The science of warfare teaches us that even the most strategically competent of generals, who go to war with a significant chance of winning, must still carry out or perform one heart-wrenching exercise. That exercise involves determining how many soldiers they are prepared to lose to injury, or even death if necessary, in order to achieve their ultimate goal. Generals and their plans are supported by the gallantry of ordinary soldiers, who are prepared to become fodder and perish for the course of their nation to advance.

The current checkmate in the process of transforming South Africa and providing economic justice to the historically deprived within poor communities requires poor people to strategize and think like army generals. Success and sacrifice are two sides of the same coin. We can never have one without the other. To achieve true success, the poor communities must find something of value and significance to sacrifice or forsake.

The beautiful thing about our situation is that nobody needs to swim with sharks like our ancestors did during the centuries of slavery. Nobody needs to crawl with leopards like our freedom fighters did during the decades of apartheid. Yes, there is already ample demonstration that accessing the economic benefits of democracy is not going to be a walk in the park for the downtrodden masses. But having to kiss frogs in order to survive for a month or a year, as many poor people are today required to do, can never equate to having to crawl with leopards or swim with sharks.

Let me continue the analogy of warfare and make my point. Some people go to war as ordinary soldiers and return as well-decorated generals. However, in many cases, the colourful medals and paraphernalia belonging to the triumphant generals represent lost lives. It is true that in ordinary life we do not always need the type of fodder associated with warfare for others to climb ladders. But fodder we certainly always do need. This is the biggest challenge confronting those who claim to represent the poor. They must both determine the type of fodder required for success and sell the plan successfully to their supporters. The class of Sisulu and Mandela volunteered its freedom, limbs and lives as fodder to support the ladder that took us out of political wilderness.

Whether the slow progress of economic transformation in our society – as spelt out recently by the Ministry of Labour – is caused by people in business clinging on to privileges, or the ineptitude of those elected by the poor and hungry masses into government, or the notorious wheel of market forces, our society requires a new breed of citizens to champion the transformation course. We need people, especially from poor communities, who are willing to forsake instant personal interest and gratification for the benefit of the nation`s greater course.

Contrary to popular belief, the greatest threat to South Africa`s economic future is not in the form of the masses marauding through towns and cities trashing and destroying everything in their path. The greatest threat is constituted by the failure of the engagement process between the representatives of the poor and those of the economically privileged to produce a solution that can save the country from itself.

What started out as an open and transparent process has now become very opaque and secretive. Ordinary South Africans get an idea of what is going on inside the chambers only when the occupants are forced by the stench of the decaying carcass of morality to open a window in order to give their tired lungs a break. The process is now so much riddled with greed and self-aggrandisement that it contributes directly to the prevailing environment of inferior performance, corruption and general instability in our society.

There is a school of thought in our country that says the BEE strategy was not designed by representatives of the poor masses as many people think or believe. People from this school of thought say the BEE strategy was created by representatives of the economic oligarchy who wanted to protect their economic interests and was merely sold to representatives of the masses afterwards. I do not have the facts or enough information to express a definite opinion on the matter. The one thing that I have always found intriguing, and actually tempting to me to throw my lot with those from the school mentioned above, is that the BEE strategy seems to say very little about what poor people must do for themselves.

I  am yet to hear of a charter that sets minimum standards on how poor people should relate to their impoverished communities once they have acquired significant economic resources. This is what makes me suspect that the BEE strategy was indeed designed by people who wanted poor people to wait for handouts and never create anything for themselves. It makes me suspect the strategy was designed by people who know the power and force of self-reliance and wanted to ensure it never happens in our communities.

We have many people today from poor backgrounds who live comfortable lives. But only a few among them see sense in buying a soccer ball for their children`s soccer club a few streets from where they stay. There is a perception among these people that we must first hold lofty positions either in government or big business before we come to our communities with paltry presents in the name of the so-called social responsibility.

I maintain that the greatest threat to our country`s economic future is not the toyitoying masses. It is but the kowtowing sycophants and their rich cohorts, all of whom masquerade as leaders of our people. The sycophants confuse money with wealth and, in the process, throw away a lot of value that should be accruing to the poor people of our country. The point must also be made that most of the resources that get exchanged in the self-serving arrangements between incompetent people from backgrounds of deprivation and cunning people with privileged backgrounds are actually unpaid salaries of our forebears.

The BEE strategy is not working as it should. The beneficiaries receive more than just money and skills from the benefactors. They receive a whole new set of behaviours as well, including arrogance and selfishness. The arrogance and selfishness cannot serve as fodder to support the ladder poor people need to climb out of the dark pit of poverty. We will need to do much more than just be pompous and self-important in order to win that particular war.

Whether the BEE strategy was created by people representing the economic oligarchy or the new political establishment is a subject for another day. All we should ask for is a BEE charter that says how my better-off sister should relate to her mother or her husband, how my well-heeled cousin and my neighbour should relate to their families and communities. What contribution I can make as an individual despite my poverty and how we can together co-operate to rebuild our communities for our loved ones today and for posterity.

Spare me totally the gory episode of repentance and reparations by the erstwhile foes. The day that story is worthy of our limited time and other resources you can count on me to be among those who will narrate it best. For now, the impoverished communities need to produce a concrete and credible strategy of their own that is based on what they can do by and for themselves rather that one based on the assumed goodwill of others. But as I have said, true success requires sacrifice the same way that war strategies require soldiers with valour to succeed.

Gibson Sakong
Executive Chairman – Montshepetja Academy