"Grant" is a Bad Word

My 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Struggle for Finance

Lack 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Okay, that's a simple idea which even I could implement. Maybe I should.

Why 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.

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.

Some people do leave the ACDP in a huff. Let me explain in my understanding why people leave...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Logic Failure of Gun Control

One 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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.

The DA love this slogan. Even worse, it seems to work. So I answer it here...

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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 FOR the ANC.

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.

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?

DA: 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.

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.

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?

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.