Neither of Either

Teach 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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Criticism is a Dirty Sport

I'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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Immediate Solutions to the Power Crisis

The natural reaction to South Africa's power crisis has been the blame game. Who's fault is it? Why was nothing done? How long is it going to go on for?

What is really called for in times like this is a solution mentality. It's time for all of us to sit down and find a way ahead, to get ourselves out of that "blame" rut and change gears. Here, to kick off, is a set of solutions to consider for this crisis.

No doubt there needs to be some action at Eskom headquarters, and I won't say much here. We need to keep in mind that most of the power supply expansions will take several years to implement - this is not bureaucracy, but complex technical challenges. Nuclear power stations don't get built overnight. In my mind, wind turbines seem to be the "quickest route to market", but the Western Cape seacoast is possibly the only reasonable location and that area would need to be linked to the power grid. Wind farms have a limited contribution and are very expensive.

Leaving Eskom for the moment, there are several contingency plans. At a basic level, load shedding schedules HAVE to be communicated effectively and stuck to. To some degree we can all manage with some load scheduling when we know it will happen. Industry can reschedule shifts; ordinary citizens can plan social time instead of TV.

The simple truth is that nearly every household in South Africa can cut its power usage by 30% and nearly every industry by 5-10%. This is not the idyllic lifestyle, but you'd rather have continuous power than what we have now. In households, a key strategy revolves around geysers. Firstly, most geysers can be turned off for half the day. If you as a family bath/shower at night, you set the timer to go at 10pm and turn the geyser back on at 3pm in the afternoon. Secondly, geysers and hot water pipes can be wrapped in insulation.

There are numerous other household improvements available on a smaller scale. Lightbulbs can be replaced and lighting can be rearranged so that fewer bulbs light the same area. Where possible, motion sensor lights can replace permanent outdoor floodlights. Although kettles are a big power draw, I'm not sure about latest developments here. Anyone?

If I was in government now, I would institute a new door-to-door power improvement advisor service. I would have agents visit each house for a 10-minute discussion on ways to improve power usage. I prefer door-to-door because it communicates to a home owner that they are personally responsible, compared to some generic message flashed across a TV screen that is effectively a "everybody but me" message.

As a last step, South Africa can go the route of Giuliani's New York - begin fining abusers. This is not a healthy first-up solution and that's not the kind of country I would want to live in. Healthy lifestyles must come from the heart, not from the government's whip. However, there are times when strong measures are needed and if no other options are available, power caps can be set on individual houses and geysers can require efficiency licensing.

Our home has been very efficient for a long time - lights stay off when they're not needed, light bulbs have been replaced with the power-saving type, computers get turned off and a full kettle is only boiled when everyone is drinking. However, we have recognised that our geyser could use insulation and possibly be turned off during the day. If everyone adopts an attitude of personal responsibility, then we can say: what power crisis?

Oh To Be Solution-Minded

I've just read an interesting document on the ANC's communist agenda. It's a long list of specific pieces of legislation and quotes from ANC leaders that paint a very clear picture of what the intentions of the present government are. If you know how serious the threat of communism is, with its poor economic track record and its insistence on central power of all citizens, you may be alarmed to know how serious the ANC is on bringing it through.

Nevertheless, I was challenged by this thought: can I envision in my mind the alternative? As South Africans we develop a doom-and-gloom mentality very easily. Even the DA is proud to call itself the official opposition, and you wander if they believe their job is only to oppose things and not to provide a solution.

At this point we remind ourselves to stand up proudly and say: we have a solution, we believe it is viable and we believe it is achievable. In the ACDP we do have a value-based party that is federally based, that reflects of the views of the majority better than the ANC or DA do and in its membership reflects the demographics of this country more accurately than any other party.
The DA have taught us that making a noise is not enough - it's time to bring some good news and a bright outlook on our country!