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 More importantly, why bother if the stuff, basic as it may be, never gets implemented and is more outdated than a Nokia 3310?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
Daily Maverick
a day 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
a day 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
The Citizen
3 days ago
- The Citizen
When politicians and criminals blur lines
The presence of politicians near murder suspects and failure to act on Zondo's report signal deep systemic decay. Two recent events highlighted a perceived intermingling of South African politicians with the criminal underworld – and the ANC's utter inability to fix this. The first event was Kenny Kunene pitching up at the home of a murder suspect at the centre of a web of alleged politically tainted criminality. The second was former chief justice Raymond Zondo's critique of President Cyril Ramaphosa's failure to implement recommendations of the commission of inquiry into state capture. Kunene's stated reasons for being at Katiso Molefe's home were implausible to radio, TV and social media audiences. Even his long-time friend and political boss, fellow ex-convict Gayton McKenzie, knew the position was indefensible. ALSO READ: Why the ANC remains a safe haven for corruption Molefe was mentioned in KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi's media conference on 6 July, where allegations were made about senior police machinations. Molefe should have been off-bounds for any media-savvy politician. Kunene has not only reinforced the common perception that politicians are not to be trusted. It goes deeper. In an environment where whistle-blowers are slain with impunity, the link to a murder suspect could give rise to more sinister inferences. Impunity is also at the heart of Zondo's concerns, where he detailed failures of the justice system. As chief justice, he found it painful to swear-in Cabinet ministers who had serious state capture findings against them. ALSO READ: Now we wait for accountability, Mr Mayor 'It was like the president was saying: 'I don't care what you have found about these people. I think they are good enough to be promoted.'' Zondo's words are a vote of no confidence in Ramaphosa by arguably the most respected judge in the country. Zondo lacks faith that crooks will be brought to book under Ramaphosa's presidency. Indeed, in South Africa, most culprits get away with murder and much else. Only around 6.8% of murder cases with arrests lead to convictions. In many cases, there are no arrests. So, the percentage of murder convictions per total number of murders (with and without arrests) will be lower. This picture contributes to the impunity with which criminals, including politicians, operate. In every sphere, crooks carry on because they know the chances of being convicted are slim. Proper implementation of Zondo's recommendations would have changed this perception. ALSO READ: The real national dialogue has begun On Monday, the Presidency reported 'significant progress' in implementing reforms. Ramaphosa claimed 48% completion of actions from Zondo's recommendations, adding that high-profile cases are scheduled for 2025-26. Given the lack of success in cases thus far, it is hardly reassuring to hear that cases are pending. Where are the significant arrests? Why did Ramaphosa choose for his Cabinet from people implicated in Zondo's report? Zondo has every right to feel disappointed. After sitting for four years, hearing 300 witnesses, producing 8 655 530 pages of documents and spending R1 billion of taxpayers' money, implicating more than 1 438 people, his team felt 'their efforts were for nothing'. Many South Africans will agree. Why are so many of the people implicated in the Zondo report now sitting in parliament instead of being in court or in jail? ALSO READ: RET faction gains ground as Ramaphosa falters And ex-con politicians link themselves to murder suspects. When politicians and criminals are indistinguishable from each other and the underworld are overlords, it's time to revolt.
