Ramaphosa: Racial redress is not stunting growth
Racial redress is not a hindrance to
Ramaphosa told Freedom Front Plus leader Corné Mulder he failed to understand how those who questioned affirmative action could not see the real problem is black people do not own a big enough share of the means of economic production in the country.
'I am rather surprised and taken aback when I hear that policies of black economic empowerment militate against the growth of our economy. That, I find quite surprising because I work from the starting point that our economy was held back over many years by the racist policies of the past,' he said.
Apartheid prevented the majority of South Africans from playing a meaningful role in the economy, he continued.
'Black people were brought in as hewers and wood and drawers of water and they were just brought in as labourers. They were not even seen as consumers. They were not seen as active players in the economic landscape of our country.'
Mulder had suggested that the government should rewrite economic policy to create growth, and in that process abandon affirmative action and the concept of expropriation without compensation because it was not serving the country.
Ramaphosa countered that the reality of apartheid, including the wholesale exclusion of black South Africans from the economy, could not be forgotten as if it were merely 'a bad dream'.
'You would never see a black person being made to advertise either soap or milk or anything. Today every advert you look at has got black people because it is now being realised that it is black people who are the consumers.'
But, he added, there must be a realisation that black South Africans must moreover command the levers of the economy to reduce inequality and poverty.
'So I am really baffled, I am baffled by people who still hanker for policies of the past and to have you, Sir, say black economic empowerment is holding our economy back,' he said.
'It is the partial and exclusive ownership of the means of production in our country that is holding this economy from growing.
'Why can't black people be made to own productive aspects of our economy, why can't they be rich as well?'
The national debate about affirmative action has been revived by the
The Democratic Alliance's court challenges to the
In Tuesday's question session, MPs from the Patriotic Alliance (PA), uMkhonto weSiswe party and African Christian Democratic Party challenged the president about the racial classification in South Africa 30 years after the end of apartheid.
The PA's Marlon Daniels demanded to know why coloured, Indian, Khoisan and white South Africans were not deemed African.
Ramaphosa said it was regrettable that racial classification endured, but that the very aim of redress was creating a society where it no longer had any place.
'It is most unfortunate that the classifications that we have inherited from apartheid have tended to continue and our clear intent that we should see those classifications of our people withering away because we are all Africans, we are all South Africans.
'To rid ourselves of that form of classification we do need to take steps to say this group, and that group and that group were previously disadvantaged and we therefore have to take steps to ensure they are put in a better position.'
It did not imply discrimination, he said.
'There should never be a sense that there is any group that is more special than any other, we are all equal. As we move forward, our objective is to consolidate the unity of our people as one people, as Africans.'
He said those who argued against affirmative action were trying to put a plaster on the deep wound inflicted by apartheid.
'That sore does need to be lanced, it needs to be properly repaired and to repair it you need to go to the depth of it … you've got to name everything for what it is because unless you do so, you will never be able to rid our country of the legacy of the past.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
2 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Climate change: Prospects for women in 2035 in a ‘business as usual' scenario
The just transition cannot become another chapter in South Africa's long history of missed opportunities South Africa has pledged to build a fair, inclusive and climate-resilient economy. The creation of the Presidential Climate Commission was an acknowledgment that we cannot decarbonise irresponsibly, nor leave anyone behind — least of all the workers, communities and women who hold up this economy every day. The Just Transition Framework was meant to be our collective pact — a pathway to a better future rooted in procedural, distributive and restorative justice. But promises are only as strong as the actions that follow. If urgency gives way to delay, we risk locking ourselves into high-carbon infrastructure, losing global competitiveness and missing the wave of green industrial opportunities. Inaction will deepen inequality, entrench unemployment and expose the country to worsening climate shocks and economic instability. To understand what this means in human terms, meet Naledi. In 2023, Naledi was a 10-year-old in Seshego, just outside Polokwane in Limpopo. She first heard terms like just transition, green jobs and climate resilience on the radio and at community meetings. Leaders painted pictures of women in overalls installing solar panels, of bustling new industries, of communities freed from energy poverty. Like many young girls, Naledi believed she could one day take her place in that world. Fast forward to 2035. Naledi is 22 — and the future she was promised never arrived. She wakes in the dark to load-shedding that is now a permanent fixture. The family fridge hasn't worked in months. Water comes only every few days. The clinic often closes due to power cuts. Her mother cooks over paraffin. Her grandmother's insulin is stored at a neighbour's house — when that neighbour has electricity. Under a business-as-usual energy transition, the promises of 2023 have evaporated. Our coal plants aged out without adequate replacements. Renewable procurement became mired in legal disputes, bureaucratic paralysis and political infighting. Grid upgrades never materialised. Load-shedding worsened. Investment stalled. And it was women — always the shock absorbers of social crises — who bore the brunt. Naledi had enrolled in a government solar technician training programme. She excelled. But when the course ended, job placements never came. A cabinet reshuffle led to departmental restructuring. Budgets were frozen. Policy documents were redrafted. For the young women who saw this as a gateway to the new economy, the door slammed shut. Still, Naledi hustles. She assists her uncle fixing solar geysers in nearby suburbs. She dreams of starting a cooperative — but the municipal small-business office hasn't processed grant applications in over a year. The online portal doesn't work. And the pledge to 'support women in the transition' remains trapped in draft strategies and speeches. Her story is not an isolated tragedy — it is a warning. Studies show that with steady growth of 3% to 4%, employment can rise even under tight climate constraints. But without deliberate distributional policies, the most vulnerable — women, youth and workers of colour — will be left behind. These groups often have fewer skills, weaker networks and less access to capital. Distributional justice isn't a nice-to-have — it's the foundation of a just transition. If the transition fails women, it fails entirely. So what must change? Targeted skills programmes for women in renewable energy, efficiency and green entrepreneurship — designed with childcare, transport and flexible schedules in mind; Gender-responsive procurement rules that give women-owned businesses real access to energy contracts and public tenders; Subsidised energy access for women-headed households to cut the cost, time and health burdens of energy poverty; Dedicated finance — low-interest loans, grants and blended capital — for women-led climate businesses and cooperatives; Equity targets in hiring for public and private sector energy projects; Social protection for women displaced by the shift away from fossil fuels, recognising the unpaid and informal work they have always shouldered; and Community ownership models that give women a direct stake in the energy systems shaping their lives. Naledi's reality is not the result of personal failure — it is the product of systemic betrayal. Plans were drafted but never implemented. Opportunities were lost, not for lack of talent or will but due to governance delays, political fragmentation and institutional incapacity. And yet, Naledi persists. She still dreams — not just for herself, but for her sisters, her peers and her neighbours. Our responsibility is to ensure the next generation doesn't have to fight this hard just to be seen. The just transition cannot become another chapter in South Africa's long history of missed opportunities. It must be the moment we choose to do things differently — to build a future that is not only green, but fair, feminist and truly just. Lebogang Mulaisi is the executive manager responsible for policy and research in the Presidential Climate Commission. She is also a .
Mail & Guardian
2 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
The critical timing of dependent status in pension death benefits
Constitutional Court ruled dependency for pension death benefits is determined at the member's death, not distribution, aiding vulnerable families In a society where millions of South Africans depend on a single breadwinner for survival, the death of that provider can leave families financially devastated. Every year, retirement funds distribute billions of rand upon the death of their members to people who were dependent on that person, distributed in terms of section 37C of the Pension Funds Act, described as 'a far-reaching and relatively unique statutory provision'. In 2014, about R8.8 billion in death benefits was distributed by pension funds regulated by the Financial Sector Conduct Authority, increasing to about R9.3 billion in 2015. Despite the enormous sums involved, and the critical importance of these benefits to vulnerable families, there is often litigation surrounding section 37C of the Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956 and its application. At the heart of many of these disputes lies a fundamental question for pension funds, adjudicators and our courts: 'When must a fund determine who qualifies as a 'dependant' in terms of section 37C, at the time of the member's death, or at the time the fund makes its distribution decision?' The Constitutional Court, in Mutsila vs Municipal Gratuity Fund and Others (CCT 228/23), considered the interpretation and application of section 37C. The matter concerned the 'equitable allocation and distribution of death benefits held within a pension fund and is particularly important in the context of South Africa's high incidence of employment precariousness and dependency on a single breadwinner, as pension fund benefits provide much-needed assistance to those left vulnerable in the event of the death of their primary supporter'. The Constitutional Court's unanimous judgment in Mutsila is a watershed moment for South African pension law. The court's decision not only clarifies crucial procedural requirements for investigations in terms of section 37C, but also confirms how dependency is determined, and defines the date on which dependency must be assessed, rejecting the Supreme Court of Appeal's view in Fundsatwork Umbrella Pension Fund vs Guarnieri and Others. In this case, Tshifhiwa Shembry Mutsila was married to Takalani Emmanuel Mutsila in a civil marriage on 8 December 2003. Takalani Mutsila died in a workplace accident on 15 December 2012. The couple had five children, aged nine to 23, as at April 2014, all of whom were learners and dependent on their parents at the time of his death. As a member of the Municipal Gratuity Fund, Mutsila's death triggered a death benefit of R1 614 434.86 for distribution to his dependents. A dispute arose when both Mutsila and Dipuo Masete submitted claims to the fund, with Masete claiming she was married to Mutsila under customary law and that he maintained her two children. The fund allocated 52.5% of the benefit to Masete and her children; 22.5% to Mutsila; and 25% to the couple's five children. The fund based this allocation on the dependents of Mutsila as at the date of distribution in April 2014, in line with Guarnieri . Dissatisfied, Mutsila lodged a complaint with the Pension Funds Adjudicator, arguing that Masete was neither a legal nor a factual dependant. The adjudicator found the fund had not conducted a proper investigation and set aside the distribution decision. The high court and full court both dismissed the fund's appeals, finding it had failed to conduct a diligent investigation. But the Supreme Court of Appeal reversed these decisions, holding that the adjudicator had failed to afford the fund procedural fairness and reinstated the original distribution. The Constitutional Court ultimately granted leave to appeal, upheld the appeal and referred the matter back to the fund. In its judgment, the court explained the distinction between legal and factual dependents under the Pension Funds Act, and most significantly, clarified that dependency must be determined at date of the member's death for section 37C purposes, thereby rejecting the Guarnieri approach. The court held that factual dependency must be determined based on objective facts existing at the date of death, not at the date of distribution. It noted that it would be 'absurd that someone who was not factually dependent on the member while they were alive can suddenly become a factual dependent after the member's death'. The judgment confirms that once an individual is identified as a dependent (whether legal or factual), that status does not change, although changed circumstances can be considered when determining equitable distribution. This decision provides essential guidance for pension funds in conducting death benefit investigations and reinforces the social security purpose of section 37C, protecting vulnerable dependents. * Note: The statistics come from the case and not from the writer. Nicolette van Vuuren is a partner at Webber Wentzel.
Eyewitness News
8 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
PROF ZONDI: Despite early controversy, Ramaphosa's National Dialogue signals a path forward
The idea of a National Dialogue to get the nation talking about things that matter for the present and the future has been on our lips for a while now. It was first suggested as a Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA) 2 over 15 years ago. It was also suggested as an economic CODESA in the past, but there was no urge to convene it. Now that President Cyril Ramaphosa has kick-started the process, there is contestation about the process and approach to this. The controversies preceding the 15-16 August National Convention put these differences in the open for all to see. First, the legacy foundations representing the legacies of major political figures in South African history announced a dispute within the preparatory team and pulled out of the convention. In a joint letter, these entities, including the Thabo Mbeki Foundation, the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation, Steve Biko Foundation and the FW De Klerk Foundation, protested against a government takeover of what was announced to be a citizen-led national dialogue. As a result of this alleged government takeover, the foundations said, there was a rush to convene the convention before all was ready for this and decisions to undertake emergency procurement in possible violation of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). The government, through the Presidency, disputed this, and the president convened the preparatory task team to confirm that there was no merit to the foundations' concerns. Indeed, the National Convention happened with much fanfare and produced some notable decisions. The convention went off quite smoothly and signalled a thoughtful process. It seemed the foundations' decisions had not harmed the process and signalled that they do not have as much influence as some thought. But their decision had put a damper on the idea and caused many questions to be raised, including in talk shows, on social media and other public exchanges. Of course, a discussion of this nature could not avoid displaying the agony of many about the failure of the post-apartheid transition to deliver a better life for all. This is the failure to overcome poverty and reduce unemployment. The transition has not been successful in reducing inequalities according to race, class, gender and other dimensions. The beautiful post-apartheid democracy has been marked by a long period of lower economic growth, growing crime and corruption, fragmentation and disillusionment in the population. The sixth administration elected with great hope has delivered failures and disappointments while promising positive change. Couple this with a growing population, including illegal immigration swelling the numbers of the poor and climate change effects, the crisis keeps deepening, and despair is growing. This was evident in the discussions and submissions at the national convention. Some of the areas of consensus achieved are significantly important for moving forward. The decision to give a strong focus to discussions of problems and solutions in the economy towards an inclusive economy and livelihoods is a noble one. This subject is closely tied to the matter of land reform, agrarian transformation and food security. This was elevated into a priority on its own. We hope the discussion will reflect on why we have failed to achieve what was set out in the National Development Plan about this. Crime and corruption were ranked the second most important priority by virtue of public concern and the scale of it as a national crisis. On that score, the scourge of gender-based violence and femicide (GBVF) stood out as a matter for focused attention as the dialogue begins. The subject of education and health is framed as about winning the future. The discussions elevated the State as a subject of discussion because of its association with problems and its key role in managing many solutions to national crises. Indeed, the National Development Plan (NDP), too, made building a capable developmental State a key task of the nation back in 2012. If discussions clarify what has been achieved and what has not been achieved, and why it would have helped the country move forward. The subject of values and culture as a matter critical for rebuilding the social fabric on which the nation and the State are built was made prominent by civil society voices worried that failures were not incidental but systemic. The NDP had enjoined us to work hard to achieve social cohesion, a sort of renewal for the nation's soul. The convention re-emphasised the vagaries of inter-generational trauma and called for healing. This dialogue could help us find out how progress can be achieved. In the final analysis, what is said and recommended in response to growing poverty and inequality will be a measure by which the success of the dialogue will be judged. All these issues were interlinked. The attainment of one relies on the achievements in other areas. It seems that the National Dialogue is now back on track. But there are pointers to consider, which, when applied, would improve the process. The first is that it is to be expected that the National Dialogue will not be a smooth, quiet and united discussion but could have tough edges as stakeholders jostle for the nation's soul. It could even be messy and chaotic, without being a disaster. It can be dogged by controversy without collapsing. Professor Siphamandla Zondi Director: Institute for Pan-Africa Thought & Conversation; and co-director: Institute for Global African Affairs Professor: Department of Politics and International Relations
