SA's national security strategy is both funny and frightening
So, the Cabinet has approved a 47-page national security strategy that essentially warns of potholes ahead.
You've got to love government reports. Forty-seven pages to give us the kinds of insightful goals like 'combat violent and syndicated crime' and 'create conditions for peaceful socio-economic development of South Africa and to ensure its military security'.
You just know some management consultant had an absolute field day laughing as they drafted that while charging seven years' worth of steak and wine.
The strategy gets great at Pillar 5: Cyber security, which concludes with the ingenious goal of 'address cyber-security challenges'.
At least the person writing this nonsense is getting paid but who even reads this stuff? More importantly, why bother if the stuff, basic as it may be, never gets implemented and is more outdated than a Nokia 3310?
Here's another insight from the report: 'Economic hardship or low economic growth which were further exacerbated by the impact of Covid-19 pandemic and the implications of the war in Ukraine.'
Gosh. A whole state and we cannot plan around a pandemic of five years ago and a war that started in 2014 and geared up in 2022? That sounds like the ultimate doctor's note: 'Please excuse Timmy from doing his homework. He ate a dodgy Christmas pudding in the 2023 holidays.'
ALSO READ: 'Where's the proof?': Calls for Ntshavheni to answer for coup claims
Pandemics and wars from years ago should not be excuses not to get the job done. Just like we can't keep taking wins from the success of the 2010 World Cup, we can't throw our hands up and be like, oh let's maybe have some social collapse because we can't deliver to our people since there's this war on a different continent.
We're still trading with both countries. It's not like any industry has been decimated by that war.
But fear not, because our leadership has a plan. It involves creating a culture of preparedness. It comes in two layers but the first has to be a favourite.
'The first principle of our culture of preparedness is a shared acknowledgement that creating a prepared nation will be an enduring challenge.'
Sure, it reads like a statement preparing for failure before starting, but it should be praised for encouraging a long game strategy. Plus, it gives us more to work with than 'develop key scientific and technological competences'. Seriously, this report is a wonderful 'wtf do you mean?' kind of read.
The report's hilarity aside, we have to engage with the idea of reports for their own sake. Ideally, whatever information one can elicit from this report that wasn't immediately obvious to anybody with functional capacity should be valuable.
If it is valuable, then it should too, be implementable. If it is implementable then this report should be more than the minutes of the previous meeting when it comes to issuing the next report.
It's not enough to simply set out goals, some having no real discernable meaning nor quantifiable outcome, and then say 'great, job done'. Because then you are putting up the pothole warning with no intention of ever fixing the potholes.
That's just not good enough and it certainly isn't why we pay for a bloated government.
ALSO READ: A coup? Here's what makes SA most vulnerable to attacks
It's unacceptable to issue a report which hints of social collapse but offers a vague list of priorities; the same priorities that have been listed in reports since the '90s and as generic as ever. It covers everything from corruption, to substance abuse and even the 'mushrooming of charismatic churches'.
We don't need reports to know what the problems are. We have several of those. We need strategies to address them and the right people to implement them. Curiously, in this report the only mention of capable human resources relates to foreign missions.
Let's take a step back and before issuing a new report, let's start with what we've done to address the problems in the previous reports.
Maybe then we'll prevent such gems as 'strengthen civil peace and harmony'. Until it actually has some discernable and actionable meaning, it is just a waste of ink.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
Professor Eldrid Jordaan's powerful new book shines light on tech giant Meta's dominance
The Silicon Empire vs Social Impact is both a narrative of resistance and a roadmap for change. It challenges the reader to reconsider the nature of digital power, the role of civic technology, and the urgent need for policy interventions that centre people over platforms. Image: Supplied Book Title: 'The Silicon Empire vs Social Impact: The David and Goliath Battle' Author: Professor Eldrid Jordaan The global digital economy is increasingly dominated by a small group of powerful technology corporations, whose platforms now act as essential infrastructure for communication, commerce, and governance. In this landscape, access to digital platforms is no longer optional, it is foundational to public service delivery, democratic participation, and economic inclusion. In The Silicon Empire vs Social Impact: The David and Goliath Battle, Prof. Eldrid Jordaan presents a groundbreaking account of how one civic technology startup in South Africa stood up to one of the world's most powerful digital empires. This book documents the legal struggle between GovChat, a mission-driven platform focused on citizen engagement, and Meta, the parent company of Facebook and WhatsApp. Through this case, the author exposes the systemic risks posed by unregulated digital monopolies and makes a compelling case for global reforms in platform governance, data access, and digital competition. The Central Conflict GovChat was developed as a public engagement platform to strengthen the relationship between citizens and the state. Built in partnership with South Africa's government, it enabled millions of citizens to access information, report service issues, and apply for government grants. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the platform became a lifeline for over 15 million South Africans, offering rapid access to social relief, health updates, and essential services through a WhatsApp-based interface. In late 2020, Meta attempted to offboard GovChat from its WhatsApp Business API, claiming policy violations. This action would have effectively shut down the platform's ability to communicate with citizens and deliver public services. The move triggered a landmark legal battle in which GovChat challenged Meta at the South African Competition Commission and Competition Tribunal. The case, unprecedented in its nature, raised global questions about platform dominance, fair access, and the responsibilities of Big Tech companies operating in emerging markets. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ Key Themes and Global Implications The book goes beyond legal proceedings to explore five major themes shaping the digital age: Platform gatekeeping Dominant digital platforms are no longer neutral conduits. They serve as powerful gatekeepers that decide who gets access to digital infrastructure and under what terms. The case illustrates how such unchecked control can be used to stifle innovation and suppress public-interest technologies. Digital sovereignty As countries increasingly rely on private technology companies for the delivery of public services, national sovereignty becomes entangled with corporate policy. The book argues that digital sovereignty must become a global priority and that governments need enforceable frameworks to protect their autonomy and citizen rights in the digital space. The role of civic technology GovChat's journey demonstrates that civic tech platforms are not peripheral experiments, they are foundational digital utilities. The book documents how GovChat reached underserved populations, amplified citizen voices, and provided a model for inclusive digital transformation. Legal precedent and regulatory reform The case challenges the adequacy of existing competition laws in addressing digital exclusion. The book proposes the creation of a Global Digital Competition Compact, encouraging cross-border cooperation among regulators and a redefinition of fair access in the platform economy. Human stories and social impact Embedded within the legal and policy analysis are powerful human stories. The book recounts how GovChat helped enable unemployed youth to access social relief, and gave marginalised communities a voice in the public sphere. These narratives remind us that the stakes of digital exclusion are deeply human and immediate.
Daily Maverick
4 days ago
- Daily Maverick
High court drives ‘final nail' into Turkish Karpowership coffin
'The Karpowership deals are now absolutely dead. It will never be loaded on to your electricity bill,' says Outa's executive director, Stefanie Fick. The Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria has formally cancelled the three South African 'emergency power' contracts of the Turkish Karpowership company, nearly a year after two senior government ministers verbally signalled the end to one of South Africa's most controversial electrical power generation agreements. Following a legal settlement agreement reached between the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (Outa) and the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa) on 31 July, the high court has formally set aside the power generation licences granted by Nersa to the Istanbul-based floating powerships company. The agreement recognises that any further court action by Outa to review the legality of the licence awards had become 'academic' after it emerged that the minister of mineral and energy resources advised Karpowership in writing on 29 September 2024 that the multibillion-rand deal had been terminated due to Karpowership's failure to reach commercial close or to meet deadlines as a preferred bidder for the power supply contracts. In October 2024, Electricity Minister Kgosientsho Ramokgopa and Environment Minister Dion George both indicated verbally that the deal was dead in the water — but some civil society organisations nevertheless called for iron-clad assurances that the deal was at an end. At the time, The Green Connection environmental justice group asked: 'Why, if the Karpowership deal is truly off the table, is the government still opposing The Green Connection and Outa's court cases?' The Centre for Environmental Rights law clinic in Cape Town had also called for further reassurances from the government, while Karpowership did not acknowledge or respond to requests for clarity. The plan to moor several floating, gas-powered powerships in Richards Bay, Coega and Saldanha harbours came to light nearly five years ago when Daily Maverick exposed the apparent abuse of an emergency procedure to sidestep environmental authorisation procedures during the Covid-19 crisis. A senior Council for Scientific and Industrial Research engineer later estimated that the gas-to-electricity project could cost taxpayers more than R200-billion over 20 years. This week, in the high court, the final nail appears to have been hammered into the coffin of the South African Karpowership plan following the official cancellation of the power generation licence granted by Nersa, the full terms of which were not disclosed. In a media statement on 31 July, Outa noted that it had filed legal papers in April 2022 calling on the high court to review Nersa's decisions to grant the licences. This led to a three-year fight, including a long dispute over access to documents. 'Outa believes this case contributed significantly to the collapse of the Karpowership deals, as Eskom eventually cancelled the grid access. The removal of the generation licences is the final end of this deal. Outa regards this as a significant legal victory, and a huge victory for the public. 'The Karpowership deals are now absolutely dead. It will never be loaded on to your electricity bill,' said Outa's executive director, advocate Stefanie Fick. 'This ruling is a powerful affirmation that decisions involving billions in public funds must comply with the law. We challenged this process because the public deserves transparency, proper oversight and value for money, none of which were present in this licensing saga.' Nersa and Karpowership have not responded to requests for comment on the legal ruling, but any comments will be added when received. DM
Daily Maverick
4 days ago
- Daily Maverick
After the Bell: How much is a business idea worth?
This may be an unpopular view, but I'm not convinced one person should get billions for one simple insight that would probably have been implemented anyway. Through all of the years I have been lucky enough to be a journalist, there is one fundamental dynamic that has become completely entrenched in our society, and most others. It is that the rich are getting richer while the poor are falling further and further behind. One of the big drivers of this seems to be the way in which salaries for CEOs have really increased in the past few years. Now, I fully expect and understand that someone who is able to create value for themselves and others should be paid well. And I do mean really well. It seems entirely moral to me that people should be paid for doing constructive things. I do wonder though about cases that really involve a rise in technology, or just one insight. So, Mark Zuckerberg has literally created an industry. But he did this as part of technological changes in society. He would not have been able to do it without being American, being at Harvard, and being there when he was. Something similar must have happened in 2022 when soaring platinum prices resulted in the CEO of Sibanye-Stillwater, Neal Froneman, getting paid about R300-million. Now, I could never do what Froneman does. He has a rare combination of skills and the ability to lead a group of people to enable others to make money. And, of course, much of his salary was in the form of shares, their value increased in line with platinum prices immediately after the Covid pandemic. This means that this money was not paid out directly by the company, but was the result of the increase in the value of shares he had been given before the rally. The case of The Foschini Group CEO Anthony Thunström is an interesting example. In 2024, he was paid 43% less than the year before because the group missed certain targets. This year, he was paid R45-million because he hit those targets. While he cannot control all of the variables around him, there is something about this that seems intrinsically fairer to me than Froneman's situation, where he benefited hugely from a historic dynamic that lifted platinum prices. That said, he could argue, perhaps, that only he could have ensured his company was able to take such full advantage of that increase. I was thinking about all of this watching the Constitutional Court's ruling in the Nkosana Makate case against Vodacom. He and Vodacom have been arguing for nearly 20 years over how much the network should be paying him for his insight that it should start a 'Please Call Me' service. I really thought today would be the day this case would finally end. I mean, really, how long can one case drag on? Instead, all of the judges found the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) had got the case hopelessly wrong. But, being on the Constitutional Court, they also felt they should not have to sift through the arguments and the maths. Now the SCA must do it again, with a new Bench of judges. For me, at the heart of it is: How much can one idea be worth? I can see that, for Zuckerberg, perhaps that idea could be worth a huge amount – he did create something that changed the world. For Elon Musk, perhaps his ideas – around electric cars, rockets and goodness knows what else – will literally save the planet. That must be worth quite a lot. But like Musk and Zuckerberg and Froneman, there are other forces at work in the Makate case. Obviously on the one side is Vodacom, one of our biggest companies with huge resources. It will fight for many years to prevent having to pay out any amounts that go into the billions. While it can appear as if Makate is on his own, in fact at least part of his campaign has been financed through contingency fees with law firms and, during at least one stage, other groups. This means that both sides will fight forever. The stakes are that high. This may be an unpopular view, but I'm not convinced one person should get billions for one simple insight that would probably have been implemented anyway. It's true that the Please Call Me service is now old hat, but at the time it was revolutionary. But it was one simple insight into a technology that was evolving very quickly. And MTN already had their own Please Call Me service up and running before Vodacom was able to implement theirs. Should he receive compensation? Sure. Millions? Maybe. Billions? Surely not. Of course, no matter how rich or comfortable we may be, we all have our own financial hopes and dreams. Some of us just want to pay off our bond. Or our kids' school fees. These are all legitimate. And that's why our demands to be properly paid are also entirely legitimate. Even if your first name is Elon, and you are hoping and dreaming of going to Mars. DM
