African economic participation key

imbalances.
Sadc member countries are economically interdependent and thus, equally affected. The white owned economy remains hostile, unco-operative and exclusive, forever creating new obstacles for local indigenous individuals and communities therefore unable to participate.
To add insult to injury, its owners, the long practicing architects of apartheid, meddle in power politics and control with their cheque books. Their influence has turned local black African leaders against one another, causing chaos and confusion within ruling party ranks. It is critical to follow the money trail.
Despite programmes such as “Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE)” and “Affirmative Action” in South Africa the progressive vision of the Namibian government as spelled out in its detailed “Fourth National Development Plan” and Zimbabwe’s working model of indigenisation, the majority of the indigenous Africans remains locked out of the economy.
From the onset, the oligarchs of colonial apartheid counter those they perceive as dangerous to their interests and use their moles in the ruling parties to attack those identified. In this way, the oligarchs have created their own safety, enabling them to remain in the shadows. 
This is demonstrated by the racist mindset of South Africa’s former colonial apartheid President, FW De Klerk. His public announcement, “The introduction of the National Democratic Revolution (NDR) poses a threat to South Africa”, shows his intransigent racist-classist arrogance.
There is simply no economy available. In the case of South Africa, the control by a few white captains of industry poses a serious threat to the country and region’s stability. FW De Klerk’s evil racist mindset is unacceptable. And, those who think along the lines of De Klerk are misled.
They simply do not understand the dangers of it.
In fact, they are not honest, as the deadly cocktail of racism and neo-liberalism has blinded them. But, that mindset will bite them forever. The agendas of the captains of industry have already created problems that will spin out of control, eventually holding insurmountable obstacles for themselves. Times have changed indeed. People have become better informed and know what is going on around them.
Namibia and Zimbabwe’s efforts to open their economies are laudable, as it seems that both these countries have understood the burning urgency of economic participation for the majority. Despite addressing the economy through a broad based National Development Plan in its 22nd year of democratic independence, the director-general of Namibia’s National Planning Commission, Tom Alweendo, admits to failures, “ . . . while the country is classified as an upper middle income country, the official rate of unemployment increased steadily throughout all three National Development Plan (NDP) periods, hitting a high of over 50 percent during NDP3.”
Zimbabwe went through a period of land redistribution, which is now irreversible.
Meanwhile, Zimbabwe adopted a US dollar based economy with an additional South African rand currency and was able to stabilise its economy.
The country is bouncing back, particularly through its vibrant mining sector. An indigenisation programme followed. But, South Africa, marketed as the “economic powerhouse”, has most likely the most serious problems, having to overcome economic discrimination with a population of 50,5 million people. In addition, local and foreign interests actively undermine the ANC and its government.
It seems that unless the ANC finds a way to address delivery to the majority, it could fail. Words and promises will no longer be accepted. It had held its policy conference earlier this year, addressing those issues.
Solid delivery programmes would enable the ANC to overcome current internal power struggles and external influences. Despite De Klerk’s efforts to discredit a national economic transition, South Africa’s economy will have to be balanced. The ruling ANC will have to accept the responsibility of power.
Two areas of the economy would have to be addressed literally immediately — land and mines.
Farmland would have to be delivered for agricultural graduates. This could be done the same way, as medical practitioners have to do their housemanship and attorneys their articles. Agricultural graduates would have to work the lands for three to five seasons to gain hands-on experience. Everything is there — land, labour, equipment, fertiliser and access to water.
The agricultural graduates would lease land from government and from the SANDF. They would receive loans from government institutions and possibly from BRICS. Within five seasons the new farmers could accumulate enough profits from their crops to buy own land. But, beware of private financial institutions!
In this way, South Africa could produce over 10 000 professional farmers and Namibia over 700 farmers per annum. After some 20 years, experienced and seasoned farmers would grow from such a programme.
l Udo Froese is an independent political, socio-economic analyst based in Johannesburg.