The Black Management Forum (BMF) is competing with the ANC Youth League to represent those who wish to gouge economic advantage from transformation and bulldoze every law, institution, practice and idea that stands between them and the smorgasbord.
Listen to the BMF president Jimmy Manyi at a recent conference hosted by his organisation as he urges us into the Animal Farm:
- Firstly he attacks the protection of property in the constitution, saying the clauses insisting on fair or market value for appropriated land are the “sting in the tail”;
- He goes further and argues “It appears the Constitution does not support the transformation agenda in this country”;
- He bemoans court cases where previously disadvantaged individuals lost their court bids when trying to obtain tenders;
- He attacks media freedom, asking “Why is it that the media can have a field day railroading the office of the president without impunity?” … although he probably means “with impunity”.
- The times live report on his input concludes that: “Two further issues he feels need reviewing were Section 27 of the Constitution which pronounces on procurement and culture”
Manyi and those he represents are delightfully undisguised. There is something strangely compelling about a politics where the class that wishes to loot the state and pillage what it can from the transformation agenda sticks out a belligerent jaw and sulkily asserts: “F$@% YOU, it’s my right!”
(catch The Times article here)
5 thoughts on “The Black Management Forum speaks from the heart of what it is”
This reminds me of a problem Germany had after the demise of the German Democratic Republicc (DDR). Should those who had been land owners before 1945 get their land back? The Bundesverfassungegericht (Federal Constitutional Court) decided that appropiations by the Red Army (i.e. by the masters of East Germany after May 1945) were final but not necessarly those by the government of the DDR.
In South Africa (and in Zimbabwe) the questions seems to be: Has a particular settler obtained his land in accordance with the laws of the time when he claimed the land? If not he still has to be paid for improvements in terms of Roman Dutch law or that is what I believe. And that seems fair to me.
Thank you for putting this so clearly. If you hear screaming, ignore. I’ll be okay…
More an observation than anything, but suddenly land and rural development seem like hot topics for business: Futuregrowth announce a new agri-fund, then Standard Bank do likewise; the Comprehensive Rural Development Programme eats up 25% of the relevant department’s budget; and now Jimmy M feels the need to pontificate on an issue I am not sure he has ever tackled before. Has some catalyst provoked a Pavlovian response? Malema in Zim saying a land grab would happen here soon?