Chairperson, hon President, hon Deputy President and hon members, the UDM supports Budget Vote No 1. [Applause.] Today we participate in your debate concerned about the new culture of anger and lawlessness we witness on a daily basis when people express their concerns. Examples of this culture of ill discipline range from people burning trains because they are late, to industrial action where people carry dangerous weapons in public and destroy both public and private properties with impunity.
As a nation, we should take decisive action against this perpetual use of violence as a means to achieve one's objectives. Such steps would contribute to improved investor confidence in South Africa's adherence to the rule of law. However, one of the biggest challenges facing our country is that our people are bereft of hope due to the high level of unemployment.
The jury is still out as to the overall success of the ruling party's economic policies since it took over in 1994. We have yet to discover whether hon President Zuma, who ascended to power on a pro-poor economic policy ticket, has in fact done anything to move away from his predecessor's perceived pro-capital economic policies. Nevertheless, the truth of the matter is that Mbeki's largely jobless economic growth continues to gain rapid momentum every day. This causes our people to question the value of political freedom without tools or mechanisms designed to produce indigenous wealth creators.
Despite recent interventions by government at the beginning of the year, such as the introduction of the R9 billion Jobs Fund, among others, government's grand plans have yet to bring tangible benefits to the general populace.
In the past, we have seen similar grand plans from the government that amounted to nothing. Poor implementation or lack of implementation of government plans remains the single biggest issue crippling service delivery. After these noble plans, we are often disappointed to hear that billions of rand are returned to the National Treasury unspent.
The question that remains engraved in the minds of many is whether the current decentralised budget process serves the interests of the people we serve. Budget allocations, which are usually read out by the Minister of Finance in February each year, have to wait for extravagant parades of different spheres of government, including the local government level, before they are committed. This cumbersome process normally takes months before it is finalised. Often by the time the funds reach the local government level, it is time for revised budget estimates. Therefore, come the beginning of each year, billions of rand are returned to the national fiscus, unspent. Thus the budget process becomes a victim of bureaucratic inefficiencies and bungles.
Consequently, one is compelled to ask whether the time has not arrived for us to review the current pseudo-federal system, which negatively affects service delivery. By doing so, we would ensure that budgets reach the local government level without unjustified delay.
As we speak, the roads in most small towns and rural areas are impassable. The infrastructure is in a state of disrepair. Some of these roads and basic infrastructure were washed away by the rains as far back as November last year. In the meanwhile, our people and the unemployed are told to wait for the finalisation of the lavish parades.
While on the subject of budget allocations, it is important to note that this process has structural problems. The current budget allocation formula of basing budget allocations on the population size of each province creates numerous challenges. The amount of money that a province receives should also take into account the province's infrastructure backlogs and imbalances of the past. Thank you. [Time expired.]
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES: Chairperson, it is exactly five years to the day that Mr Mbeki announced the resignation of Deputy President Zuma. I was here on that day.
In Afrikaans s ons die kat kom terug. Hy is nog hier. [In Afrikaans we say a bad penny always turns up again. It is still here.]
The hon President referred to the role of the youth. This week it is also the ANC Youth League's conference to elect leaders. The Albertina Sisulu funeral posters read: "Albertina Sisulu: nation builder and selfless leader". Can you imagine a poster of Mr Malema reading: "Julius Malema: nation builder and selfless leader"?
What then is the difference between these two people? Mrs Sisulu was a first-generation political leader, following the 1994 political settlement. In her speeches and actions she emphasised nation-building and reconciliation. Mr Malema is a third-generation political leader after the settlement. I have never heard Mr Malema emphasising nation-building or reconciliation.
Are we not giving too much attention to Mr Malema? Why must we take notice of his statements in a debate like this? There are more than enough examples in the world of how populist leaders had soured relations between groups through irresponsible comments that eventually lead to conflict, violence and even civil war.
In Cyprus, the Greeks and the Turks reached a political settlement that seemed to permanently solve the conflict between them. In the sixties, the settlement failed and ended in serious violence. In Lebanon, the Muslims and Christians reached a political settlement that seemed to permanently solve the conflict between these two groups. In the seventies, the settlement failed and ended in a lengthy, 15-year, violent civil war.
What lessons must we learn from this? When does a political settlement, reached between various groups, fail? Any political settlement comes under great pressure when the third-generation political leaders, following such a settlement, start getting power.
What do I mean by that? Mandela, Albertina Sisulu, De Klerk and Constant Viljoen were the first-generation political leaders that negotiated a settlement. To reach a settlement they had to compromise and find common ground between the interests of their specific supporter groups. The second- generation leaders are Mbeki and Zuma, Tony Leon and Mulder. As second- generation leaders, we were part of, or witnesses to, the initial negotiations. As leaders fighting elections, we are under pressure from our various power bases to promote our supporters' interest alone. The challenge is to keep a balance between the interests of your power base and the general interest of South Africa.
The third-generation political leaders are the Malemas of today, hoping to be in power tomorrow. You find them in all political parties and on all sides of the political spectrum. They do not feel bound by the original settlement because they were not part of it. The general interest of all South Africans is not their priority, as they prefer to only play to their audiences with racial statements.
When I listen to the ANC Youth League and Mr Malema, they irresponsibly propagate nothing else but camouflaged revenge of blacks on whites. The alarming part of this is that they get huge applause at public meetings for this.
In Kimberley, Malema said that all whites in South Africa are criminals. I checked up on that. That is exactly what he said. Does he have the faintest idea what anger and resentment this causes, especially as it is seen against the background of the song "Kill the Boer", which is associated with him? I know the ANC arguments of their struggle history, of apartheid being a crime, etc, but this does not change the emotions and polarisation I experience every day in reaction to these statements.
Is it a crisis? Yes! If these problems are ignored, it becomes a crisis, permanently bedevilling all relations between South Africans. When leaders like the President and I do not react to these statements, it creates a climate within which these young people act in a racist way and believe that it carries the required approval. Once these views become the view of the majority of people, then we are in a Cyprus or Lebanon crisis situation.
Are radical opinions not normal in a society? Yes. Let me give you an example. Since the sixties, there have been radicals, for example in America, where they tried to fight racism. In spite of this, you will find some of the worst racists in Washington and in London. But you also find them in Soweto and in Cape Town - ask me. I have tried to debate with some of these people in Washington and in Soweto. But in a normal society this is always a minority viewpoint.
A community is in trouble when these radical minority viewpoints become the viewpoints of the majority of the community. That is where we are today. An Indian chief once spoke about good and evil and said that there were two dogs fighting inside him. One dog spurs him on to do good things and the other spurs him on to do bad things. To the question of which dog wins, he said: "The one that I feed the most". At present, the wrong dog is being fed and is winning in South Africa. It is our responsibility to look after that. I thank you.