The Indian model has been held up as an offshore example for over a decade. Booming in the late 90s, the IT sector in India has risen, to date, from below 1% to over 5% of GDP, in a country where only 7% of the population have access to the internet. The industry, which has created thousands of new jobs and drawn millions in foreign investment, contributes substantially to the sustained growth of this emerging market. Of the $30+ billion dollars of revenue generated by the services industry, about 75% is comprised of service “exports” to western-based multi-nationals.

Both government and the private sector have made large investment in colleges, which take some of the brightest students from a mediocre schooling system and turn them into professionals who are able to communicate effectively in English, follow well-defined processes and convert designs into deliverables. Though not necessarily delivering a full spectrum of business services, these centres excel in delivering the core bulk of IT requirements, from maintenance to development. This allows large technology companies to pay below-the-market prices for human resources and provide cheaper IT solutions to newly budget-conscious foreign institutions. Part of the revenue generated from the vast amount of work offshored to India is ploughed back into the education system and used to strengthen infrastructure – investment which supports business and benefits the economy as a whole.

South Africa, largely, has missed the wagon and hardly heard the band. While South Africa has established itself as the African outsourcing leader, resultant growth is not nearly as impressive as in Asia and eastern Europe. Politics, social reorganisation and a list of principled “high-priority” agendas have prevented the country from exploiting opportunities open to stable emerging economies. Human rights are often bandied, incorrectly, as a reason for not exploiting “cheap labour”, or “selling out” to bigger economies. Pride – probably misplaced – is a better explanation for this sort of hesitation. There is hope yet, opportunities are opening again. A high growth in professional wages in India, coupled with high staff turnovers of ambitious youth, has resulted in increased recruiting costs, diminishing margins and reducing the desirability of the Indian offshore capabilities. Companies in India are finding themselves squeezed out of the “core” delivery market and, mostly to good end, into higher value markets which better utilise the expertise gleaned from experience and maturity of the IT service industry.

While large IT companies have a strong presence in South Africa, few have established outsourced delivery capabilities to any scale. With low costs of living, a relatively stable political and economic climate, and an abundance of enthusiastic people with strong English skills, South Africa has a number of advantages over places like Lithuania or the Philippines. These countries need to make a concerted effort to provide English education to citizens, and the results are often stilted and unnatural. One could additionally argue that cultural differences between these countries and the western economies they service are large. South Africa, for all its advantages, is held back by legislature making cross-border employment and business difficult and unnecessarily expensive, limited technology-friendly infrastructure, an education policy which favours broad access over a strategic bias towards certain industries, and a lack of focused tertiary courses. A little more long-term investment in entrepreneurship wouldn’t hurt, either.

The education goals of South Africa, at least, are noble – but not mutually exclusive of targeting potential growth markets. The revenue generated by the Indian technology industry more than paid for the expensive universities which were established specifically to provide a narrow but effective set of IT skills to thousands of young people. These people, saved from a life of unpredictable employment, low-end trading or manual work, have turned into some of the global technology leaders of today. If there are good moral arguments against this model, I have yet to hear them. South African politicians and businessmen should realise that, by exploiting some of the otherwise unattractive features of an emerging economy, they can boost growth and wages while also fuelling some of the more philanthropic of their policies.

There is a worrying hypocrisy present in those who both complain about the state of the nation and happily engage in easier-than-punishment bribery.

The second conversation was something I had never heard before: the discussion of technique for bribing officers and the boast of how little bribe was necessary to escape punishment for this or that offence. While part of me wanted to congratulate South Africans for embracing the ‘African Way’, another part of me raised a single eyebrow in judgement.

Famously, Plato describes how Socrates refused to escape from prison, for, although his imprisonment and death sentence was unjust, he did not wish to violate his principle of not responding to an injustice with a second wrong-doing. Socrates argued that disobeying single instances of injustice of an otherwise good government undermined the system as a whole and made it difficult for the government to continue to rule effectively. This position – and it is just one perspective on the matter – does not rule out the use of civil protest, but requires that it is not carried out in the form of breaking the law.

Bribing a police officer does not count as civil disobedience or protest. It’s much easier to make the argument that those who wish to live with a corruption free system should not engage in corrupt behaviour. There is a worrying hypocrisy present in those who both complain about the state of the nation and happily engage in easier-than-punishment bribery.

Corruption is a two way relationship, and although both parties might not always be convicted of the act due to irregularities in this or that aspect of criminal proceedings, the entire institution of under-the-counter negotiation is reinforced by citizens buying themselves out of legitimate punishment. Corruption is no longer a cockroach of the South African government and its public servants, but has organically infested business, illegal immigrants, petty drug users and irresponsible motorists.

I cannot say what action I would take given the option of genuine punishment or a quick-fix bribe, but the way I see it, those of us willing to cross the border of legal behaviour have exactly two options. The first option is that when you are caught driving under the influence of alcohol, you go to jail, pay the fine, go through the legal proceedings. This is, after all, the way in which a functional penal system disincentivises anti-social and dangerous behaviour.

The other option is to accept the institution of corruption as a legitimate means of doing business. In which case, it should be embraced, monopolised. Entire economic and business models should be restructured to include the influence of corruption as a natural component. But, for Jacob’s sake, don’t then also complain about corruption. Don’t demonise those public officials who choose an option which apparently comes naturally to most of us.

Above all, don’t be too surprised when the traffic stops flowing, when family or friends are killed in accidents, or when organised criminals walk free after legal irregularities. The African outcome will not be determined by the competence of governance alone, but also on the willingness of its citizens to commit to a fair and structured, if slightly flawed, institution, and whatever consequences might follow.

Transparency provides the means for a two way dialogue between citizens and their government. Wikileaks has merely achieved a conversation between the media and its audience, bypassing a now-resentful government and shutting down useful lines of dialogue.

Many of the documents contain information which should make us consider the legitimacy of actions of the Pentagon, diplomats and even soldiers. Many of the documents contain information that could cause direct physical harm to people crucial to a number of peacekeeping and journalistic endeavours worldwide.

But the contents of the documents are only of specific interest. What is crucial to realise is that Wikileaks has not achieved a real transparency. A real public transparency occurs when a government willingly divulges its own information. Government complicity in information release is important because it shows their commitment to the process, including holding diplomats and army officials accountable for misbehaviour and willingness to prosecute individuals found guilty of corruption. At an idealistic level, it illustrates that a government places high value in public freedoms and accountability.

Transparency provides the means for a two way dialogue between citizens and their government. Wikileaks has merely achieved a conversation between the media and its audience, bypassing a now-resentful government and shutting down useful lines of dialogue. The United States government has already said that the contents of leaked documents will not cause change in the US operations in Afghanistan or Iraq. They have refused to negotiate with Wikileaks when the opportunity was offered. What is likely to change, however, is the way in which the military and diplomatic personnel maintain records. Security of documents will be tightened and the number of people allowed access to classified information will be reduced. In summary, the flow of information will be tightened and with it the ability to hold baddies accountable reduced.

For the masses of stubborn liberals out there, please realise that stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is not the same as poverty-busting economic reform. Taking information and making it public is not the same as government transparency. Supporting the Wikileaks projects undermines efforts to achieve true and beneficial transparency.

Predicting the eventual end of the ANC government doesn’t make you a prophet, but betting on any imminent change is a sure way of losing your beer money.

In this letter Cliff mentions six classic problems with the current government: corruption, media infringement, education policy, BEE, infighting (and owning BMWs) and finally, just in case the 4×4 crowd got lost with those big words, the renaming of streets and cities.

There are at least three problems with his letter: 1) the tone is accusatory, inflammatory and contains more rhetoric than evidence, 2) it is fraught with inaccuracy and hyperbole, and 3) the tirade is devoid of any positive suggestion of how things can be improved.

I, not unreasonably, believe that any discourse which is to be taken seriously needs to present an argument from a rational, balanced perspective, limit the use of loaded language and should be able to back up claims with good evidence, not mere anecdotes about nepotism. This, at least, provides a good starting point for further analysis.

Gareth, thanks for pointing out that the country needs clever people. If you think the Education Department was broken under the current government, could you please tell me when last it was fixed? Predicting the eventual end of the ANC government doesn’t make you a prophet, but betting on any imminent change is a sure way of losing your beer money.

If you had contact with anyone other than your indoctrinated fans and teenage singer wannabes, you might learn that they aren’t about to switch vote anytime soon. You might also learn about some successes of the BEE initiative (1, 2, 3, from a quick Google search). You might realise that, despite your own indifference, many people feel some degree of pain when they are forced to drive down Hendrik Verwoerd Drive. Do you even know why? And do you realise that you just made a comparison to the Nazi regime in what is meant to be a serious letter?

I guess it’s also easy to forget about service delivery, housing provision, the AIDS epidemic, and countless other pressing problems when you are earning a six figure salary and your audience tend to be the helpless middle-class. This is unfortunate, because it is typically this sector of society who have sufficient resources and political clout to steer wayward politicians in the right direction. It’s a pity that they are being misled by well-written rhetoric and are not taking up opportunities to inform themselves about important African issues beyond this tired culture of complaint.

I’m not generally a fan of entirely ignoring the negative and focusing only on the positive, but I shone with glee when I discovered that not everyone has been taken in by this jockey. And when it comes to speaking to the government face-to-face, Gareth seems to lose his steam. So to all those who rely on Cliff Notes for their daily dose of intellect – you are cheaters and would be better off reading some decent news, conducting some research for yourself, or if you’re lazy, just flip to another radio station and at least avoid further neuronal degeneration.

South Africans: you are smarter than this! You are more creative, and more critical, and more unique! If you consider yourself informed, then I implore you to think critically of the media you greedily ingest and let Cliff know where he can shove his microphone.

Journalists, whose motivations lie in pockets more often than principles, are not necessarily the best placed to determine what should and what should not remain secret.

Reporters Without Borders wrote an open letter to Wikileaks explaining their reservations about the publication. They were concerned firstly for the individuals who were named, and the lives put at risk. They were concerned secondly that this sort of irresponsible posting would result in more regulation of Internet content. There is certainly great use in leaking private information, they admit, especially in the cases where some misconduct or irregularity has occurred. This does not mitigate problems with blanket posting huge swaths of government information.

Transparency. Accountability. Integrity. Words brandished with little evidence of effectiveness as a standard response to threats against press freedom. More subtlety is necessary. Journalists, whose motivations lie in pockets more often than principles, are not necessarily the best placed to determine what should and what should not remain secret.

We all understand that the Protection of Information Bill could provide methods for hiding acts of negligence, incompetence or corruption. This is possibly the crudest of arguments, but coupled with simplistic exposition on how information would be protected under the bill, is probably the most common made by the media and opposition politicians (e.g., 1, 2, 3). There is very little good to be said about the Bill, but attacking it assuming nothing is wrong with the status quo is juvenile. Real issues are on the table here. Technology has made it easy for whistleblowers to disseminate evidence of illegal activity, but simultaneously allows ease for other enterprising individuals to sell private information. There appear to be genuine instances were keeping information private is crucial to the success of  a project or safety of individuals involved. The government certainly needs to be kept in check, but it is far from clear that the way to achieve this is by allowing a frenzied media free-for-all. What is needed is a media debate, more sophisticated analysis, but not the usual Zille-style knee-jerk standoff.