it requires additional tax income (by "creative" means, as the ANC puts it), so the citizens are simply getting back what they paid in, and forking out for a whole lot of lousy administration in-between.<br /><br />Grants are nothing more than a plaster. The economy is in trouble, and while most of the other parties go around promising more band-aids, the ACDP is promising to target the source of the problem itself: a bleeding economy. The ANC Minister of Labour spoke on SABC's Interface about sticking with "tried and tested" formulas used by the current government. It's a pity he stopped in the middle of his sentence - he meant to say "tried, tested and failed". History and research show undeniably that socialist and communist economic policies kill off economies, while the ACDP promises the "tried, tested and successful" principles of free market economy, with deregulation, less bureaucracy and smaller government.<br /><br />I don't doubt that some level of social welfare through grants is necessary, but I argue firstly that the size of grants on offer is counter-productive, and secondly, that you can administer grants in more effective ways. Basically, social welfare works far more effectively when you adopt the mindset of "incentive" rather than "compensation", as I alluded to earlier. In this regard, work-for-food schemes, small business incentives and tax breaks for labour-intensive industry spend less on outflow and gain more in inflow. The object of social welfare is to move its recipient towards self dependency, and I'm sure you share my position that cash handouts fail to do that for the most part. In simple terms, the fear of not having enough to live on drives you to find a job, while earning a grant you can live on creates a crowd of unproductive dependents.<br /><br />In the end, grants are a form of financial enslavement of the people to a bloated, centralist bureaucracy, the king of all "big business". While the throngs have so often voted for parties that offer short term thrills and spills, maybe you've done enough homework to realise that the solution to South Africa's economic woes is less government and more democracy.Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3928926596606361352.post-19430500967002108562009-01-05T22:55:00.002+02:002009-01-05T23:47:47.565+02:00The Struggle for FinanceLack of finance is of course an easy excuse for the ACDP. Whenever we're asked why we don't have a bigger share of the vote or why we aren't more visible, we just whip out the excuse like a foreign language phrase book.<br /><br />The ACDP's struggle for finance has a number of both sound and dubious reasons. There's the obvious reason that the IEC allocation is awarded according to the percentage of votes you receive. While I can't easily see another solution (do you really want to award R5 million to the Soccer Party if all parties get an equal share?) I do also see the benefits of the arrangement. Firstly, the party that does the work to win an election gets its reward. Also, when an opposition party has to work with less for the same election, it provides an impetus - in other words, when they do succeed, you have a hard working party governing your country. Because the reverse is also true, that argument goes out the window! Quite simply, once you're in, you're in - you make money when you have it.<br /><br />That you need money to win an election is undeniable. While credit must go to the ANC for achieving such an impressive 1994 win, gaining votes across a wide span of ethic groups, their preparation lasted over many decades. In the short term, money pays for a lot of things: TV and radio ads, posters, brochures, hire of public venues, transporting voters and rally attendees, petrol costs for canvassing, staff to run offices, telephone campaigning, stationery costs, and more importantly, labour. It's extremely difficult to win an election with staff who have normal jobs and work in their free time - they need salaries to devote themselves full-time.<br /><br />I was once asked the question: if you want to run the country, why aren't you confident enough to raise finances? A powerful question indeed. The reality is that fundraising, especially for something notorious as politics, requires a certain amount of thick skin and a kind of carefree attitude that doesn't mind what people think. That style comes easily to politicians, but not to church folk, and the majority of ACDP members and staff are church folk. It truly is easier to stand up for something you believe in, like pro-life, than to knock on someone's door and shake the tin can.<br /><br />The next big problem is that funding prefers to support a track record, but you can't have a track record until you've been elected. How much of a track record can you build up without funds? And how much zero-cost-based activity can you engage in when you have a job?<br /><br />What I seem to be painting here is a circular problem that keeps coming back to itself. In other words, it looks like a Catch-22 or a dead end, and if you were a hyper-pragmatist or a cynic, you really would have to throw in the towel and leave politics to the dirty guys.<br /><br />Personally, I don't lie down like that, so here's my vision of the way forward with regards to improving the ACDP's finances. Firstly, focus 60% of the party effort on a 2-month fundraising drive. Develop a core marketing package: a presentation that you can deliver in a businessman's office, including an impressive brochure, smart slideshow and clinically rehearsed speech, using your best orators. The ACDP does have enough strong points to get support going, but needs to present it well. Deliver these speeches to about 200 businesses with owners who sympathise with the Christian position. I guarantee this will have success, at least with about 10 businesses.<br /><br />Then set aside 20% of those raised funds to sponsor a business fundraising dinner, where guests are invited to a free meal at a restaurant, where they will be sold the ACDP. The core list of guests will be those who showed interest but did not make a commitment, as well as those who sympathised with the party but did not make time for a presentation. In other words, get the more hesistant supporters in. Take a big offering on the night and sign debit orders.<br /><br />Once again, set aside 20% to repeat this cycle, but in a new location with a different crowd. Also look at a strategy where the same businessmen can return for another free dinner if they bring a paying guest.<br /><br />This cycle has to continue, but another 10% of the raised funds must go to partner maintenance, or in other words, marketing brochures and feedback materials that go back to those who have sponsored the party, including possible free functions.<br /><br />Okay, that's a simple idea which even I could implement. Maybe I should.Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3928926596606361352.post-21408918478501646402008-12-23T13:29:00.004+02:002008-12-23T14:10:08.770+02:00Why Do People Leave the ACDP?The danger of building up any hype around a party like the ACDP is that people's hopes can get dashed when their esteemed leaders don't turn out to be perfection personified as they expected. The ACDP have had prominent office bearers cross the floor to the very parties they fought against in the elections. When it comes time for the next election, it is understandable if some voters feel they've been betrayed once and can never trust again.<br /><br />Before I present our position, let me say that voters should not have unfair expectations. If the Bible says we are all sinners, then that includes ACDP candidates. There are no perfect politicians, preachers or citizens. But some ARE better than others. Not all parties are the same, and some politicians ARE better than others.<br /><br />Some people do leave the ACDP in a huff. Let me explain in my understanding why people leave...<br /><br />Number one, politics is hard work. The ACDP has seen relatively little fruit for its efforts over the years. With each new election there is a lot of hard work involved, and there are pressures throughout the party to perform, and we seldom win a by-election we contest. In other words, you chase the carrot and seldom get it. Who can carry on like that for long, especially when you are supporting the party after-hours and have a family to take care of? Keep in mind that most don't get paid for their efforts either, so contesting an election can be financially draining.<br /><br />Secondly, politics involves strong personalities. You will not survive in parliament if you don't have nerves of steel and can stand your ground. You also need an opinion - what good are you in standing against injustice if you just go with the flow all the time? Bring strong, opinionated people together and you inevitably get conflict. Actually, the ACDP handles this quite well in my opinion.<br /><br />Third, some ACDP candidates fall short of the mark. All our office bearers and executive committee members are screened by a guardian committee of pastors, but it's very difficult to detect all the dirty laundry. When the problems finally start surfacing, there is the inevitable backlash, the blame game, the dirty tricks, the accusations. Like any business, it's never easy to fire somebody, and when they get onto the streets, the general public soaks up their recrimination with eager delight, while the party is keen to honour the Biblical code on gossip and not splash out the details.<br /><br />Then there's the conflict of views. Some don't agree with the death penalty, others don't think the ACDP should be an overtly Christian party. Others feel we aren't Christian enough. And when we lose election, inevitably the guys who disagreed are fully convinced that they were right all along. And off they go and form a splinter party ... and win the national elections immediately. Or not. Somehow the differences in opinion get illuminated when you experience difficulty - this is as true in the ACDP as it is in marriage.<br /><br />And then sometimes the party makes a bad decision. If I avoided that truth, all of the above would be another session of party propaganda. Yes, sometimes people get hard-done-by and they pack up and leave. Sometimes leaders make mistakes, sometimes policies are drawn up without enough understanding, sometimes candidates are given positions they can't handle. It happens. For me personally, I grin and bear it - I can serve the party and the country better by getting on with the job than by throwing my toys and walking out.<br /><br />And lastly, don't forget that the public loves bad news. Newspaper reporters will always illuminate the negative and you're more likely to hear about the dissident than the aspirant. Take what you hear with caution and investigate if you need to.<br /><br />The ACDP have lost a number of people over the years, but the party has stayed strong, continued fighting elections and making a noise in parliament. People come, people go, but some stick around and the challenge for us is always to build the party around the good people and not to get distracted by the flashy new members who will ditch us in a year - a tough challenge indeed.Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3928926596606361352.post-76858680762606882452008-12-18T17:58:00.002+02:002008-12-18T18:27:17.828+02:00The Logic Failure of Gun ControlOne topic that seems to be popping up regularly when we talk with the voting public is the topic of gun control. To be honest, with all the usual noise about abortion, the death penalty, gay marriage and other bedrock issues, I hadn't paid much attention to gun control.<br /><br />My initial reaction to this issue was influenced by the media, and I suspect that many would feel similarly. There has been new emphasis on increased gun control with every spate of high school attacks in America and certainly that publicity starts to filter through your mindset.<br /><br />Imagine saying the opposite. Imagine saying that gun control should be reduced and that every man and his dog be equipped with rifles. The image that crosses my mind, and maybe yours, is one of anarchy, of fierce factions empowered to blow each other away whenever their mood goes bad. Back comes policemen killing their girlfriends and all the other folklore attached to the trigger-happy.<br /><br />Certainly there is a risk that you put guns in the hands of those who don't have the discipline to keep their bullets between the mattresses. The flip side is far worse.<br /><br />The basic premise of gun control is that you can completely eliminate guns. It assumes that at some point in the near future, you can have total control over the population in your country and that no gun can pass hands without the police seeing it, finding it and eliminating it. It also assumes that the police themselves are perfectly trustworthy and as the only bearer of weapons, if at all, you are completely safe in their hands. If you're a South Africa citizen you'll know this is fantasy.<br /><br />Here is the reality. Guns get into South Africa across borders, in undisclosed containers on ships, manufactured in backrooms in leafy suburbs and smoky townships. Locals and foreigners organise syndicates that pull off very lucrative robberies using these weapons. They are illegal, traded with little regard for the laws in place, and the good guys in the police and defense force do not have the resources to control them.<br /><br />Here's the worst part. The government makes a law banning or limiting private firearm ownership, and the citizens most likely to obey the law are the ones least likely to abuse the firearms. The ones most likely to misuse weapons are the ones that are least likely to have their weapons confiscated. And when a murderer walks into a suburban home, ready to steal at any cost, who is the guilty person? Is it the father with a job, his wife of 23 years and his only teenage girl or is it the serial murderer who has killed four already in heists and armed robbery? Who dies now? De-armed by the state, the father is powerless in that moment, the private security companies will never be there in time and the persons who die that day are not the guilty, but the innocent.<br /><br />What if the father had a gun? What if the criminal knew he might have a gun? If the criminal is shot dead by the father, how is that worse or even the same as the father shooting the criminal dead instead of losing his innocent teenage girl?<br /><br />The incredible irony is that personal firearm ownership in South Africa will result in fewer deaths and a safer and more peaceful country. For every policeman that shoots his girlfriend over an argument and for every yearly school shooting in America, I'll remind you of the daily deaths in South Africa that no longer make the newspapers. A world without guns is utopia, a dream most of us would love, but reality indicates that the implementation of gun control in South Africa results in exactly the opposite of what we hoped for.<br /><br />The ACDP supports private firearm ownership, not because we are right wing extremists, but because we want fewer deaths, safer neighbourhoods and families who can rest easy at night. Gun control achieves the opposite.Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3928926596606361352.post-29194234453256037072008-12-09T13:15:00.002+02:002008-12-09T13:40:05.531+02:00"Don't split the opposition"I was pushing brochures in Howick over the weekend, ahead of the Ward 2 by-election on December 10. To be frank, I'm not fond of putting more "junk mail" in people's postboxes, but you cannot ignore this approach if you really want to get your party's voice heard. We have people saying "where have you been?", and we have to take the risk of using annoying marketing techniques if we're to answer that question.<br /><br />Either way, I was ignoring the barking dogs at one box and heard a voice: "Why are you splitting the opposition?" It turned out to be an MP from the DA who was canvassing the same area. We had a "heated" discussion for 15 minutes about everything from the death penalty to the DA's so-called "free vote" on anything moral (a mask for their liberal immorality). What irked him the most was that we were splitting the vote in that ward, increasing the chance of a communist ANC councillor being voted in.<br /><br />The DA love this slogan. Even worse, it seems to work. So I answer it here...<br /><br />Firstly, which opposition? Why are the DA splitting the ACDP opposition? When it comes down to values, standards, a message that appeals across races, and demographic representation, the ACDP are a better party. The DA are simply not the kind of government I would want to live under as a Christian. The DA MP was suggesting we stand down in the by-election, but I would rather his party stood down.<br /><br />Secondly, the ACDP are also splitting the ruling party. This was very true in Howick, where we were intensely canvassing the Zulu area with door-to-door visitation. We were in fact working an area the DA are not strong at, reducing the hold of the ruling party. We've also seen huge growth in Limpopo and Eastern Cape, which are strong ANC areas.<br /><br />Thirdly, how long should the ACDP be standing down? Do we simply keep procrastinating and then stand with a guilty conscience before God when we consider whether we have fought for the unborn, for family values, for safety in our country. The message that the ACDP are not aggressive enough has been heard, and an increase in our marketing aggression includes rivalling opposition like the DA.<br /><br />I do understand the risk of splitting the opposition, and I would choose a DA councillor over an ANC councillor on most days. The simple question is this: how much splitting are we doing? If the ACDP is content to steal a few votes here and there, then the threat of a split is valid. However, if we push the values we know are strong and purposefully take up the call, we can unseat the DA, replacing them and the ANC. That would split the opposition, but do it effectively. In other words, lukewarm is the worst possible position here. The ACDP needs to go big or go home. In Howick, we went big - the results will be interesting and I'll keep you posted.Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3928926596606361352.post-45297337630460471302008-11-27T13:26:00.003+02:002008-11-27T13:41:53.911+02:00"My vote won't make a difference"Entirely true and entirely false. The truth of this statement is purely down to statistics, and the failure of this statement is likewise also down to statistics.<br /><br />Joe Smith makes the statement and decides not to vote. His vote is one in 15 million and quite obviously doesn't make a difference. His neighbour does the same - no sweat. The other neighbours also don't vote, and neither does the entire next street. In fact, the whole neighborhood doesn't vote, and neither does the rest of the city, or the province for that matter.<br /><br />I hear you say: don't be ridiculous! Well, at the last elections, 40% of South Africa didn't vote, which I would guess is the population of two provinces combined. The ANC won about 66% of the vote, but would only have had 38% if the non-voters had voted against the ANC. What this indicates is that when you don't vote, you're actually voting <span style="font-style: italic;">FOR</span> the ANC.<br /><br />Ludicrous as it sounds, here is how this works. There are 10 votes available - 5 will vote ANC, 2 DA, 2 ACDP and 1 IFP. ANC would get 50% of the vote. One ACDP voter decides not to vote, so the ANC gets 5 of 9 now, which is 56% of the vote. By not voting because "his vote wouldn't make a difference", he has actually boosted the ANC from 50% to 56%, decisively acting in their favour.<br /><br />Okay, so Joe Smith is one person. There happen to be several million Joe Smith's, and at this point we ask: how do we get that forty percent that Joe Smith makes up to now vote for a good party like the ACDP? I can think of no better answer than: one at a time, starting with Joe Smith ... and you?Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3928926596606361352.post-65764849624877372432008-11-19T12:45:00.003+02:002008-11-19T13:09:09.520+02:00DA: No Place for Black(s)?I personally don't want to be caught up in silly digs at others, but I must say I was a little humoured when seeing the new DA logo. I applaud the party for wanting to freshen up their image and I thought they had a reasonably good new website - at least it looks fresh and in-your-face.<br /><br />Here's the deal: the new logo makes a deliberate point of including several colours and even looks like it resembles the SA flag in the streams. So I was looking at it and suddenly realised there was no black! This is an incredibly irony, since the DA's primary problem has been to shake off its image as the white party. I don't mean to disparage the non-whites who have joined the DA, but it's no secret that the DA are not demographically reflective of the South African population.<br /><br />Personally I think the previous logo was miles better, more distinctive in its colouring and design, and easy to recognise. The current logo is incredibly generic. It seems there was a deliberate attempt to mimic the Obama logo, which is reasonable, but the Obama logo also stood out far more. If the Obama logo's red, white and blue was a match on the US flag, why is the DA logo not a match on the SA flag?<br /><br />Talking about parties and demographics, can you name a party in South Africa that has a better race mix than the ACDP? While parties like the ANC, IFP, DA, MF and VF seem closely matched to some kind of ethnicity, the ACDP draws its principles from the Bible, a foundation recognised by all race groups. While my allegiance to a party like the IFP is more likely to rest on my esteem of the Zulu culture, my support for the ACDP is based on Christian principle, hence the ACDP's non-racial appeal, and why it is so well positioned to become South Africa's party of choice for all race groups ... well except for racists.Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3928926596606361352.post-15804255105596252742008-10-20T13:59:00.005+02:002008-10-20T20:43:45.188+02:00Laying Hansie To RestI'm one of those "big picture" types - when I watch a movie, I try to pull out the bigger threads, rather than getting worked up by small details. When I go to the cinema to watch a movie like "Hansie", my nature is to ask the big questions. Why did they make the movie? Was there going to be enough material in Hansie's life to write a script that worked? Should we be revisiting Hansie's life anyway?<br /><br />While I felt there was an intention to weave good messages through the plot, my overall impression was that the film served more as an obituary for a character who was undoubtedly loved. I was hoping that the movie would also capture some of that passion we've all had for South African sport, and from a sporting point of view, I thought they captured the pain of that 99 semi-final loss reasonably well. The movie was technically reasonably well done, although I feel that the story was not crafted well enough to draw in an audience beyond those who did know Hansie's story already.<br /><br />Back to the bigger picture. I feel there are two points relevant from the movie. The question was asked: should Hansie's name be removed from the Greys College honours boards? My thought was: leave it there to serve as a reminder that we can all fall. Many of us have done worse than take money from bookies, and yet our positions have not been exposed to the national media. All of us have fallen in some way at least, and while I am not suggesting we turn a blind eye to the failures of our leaders, I do suggest that each of us take a view of our own lives and ask whether our own books would balance if we were held up to the same public light.<br /><br />The second thread of interest regards the challenge of being at the top. So much is made of being in the spotlight, being the captain, being the hero, being the president of a country. In truth, when you get to that level, you're exposed to a whole set of pressures, challenges and disappointments you hadn't anticipated. What keeps you grounded? What prevents you from falling prey to the temptations of riches, women and power? And just as importantly, what unswaying standard can you measure yourself against so you stay oriented?<br /><br />It's interesting to note that Hansie was a Christian, and we have to ask: how could a Christian do such things? The answer is simple: God's Word has no value until you apply it. While a Christian still walks under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, God does not remove our freedom of choice and we can still choose to sin if we wish.<br /><br />It is for this reason that the ACDP holds up the Bible as the answer for this country. As in Hansie's case, simply being a Christian does not necessarily imply that you will provide good governance or good direction for a country. It is only in the application of God's principles that we will see this country come right. For those of you who support Christians working in other parties like the DA or ANC, ask yourself whether their Christian influence will actually translate into the application of Christian principles rather than simple verbal adherence.Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3928926596606361352.post-77628275807829413972008-10-13T13:22:00.002+02:002008-10-13T14:33:29.514+02:00Is an ANC Split Good News?Undoubtedly it's fascinating to watch the South African political soap opera right now. Certainly the shake up has been the fresh ingredient that we've needed for some years, even if it serves to give the public a fresh view on where we are as a country and where we need to be.<br /><br />In my opinion, the ANC's troubles are simple: their 1994 promises were extravagant and misleading, suggesting a kind of growth that was never going to be possible, let alone using the flawed socialist tactics employed. The ANC now walks under that repercussion, and not only them but every other scapegoat available, whether foreigners or sporting emblems. That a party that seemed so strong in one moment could be so fiercely divided is a remarkable turn of events.<br /><br />Without much thinking, it would seem that both South Africa and the ACDP would welcome a split. The reasons are numerous. First of all, it would break some of the ANC's momentum in building one-party government. Despite their "consultation" propaganda, the experience of ACDP councillors, MP's and MPL's is that the ANC steamrolls legislation through the various councils and blissfully ignores the comments and contributions of the other parties. Without their two-thirds majority, the ANC would have to engage in an unprecedented amount of dialogue, consultation and compromise with the other parties, leading to more balanced legislation that does indeed reflect the country's views more accurately (which it certainly doesn't now). Voters who had normally marked an ANC box without thought may now have to pay more attention to what their party stands for.<br /><br />A split would have huge ramifications for the ANC's once stable financial base. My suspicion is that many of the "old school" BEE benefactors would stick with the "old school", namely Mbeki and his cohorts. This wouldn't solve the ACDP's constant quest for investment, but it might limit the ANC's ability to churn out large events with t-shirts for everyone.<br /><br />That is only half the story. How will the ANC handle this kind of conflict? Will we see unprecedented hostility in parliament, such as that being seen in Zimbabwe? How far away could we be from seeing Malema's words put to work? In fact, if you think the ANC has a problem with slow delivery now, imagine if they have to turn their attention to actually compete for an election. As an example, the US elections steal huge amounts of time, investment and effort from actually getting the job done. In some senses the ACDP would rather that the ANC falls asleep at election time.<br /><br />Of interest in the ANC's disquiet is a possible return to a sense of tribalism, something that they seemed to have steered clear of for so long. Perhaps the ACDP's multiracial support and leadership will stand out more clearly if the ANC walks down this road?<br /><br />I must admit that a possible split does not cast fear into me. Our democracy is some 14 years old, and the fact the ANC has been willing to induct change is good news (think Mugabe). While attention-seekers like Malema can make disturbing comments, perhaps our structures are strong enough for now to withstand that kind of flexing. At this point I do hope the split goes ahead, but as ever, let's keep our eyes open and watch the signs.Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3928926596606361352.post-19225467198746836332008-10-09T14:35:00.000+02:002008-10-09T14:51:13.190+02:00Blue Movies: Your Voice Can Make a DifferenceIf you've got any sense of morality, your nose will be turned at the sight of stores like Adult World and Hustler, where adult material is flogged to the public. I was almost equally dissatisfied at the display of blue movies in the local video shop I frequent. They were originally displayed along the top shelf, but later stacked up on a shelf in the corner where they would be less obvious to the casual customer.<br /><br />I developed a good friendship with the video shop owner, and one day got around to casually mentioning my displeasure at the availability of these DVD's. I had assumed shops like these kept them because they represented valuable income. I was wrong. It turns out some customers would walk in demanding hot movie action and the female staff did not have the physical presence or courage to resist that kind of intimidation.<br /><br />A month later I was back at the shop and the owner proudly pointed out to me that the movies were gone - my mild objection had paid dividends. It's not the first time I've had success after complaining about unsuitable material, as my Mr Price experience points out, and it won't be the last. I guess some people get action by storming in and demanding an instant response, but I had just as much success by being respectful and coming across as a level-headed individual with family interests at heart, rather than a right-wing fundamentalist (which I probably am anyway).<br /><br />Obviously there's been a lot of research done on the repercussions of watching adult material through videos and computer games, and I don't have much in the way of stats to offer from these findings. I can say though that it doesn't take much common sense to realise that watching blue movies does lend itself to taking another step. Visual material is a yard away from physical interaction, leading to affairs in marriage or pre-marital trouble for bachelors (attached with unexpected children). We talk glibly about family values in the Christian world and in the ACDP, but we do so because the Biblical pattern for relationships is full-stop better than what's out there at the moment. If you disagree, let's talk.Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3928926596606361352.post-61798470015620131532008-09-11T08:38:00.004+02:002008-09-11T08:54:56.265+02:00Remember the Excitement of New DevelopmentMy pleasant 5-minute drive to work takes me past the botanical gardens every morning. This morning I spotted a new sign that confirms the changes that the gardens have been undergoing for a few months now. There's a signboard from the Dept of Environmental Affairs advertising an upgrade of the facilities at the gardens, which like most facilities of its type, could really use an injection of support.<br /><br />At this point I find it way too easy to fall into the usual pattern of thinking, imagining misallocation of funds, discriminatory tender selection, bureaucracy, backhand bribes, etcetera. Then I remembered that sense of excitement I used to feel when I was young and saw new development on the go.<br /><br />I'm sure I speak for most of the white population in South Africa when I say that we need to give our scepticism a break sometimes. I recall the recent statements from the ANC that the whites "want the 2010 World Cup to fail". I'm not sure it's a case of "want", but rather "expect". Even so, I'm as much in danger of allowing all that scepticism to replace the fact that our country will host one of the world's two biggest sporting events. After the corruption that saw Germany steal the hosting rights from us, we've finally got our chance. While I will probably always view the ANC with justified concern, if the present government can pull it off, then hats off to them.<br /><br />When 2010 comes around, we will have a glistening set of new stadiums, staging a world event on one of the best international stages. We might not have a team to compete, but there will be plenty of competition, foreign accents, local enthusiasm and world attention. It would be a mistake to miss out on the festivity, and for once I intend to remember the enthusiasm that has been the sole domain of children for far too long.Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3928926596606361352.post-91216606288588035682008-09-02T17:54:00.003+02:002008-09-02T18:56:11.811+02:00Why We Reject Legalised ProstitutionHaving just seen a billboard headline for the Natal Witness that suggests we should possibly legalise abortion, it's perhaps a good time simply to set out the main points of our considerable dislike for prostitution. This is of course a growing issue with the suggestion of red light zones for the World Cup, particularly in Durban.<br /><br />First up, while the ACDP does base its policies in Biblical principle, we do believe that each of these policies is plausible in their own right. We believe in a God who has good plans for our lives and who sees at a level higher than we do. Where a policy of His seems to run against contemporary thinking (especially a set of thinking espoused by the athiests), we are confident that a little further analysis will show God's policy to be the best, without exception.<br /><br />First of all, prostitution runs completely against good family values. We believe that healthy citizens are best raised in a stable home, with parents of the opposite sex who love each other and remain in loyal covenant. It doesn't take a scientist to realise that visiting a prostitute would create a serious wedge in a marriage that would harm the trust between a couple, with that tension feeding through to the children.<br /><br />Prostitution fosters a culture of sleeping around that heads in the opposite direction of a healthy family structure. It undermines the notion of stable family and it potentially leads to unplanned pregnancy, where children grow up with the knowledge that they were an "accident". Furthermore, it places emphasis primarily on the physical and away from the value of the soul, emotions and personality of a person.<br /><br />It can lead to significant health problems, notably the spread of AIDS and STD's.<br /><br />Prostitution has a strong association with crime and with cultures where drug-use thrives. Among those who become prostitutes, many have done so owing to other societal failures, including drug use, living on the street and human trafficking. Legalisation of prostitution is a failure to deal with the source of the problem, and is in its own way an endorsement of the state of society, rather than attempt to remedy the situation.<br /><br />Prostitution generally harms the identity of the prostitute. As we regard intercourse as a special bond between a loyal couple, the prostitute has customers partake of this intimacy with no intention of giving anything but money. There is very little reciprocal love and commitment involved, and research shows undeniably that the restoration of a sense of appreciation in a prostitute's life is a slow and difficult process.<br /><br />Those arguing that prostitution be legalised in order to regulate it need only look at the state of the abortion industry, which is hugely out of control.<br /><br />As a last thought, some would say we are showing no love for people by preventing them from persuing their natural desires. Given the very serious repercussions of prostitution, how can you possibly say you love a prostitute when you choose not to try lead them away from a life that will destroy them? Equally, those who believe that prostitution is a serious career path truly need to have their hope in the beauty of life restored.Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3928926596606361352.post-71006629357468689442008-08-29T09:37:00.005+02:002008-08-29T14:23:34.982+02:00Regulate Pharmaceutical Prices?If you glance casually through the black books of the globalisation watchdogs, you'll never find global pharmaceuticals far away from the "worst of the worst" list. In every campaign, some get targeted more than others, and here it's the Pfizers, Johnson & Johnsons and company that bear the major brunt of the attack.<br /><br />The concerns are fully understandable. We have volumes of sickness with a ready cure, and by virtue of a patent they earned through research and development, a pharmaceutical powerhouse has full control to set whatever price they like, regardless of what their customer can afford. That, at least, is how the matter is viewed by the antagonists.<br /><br />While I am a strong proponent of the free market system, to deny that I feel a little queezy about the setup would be clear indication that my heart was replaced by a biomechanical pump at a young age, probably one with a pharmaceutical logo on it! Nevertheless, we have to look at the implications of taking action on this matter.<br /><br />My interest in this matter was perked by speaking at length to a senior official in the KZN Dept of Health (DOH) yesterday. Working in the hospitals as a pharmacist for years, he now serves as a supervisor in the province and monitors the purchase, provision and use of the medicines that the department uses. There is an obvious bias to sourcing locally, one I support, but more rare drugs as well as uniquely patented ones are sourced from international firms.<br /><br />As an aside, I should mention that in some cases, contracts are given to BEE firms who source from Indonesia and Malaysia rather than to white-owned firms in South Africa. How crazy is that? In fact, how corrupt is that?!<br /><br />That aside, what has emerged is of grave consequence. The DOH has a special list of high priority drugs that are critical to operations. But there are no industries willing to produce them. Why? They can't make any money off them - the government sets the price too low and there's no interest from the private sector. This is a critical situation!<br /><br />What happens is that these firms now switch to the private sector, scale down their operations (government is the major buyer in the market), and when the government has a shortage and needs supplies, the firms can only promise a tenth of what is needed. The government is now either stuck, or has to switch to paying high market prices to overseas suppliers.<br /><br />Let me say right here that what is occurring here is indeed free market trade, and the government is not in contravention of that. DOH is simply a buyer and the manufacturers are the suppliers, and the free market system involves the constant play-off between the two, which usually results in some kind of equilibrium.<br /><br />So who buckles at this point? There are sections of activists suggesting we force a price on the manufacturers. If the price is below production costs then this is clearly unfeasible. If the profits are huge, and the market is open (ie. government hasn't regulated it!), new entrants will come in because the opportunity is so good, undercut the others in order to get contracts and sales and force the price down.<br /><br />There are three scenarios left. Firstly, the profits may be insufficient to entice new suppliers. There is no problem here really then. Secondly, the startup costs may be too steep in terms of technology, skills required and basic financial outlay. Frankly, in my view if the market is that good, then some big competitor will come in with the necessary funds - the open entry principle is important again. It's fascinating in this example that you could even have multi-national corporations coming in from the outside to compete with other multi-nationals and force the price down.<br /><br />The last scenario is where a patent allows one company to have complete dominance and set unfair prices. I'm fascinated to know how often this occurs in practice. I'll be honest and say I'm not really sure on this one. What if there is only ever one cure for AIDS and some company finds it, patents it and has subsequent monopoly control? The first question is: can there ever be only one cure? Secondly, would they have developed the cure without the incentive? (That's meant to be an open question, not a rhetoric one)<br /><br />My general take is that in practice, free market works better than regulation, so if in doubt, stick with free market. I personally don't feel that we're at the point of needing to intervene, but we do have a role to play in giving feedback to the companies. To show a headline like "Pfizer charging way too much for medicine" can cause people to stop buying other general Pfizer products, causing them to rethink their strategy. The simple act of protesting without regulating is fine, because it gives consumers the freedom to make an informed choice, and informed choice is what makes the free market tick.Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3928926596606361352.post-15925398125999788542008-08-18T14:35:00.002+02:002008-08-19T12:47:10.231+02:00The Perfect Politician: Future Career PathThere are plenty of good politicians out there. They're running around as production managers in industry, manning hospitals, producing albums and living out ordinary lives. Frankly, who wants to be involved in politics? All the evidence seems to indicate that if you want to achieve anything useful in the political realm, you have to play the usual game of trickery, subtle lies, back-stabbing and support mongering. It seems that politics is caught in a self-destructive cycle: there are no good politicians, because the politics game is so dirty, because there are no good politicans.<br /><br />It's time for a fresh image, for the dream, for the ideal. It's time for the ACDP to present the fresh image of the "Perfect Politician". It's time to get back to the good young people and present the community leader that all the good folk look to for protection, for a smooth running city and for integrity in a dark world. There are people who are ready to play that role, but they need to be put in the right support structure so they don't walk that path alone and find themselves "losing the faith" as so many good aspirants do when they enter the political realm.<br /><br />Truth be told, much of politics is tedious. Winning the vote is hard work, especially when you know that you're unlikely to win it without extravagant promises and bold proclamations. And let's face it, you can work hard and not even get into the media, so people may never know about you. When you get into the role, the public spare nothing in criticising whenever something goes wrong, regardless of the good you've done. You're expected to do the right thing, it's taken for granted and goes unnoticed and unappreciated. And the dirty guys are waiting for your smallest slip-up to use in their next campaign.<br /><br />There are rewards of course. The fame, prestige and attention comes aplenty. Salaries are decent - better than what most receive, but not as much as a skilled professional might get (you'll earn between R8000 and R14000 as a counsellor in KZN). Even better, you get to play a role where you do really impact on the lives of many people. You plan city layouts, you put protections mechanisms in place, you decide on rates, bylaws and regulations. Your work touches a lot of people.<br /><br />I guess the sense of power is what draws a dangerous crowd to the arena, but rather than play modest and back off, which is the tendency sometimes among the good, there is a need for people who will step into the arena and not shy away from the bright lights. For this very reason, we need to begin proactively targeting young people with potential again, and not wait for them to come to us. I would rather have a bright spark working in government than ticking over somewhere in a highly paid position in some multi-national corporation.<br /><br />The key to roping in the next generation is to start afresh and renew the image: what is a perfect politician? Let's get this train back on the rails of idealism. While reality sometimes requires a slight shift away from the ideals, we sure have veered a long way off and can go some distance to restoring the dream.Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3928926596606361352.post-14992570817441034362008-08-13T09:42:00.002+02:002008-08-13T16:03:20.642+02:00Separation of Church and State?Before anyone can ever begin this tense debate, you have to define what you mean by "separation of church and state". We often bring contradicting images to this topic and tend to argue the same points without realising it.<br /><br />There are probably two main understandings here. This separation to some means that the church structure should not be entrenched in government in the way it was in the middle ages. To others, religion should not be involved in government. If you have a third view I'd also love to hear it.<br /><br />It would be difficult to argue for a specific church structure to become the defacto for a country. I've grown up in the church and have a fair grasp of church history, and I've seen enough to know that church leaders are fallible and that a church denomination can get way ahead of itself. The wonder of Christianity is not the church, although the church should be a reflection of what's good about God. When the angle of the mirror changes, it stops reflecting the good aspects of God and begins reflecting the depravity of man, with its power struggles, selfishness, dishonesty and all the other aspects I'm sure you can easily fill in. History has shown that the influence and effectiveness of different denominations can shift and some have fallen away as they drifted away from God, while others have strengthened as pioneers within them have steered them back to their Christian roots. This "free market" principle should not be overridden by the state.<br /><br />Religious involvement is an entirely different matter. Let me put across my view in a series of questions. Are ethics involved in government? Do government decisions have relevance to society's ethical views? Undoubtedly. You only need to look at several of the hot issues like abortion, corporal punishment, the justice system, gay marriage and pornography, and realise that there is no way a government can avoid a ruling that upsets at least one party. There is no passive position that can avoid these issues altogether.<br /><br />The second question is: is there a universal set of moral values? In other words, if a religion is pushing for a set of ethically-based legislation, are they infringing on some kind of universal moral code? Imagine that a religion is wrong for wanting to ban gay marriage - an approach that avoids religion might say that's imposing on individual freedom. But if you take that approach, then you can't say underage pornography or rape is wrong. If you're taking active legislation to ban these, then you're taking an ethical standpoint. Where did those ethics come from? Why can't business operate in a devious manner? And when you explore ethics, you'll find quickly that opinions are indeed divided on a wide range of topics.<br /><br />Given that a government cannot decide on certain ethics-related legislation in a way that pleases everyone, who decides which side to take? Why are the non-religious lobbies automatically right and the church groups automatically wrong? Frankly, both should have a chance to have their input, and we use the democratic process to facilitate that.<br /><br />At the ACDP we have full respect for the democratic process and we have no intention of making laws that require everyone to be a Christian (like they had in the middle ages). We do however have ethical beliefs, just like the non-religious groups do, and we believe our beliefs produce a better society for all. If those beliefs happen to be grounded in the Christian faith, that's no reason for them not to be considered. If we want unborn babies to have their lives protected, well that's worth legislating. If it takes religious involvement to stand up for the unborn, then it's about time the religious got involved.Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3928926596606361352.post-92141325560956452222008-08-05T09:11:00.002+02:002008-08-05T09:22:35.149+02:00A Prayer for the Zuma CaseThe best time to pray is always now...<br /><br />Father God, we pray for this pivotal case in South Africa's future, where Jacob Zuma goes on trial for alleged offences. We understand the tensions between different worldviews, the chance of dashed hopes either way, of hopes and aspirations hanging on either side of this verdict.<br /><br />Above all, we pray for truth and justice, that even as each of us stand accountable before You, may each of us stand accountable before the law. May the outcome of this case be fair and just in the minds of all and may the case be presented in a such a way that the arguments for and against, along with the presentation of the facts, be clear so that all can understand. If there are hidden agendas or details that could unfairly sway the result, may they be brought to light.<br /><br />May this be a time when the judges are inspired by a sense of purpose. We pray that they think beyond personal prejudice, either way, and see the picture in its fullness with clarity, conviction and resolution. May they hear the cries of the good people in South Africa and may they march forward on that expectation, leaning on it and fulfilling it. We also pray for their protection during and after the trial.<br /><br />May Jacob Zuma know his position in this trial. If he is not guilty of the charges, may he have the presence of mind to present his case. If he is guilty, may he have the courage to lead this country in the right direction by being humble and acknowledging his error. Either way, may he be a better leader by the end of it, with a greater sense of where he stands in relation to You.<br /><br />Finally, may the outcome and announcements be met without violence or undue remonstration. May the proceedings be conducted in respect and may we all walk away with a sense that no one is greater than the law, let alone Your law.<br /><br />Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Amen.Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3928926596606361352.post-39999312559948357332008-07-28T13:56:00.003+02:002008-07-28T22:31:51.903+02:00Can Christians Be Politicians?We thrashed out a number of election strategies for the ACDP over the weekend, with a teamwork and strategy workshop for the KZN provincial executive councils (PEC's). It was a productive weekend where we highlighted a wide set of areas we can work on in the party, including more affirmation of those who are doing a good but unseen job, and more in-depth discussion on emotionally sensitive topics.<br /><br />One very interesting view was the apparent clash of Christian values and political strategy. For instance, should we be blowing our own trumpet? The Bible seems fairly clear in suggesting that "the right hand should not know what the left is doing", but if you work hard behind the scenes, will people vote for you? When we were manning an ACDP stall at Pietermaritzburg's Royal Show, we had people coming and saying: where have you been all these years? What!? We've been working hard, running our administration, planning for the elections, etc, etc. But it hasn't been visible.<br /><br />In the same way, we've had to admit that if you want to get into the media, you have to be controversial. You have to grab the headlines with outrageous statements and actions that grab people's attention. It seems like a nice, well-rounded media release that makes perfect sense is not good enough - you have to exaggerate, use strong words and be "larger than life".<br /><br />This has led to the suggestion that we should be leaving our Christian principles in church and walk a different talk in the political realm. I beg to differ.<br /><br />The political arena is notorious: it attracts powermongers and thieves and it quite rightly aggravates the public. Not only that, but the worldwide voting audience are instinctively critical, and no administration passes unscathed beneath the vengeful eyes of a public who will remember your one failure more than your ten successes. This forces political parties to take a short term view and to make promises that will win an election rather than preserve long-term good. Frankly, the word "politician" has quite rightly earned the personal application of a cattle branding iron across one's forehead.<br /><br />I believe that Christian values are <span style="font-style: italic;">exactly </span>what are needed to transform politics. Honesty means telling the public what they need to hear and not what pleases them. Personal responsibility means acknowledging failure instead of pouring out weak excuses that further discredit yourself among the discerners. Fear of God is what keeps you on the straight and narrow when nobody is watching. To suggest that we shed aspects of good Christianity along the way is what will rob us from being the very solution that our country needs.<br /><br />Having said that, politics does give us the opportunity to re-evaluate church practices. For instance, to say that prayer is the answer for everything might be seen as a Christian principle, but the Bible imparts personal responsibility for action in addition to prayer (see the book of James). Perhaps if we look more closely at the Bible, we'll find that all the qualities needed to win an election are well prescribed. Perhaps we just need to work harder, improve our strategies, stop blaming our failures on our Christianity and do exactly what the Bible recommends: step out in faith ... and prayer helps too!Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3928926596606361352.post-36045539663662220972008-07-16T12:24:00.003+02:002008-07-16T13:19:49.532+02:00It's Time to Pray: Get the Prayer NewsletterBecause the ACDP is very much a Christian party, we do believe strongly in the importance of prayer and we believe that our prayers do make a difference with things that are seen and unseen. And like most churches, we know that we need to pray even more than what we do.<br /><br />In my role as the prayer coordinator for KZN, we are setting up a number of prayer meetings around the province. It helps that the ACDP is something of a neutral agent that can help to bring churches together across the denominations, and we all share the same desire: to see our country come right and set on the right path.<br /><br />If you're interested, I coordinate a monthly email prayer newsletter which highlights important prayer matters. Additionally, our involvement in the key decision making processes of the country gives us "inside info" into urgent prayer needs like bills that are about to be passed through.<br /><br />If you would to receive this prayer letter, send a request to <span style="font-weight: bold;">ericsavage@gmail.com</span>. Also, if you would like to assist in organising regional prayer functions, even just for your area, please contact me as well. Thanks.Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3928926596606361352.post-61789024507116069802008-07-15T13:17:00.003+02:002008-07-15T16:14:05.314+02:00Eskom Report Confirms Failure of BEEIndependent Online published the findings of a new Eskom report investigating the reasons for Eskom's failures. Of course with any such report you have to ask yourself on what authority the reasoning is done. Just because a recommendation is made or blame is laid doesn't somehow stamp finality on it. We still need to examine the logic used and the evidence presented.<br /><br />BEE is a hot issue, and my experiences with blogs that discuss these topics has shown that the discussion can get distinctly race-based. While an unfortunate side effect of apartheid is that we're still tolerating race-based legislation, for one group to want zero bias when they had benefited from previous bias leaves you sitting uncomfortably.<br /><br />Frankly, we're all well aware that apartheid prejudiced the development of certain race groups and that there is a backlog to make up - what really sets the views apart is how we move forward from here.<br /><br />The key issue I want to address here is skills development - the very crux of BEE, its engine room. And here is exactly where BEE has failed. While BEE has been used to enrich some black sections of the population, that really is the sideshow. The idea was that giving someone an important role, ahead of schedule, would give them the opportunity to grow into that role and learn a skill needed for that role. Now how do you learn that skill? Where do you get it from and who teaches it to you?<br /><br />There are three main forms of skills acquisition in industry: study for a degree or diploma, do personal research through books or internet surfing, or learn skills in apprenticeship. When I say "apprenticeship", I refer to any role where you work under someone for a while and then take over when you are ready. If you have any business or industry experience, you'll know that this is probably the leading form of skills development. And yet, that system is bypassed by BEE.<br /><br />There are two results of the BEE system. Firstly, the ones who need to learn the skills are in authority over the ones they need to learn the skills from. But who ever wants to learn from a junior? It rarely works in practice. Secondly, those who do have the skills and have now been shunted pack up their bags and leave, and take their skills with them - there is no transfer. Eskom will testify that this has happened, and several departments like Public Works are experiencing exactly the same.<br /><br />The end result is huge. Very little skills development results in badly run business, failed projects and bankruptcy. BEE benefactors are placed in senior positions, companies struggle, and the very people that should have been enriched are now in failing operations and bearing the brunt of criticism.<br /><br />Let's paint a different scenario. Those without skills go through the proper apprenticeship process and when they are ready they are promoted and get a good new salary. The business stays strong. The former BEE benefactors do get the promotion, in the longer term, and when they do, they carry out their function in a sustainable business.<br /><br />Simply put, BEE is short term and apprenticeship is there for the long term. No surprise then that BEE has benefitted a few but leaves the majority short. For this reason, the ACDP believes it is time for the sunset clause on BEE, so that the very objectives of BEE can be attained: skills development, leading to long-term, sustainable wealth. The 10 year turnaround that the ANC envisaged was never realistic and it's time to recognise that the South African skills problem needs a longer term solution that promises less and achieves more.<br /><br />The IOL report can be read at: <a href="http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20080715120929767C145654">http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20080715120929767C145654</a>Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3928926596606361352.post-70796455160693461122008-06-20T09:53:00.003+02:002008-06-20T10:47:38.872+02:00Time to Get Your Hopes UpHope is a fragile thing these days in South Africa. Can you dare to hope?<br /><br />Scores have left these shores to craft their lives overseas because their hopes in the future of South Africa had diminished to the point where they could not see a decent lifestyle for themselves or their children in the future. Those that have remained try hard to hope, certainly I do, but every now and then on a rainy day our grasp on the dream seems to weaken.<br /><br />It's difficult to bring yourself to the point of saying: that's it, this country is doomed and there's nothing we can do. We talk easily of being the next Zimbabwe, but I'd say most of us still cherish a little bit of hope that South Africa might still come out okay.<br /><br />The problem comes here: do you take risks? Do you buy a house which will take 20 years to pay off? Do you start a multi-million rand business? Do you invest in a pension plan? Do you do anything that could be jeopardised if things went haywire in 15 years time?<br /><br />The problem is ... the very decision to hedge your bets is what accelerates the downfall. When the good guys keep battling away, the country manages to keep ticking over. To stop trying because you believe there is no hope becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.<br /><br />The simple truth is that an effective country and economy depends on the many individuals each playing their part. It doesn't depend ultimately on a government, although government can certainly have a huge influence. South Africa's long-term failure would be partly down to government failure, but it would also be down to those who decided to stop trying.<br /><br />This is a memo to self: get your spirit up regardless of your circumstances, take managed risks, dare to dream, step out and do what needs to be done, hope eternally.Eric Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05302707658663831481noreply@blogger.com0