2010, and welcome to the world!

As we celebrate the New Year in South Africa, we are very excited about the 2010 World Cup, and the opportunity to welcome new visitors to our country. The stadiums are ready and all our international visitors are in for a treat!

Mr Sepp Blatter – apparently the head of Fifa – has been critical of South Africans for not being enthusiastic enough. I cannot say much about Mr Blatter, but I am sure he is an honourable man. He has been feted and wined by our Ministers and other officials whenever he comes here – I have seen it in the media – so he must be honourable.

I looked him up on Google – this man who, while no doubt honourable, has the nerve to tell us to be more enthusiastic about the World Cup.

I was interested to read about his nephew getting a very lucrative world cup contract (in the news just 2 days ago).

And apparently there is a journalist called Andrew Jennings, who has reported extensively on what he sees as the corrupt way in which the Hon Mr Blatter has governed world football for many years.

I am somehow reminded of the great speech by Mark Anthony:

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones,
So let it be with Caesar ... The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answered it ...
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest,
(For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all; all honourable men)
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral ...
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man….
He hath brought many captives home to Rome,
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then to mourn for him?
O judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason…. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.


The Right Honourable Blatter has something still to learn if he thinks he is the King of South Africa, even for only a year. Whoever we as South Africans are, we are not the kind of people to come out on to the streets and cheer just because some Fifa official tells us to – even if he is very honourable. We will blow our vuvuzelas when we are ready.

Apartheid where it belongs – in a museum

Today I went again to the Apartheid Museum in Johannesburg. On 23rd December, we did not expect it to be busy. We were wrong – there were hundreds of visitors – many from overseas and also many South Africans, of all shades and hues.

Visiting the Apartheid Museum is a moving experience – whatever your prior knowledge or experience of apartheid. It is difficult not to be moved when reading the official execution notice of Andrew Sibusiso Zondo (hung in 1986), or to read the words of Solomon Mahlangu before his execution in 1979 - "My blood will nourish the tree that will bear the fruits of freedom. Tell my people that I love them. They must continue the fight."

I was there with Gary Friedman. Gary is a puppeteer who lives now in Australia but whose heart is still in South Africa. Gary was the creator and master puppeteer with Puppets Against Apartheid in the 1980s, Puppets Against AIDS in the 1990s and Corporate Creatures (now). The Puppets Against Apartheid included caricatures of former President PW Botha (Pee Wee), Konstabel Kaaskop, Bishop Desmond Tutu, the green alien ‘CT’ who was unable to find a place where green people could live in South Africa, and various other memorable characters.

Working with puppets is an amazing way to communicate with people about very real issues in a medium that enables messages to be transmitted and taboos to be explored - whilst allowing us to laugh at ourselves at the same time. This was the power of Gary’s work, and was especially effective in addressing issues related to HIV and AIDS. The work that Gary and others did in prisons was incredibly valuable – giving prisoners the opportunity to become empowered in exploring what goes on in prisons in the context of HIV.

Gary still has many of the original puppets, and is now exploring a new home for them – we hope that the Apartheid Museum may be the right place!

Paul Keursten comes to South Africa in 2010!

My good friend and colleague Paul Keursten is moving to South Africa in the next few weeks. Paul is one of the founding partners of our company in Holland and, not the first and surely not the last Dutchman to fall in love with South Africa, is taking the great step of buying a one-way ticket and will be setting up home with his family here from January onwards.

Paul is an entrepreneurial visionary. He has the wonderful quality of being able to see and appreciate the opportunity in almost any situation! He doesn’t see problems or blockages, and when he experiences them first-hand finds them completely intriguing, and as opportunities for change, growth and learning. We are so lucky that he will be joining us here in South Africa!

One of the initiatives that Paul has pioneered is the SEE Trust. The germ of the SEE Trust idea came from his engagement with Susan Rammekwa and the work she is doing with the Tshepang project in Roodepoort. Susan is another incredible person. She has established an incredibly vibrant community project at Princess – near Westgate in Roodepoort, Johannesburg This project has at its heart a crèche-school for vulnerable children (that has grown from a mere handful to over 200 children now) from the community, who are educated, fed and cared for every day. Around the school, Susan has mobilised volunteers from the community and has established a computer centre, a sowing initiative, a large vegetable garden, and a feeding scheme for elderly community members – above all a community centre that people can involve themselves in and make a difference.

Around the Tshepang project, the SEE Trust plans to build some low cost rental accommodation and a high school (currently children from the community have to travel great distances every day to get to school). The Trust mobilises investors who take a stake in these initiatives.

This is an exciting initiative that seeks to transform communities and peoples’ lives – assuming that people will take responsibility – and provides a new developmental model liberated from the normal constraints of donor funding and ‘service delivery’. It will be very exciting to see how the SEE Trust plans unfold in the next few years. Paul, Ineke and Florian – welcome to your new home!

SA 51st position in Legatum Index

The 2009 Legatum Prosperity Index, which measures the relative prosperity of 104 countries, rates South Africa at 51 overall.

The Legatum Institute describes itself as “an independent research, policy, and advocacy organisation that promotes political, economic and individual liberty in the developing and transitioning world”, and describes the Index as “the world’s only global assessment of wealth and wellbeing; unlike other studies that rank countries by actual levels of wealth, life satisfaction or development, the Prosperity Index produces rankings based upon the very foundations of prosperity – those factors that help drive economic growth and produce happy citizens over the long term”.

Well how independent the Institute actually is I cannot be sure. The Institute has an interest in ‘free markets’ and according to their website key personnel have links with the US National Security Council and the Heritage Foundation, so you may be able to form your own opinion.

Nonetheless the Prosperity Index makes interesting reading. The South Africa country profile is based on an assessment of 9 indices – economic fundamentals (regarded as unstable), entrepreneurship and innovation (moderate), democratic institutions (basic freedoms guaranteed “but there is interference in South Africa’s judiciary”), education, health, safety and security (“notable domestic security problems”), governance, personal freedom, and social capital.

On the social capital index, South Africa is ranked 30th overall, and the report notes that “social trust is low, with only 17% of individuals believing that other people can be trusted”. However, the social capital ranking is boosted as a result of reported high levels of organisational membership (especially religious affiliation), and a willingness to assist others in need.

The safety and security ranking (96th) gives cause for concern. The Index reports that “the South African government allegedly engages in practices such as torture or political imprisonment”, implying that torture and political imprisonment are used as instruments of state repression. The Amnesty International 2009 country report on South Africa (which I would consider a more credible source) indicates that “torture and other ill-treatment by police, prison warders and private security guards continued to be reported and sometimes led to the deaths of detainees”, but does not imply that this is done as a matter of state policy. Which is not to say that the South African government should not be doing more to prohibit the mistreatment of prisoners and detainees.

Interestingly, the US is rated 19th in terms of safety and security, despite one of the highest homicide rates in the world, the continued existence of the death penalty, and the use of torture, mistreatment and rendition by US forces around the world.

Working with electricity in Pretoria

For the last 2 weeks Paul Keursten and I have been working with the Imtech/Nova project in the east of Pretoria. The project is part of the Imtech BV corporate social responsibility programme and is working with the Nova Institute to promote the sustainable use of electricity in households as a contribution to addressing climate change. 6 people from Imtech have been working (together with people from Nova) in households in 3 distinct communities in the east of Pretoria (Mamelodi, Garsfontein and Woodhill).

In each household, the Imtech people have engaged with the residents over a 48-hour period to measure the electrical energy consumed by each individual appliance in the homes and to provide advice to reduce electricity consumption. The results have been very interesting, both from a social and from a technology perspective!

Major consumers of energy are geysers and fridge/freezers (especially when set at inappropriate or incorrect temperatures), TVs and other devices on stand-by, and over-filled kettles. This is true in all communities, regardless of income levels. It appears that households in all 3 communities could quite easily reduce their electricity consumption (and bills!) by up to 20% a month by taking some quite easy steps. Particularly important in the light of huge looming price increases for electricity over the next 3 years!

Paul and I have been facilitating the learning process in the project, and we framed the process in the heroic journey model (Home, Test, Quest, Shift, Gift). We have facilitated a learning and de-briefing session with the Imtech and Nova people at the end of each day, and have been fascinated to see how the group has developed in the course of the project. A big ‘shift’ is now occurring, in which the group members are increasingly seeing how providing information is only one part of a wider process of social change that requires community and individual engagement, and so the group is now looking at how to sustain the initiative over the longer term.

Peter Ngwenya

This post is dedicated to the life and memory of my friend Peter Ngwenya, who passed away recently. Peter was a remarkable man in many ways. He was above all a South African, who dedicated his life to transformation and development. His passion for supporting the growth and development of young people through theatre was unmatched, and the work he did through the Soweto Youth Drama Society was inspirational. He later changed the name to The Youth Drama Society, as he did not want to limit involvement of young people from other township areas.

Peter was warm, funny, deeply caring, and incredibly loyal to those he loved. He carried a lifelong intrigue for all people, especially from other cultures and across boundaries. From the township, he loved to visit the suburbs. He walked a global stage, but stayed rooted in Soweto. He embraced the new South Africa, while often frustrated and mystified by its bureaucracies, and was always open to learning. Above all he reached out to people and was a human being.

Hamba kahle Bra Peter.

"Strategic Foresight" needed...

Here is a link to an interesting article by Adam Habib published in The Sunday Times that explores (in a deeper and more articulate fashion!) some of the some ideas from my previous posting...

Opposition politics in South Africa

The election has been something of a distraction from day-to-day things, so this will be my last posting on politics for a while. My continuing interest is the process of realignment of opposition politics and a hope that the process will move in such a way that leads us towards a political opposition that can pose a credible alternative to the ANC for significant numbers of our people – not because I believe that the ANC currently has unacceptable policies, but more because a democracy generally depends on people have choices between different political groupings that they can trust to represent their interests and to govern the country.

So, in this context, what do the results of last week’s elections mean for this realignment process?

The ANC remains the largest party, with more or less two thirds of the popular vote -having probably lost some votes to COPE and the DA and won some from the IFP and maybe some other smaller parties (the ANC won over 1m additional votes in KwaZulu Natal this time round – a major achievement).

The DA, having around 16% of the vote, remains the ‘official’ (largest) opposition party. They are still a long way from posing any real threat to the ANC at a national level – probably for at least the next 12 years – unless there is some radical realignment of the opposition parties. The DA won the Western Cape, and is the main opposition party in only 2 other provinces (Mpumalanga and Gauteng).

Interestingly, the DA’s election analysis document (available on their website, and which is a wonderful example of how to put a positive spin on a situation whilst ignoring some hard realities!) describes the DA as the “fastest growing” party in both the Free State and the Eastern Cape, despite the fact that COPE came from nowhere and leapfrogged above the DA in numbers of votes in both provinces!

COPE won around 7.5% of the national vote, so is well behind the DA overall, but oddly is now the 2nd largest party in 5 provinces (Northern Cape, North West, Limpopo, Free State and Eastern Cape) and so could also claim some recognition as a significant national opposition party.

Smaller parties – especially the Independent Democrats (ID), the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), the United Democratic Movement (UDM) and others, did less well and may be thinking about their political futures. Patricia de Lille of the ID has hinted that she may be thinking about what to do and that opposition parties should consider getting together.

If the smaller parties decide to roll up their tents and find a new political home, I would imagine that the ID and UDM and the remnants of the PAC would be more likely to move towards COPE than the DA – potentially, on 2009 voting figures, bringing COPE closer to the DA…

The Freedom Front Plus would probably be more likely to move towards the DA. It is not clear where the IFP votes would go but if COPE managed to win most of them we could have this scenario:

COPE (7.42%) + ID (0.92%) + UDM (0.85%) + ‘PAC’ (0.7%) + IFP (4.55%) = 14.45%

DA (16.66%) + FF+ (0.83%) + UCDP (0.37%) + MF (0.25%) = maybe 18%

In this scenario, the DA and COPE face a continuing battle for the role of official opposition, with the DA having to constantly look over its shoulder. The ANC would continue to win elections, with still no real alternative emerging. However if we put the realigned DA and COPE percentages together we go over 30% (maybe 32% on 2009 percentages).

Assuming that the ANC could struggle to retain 66% of the votes in the next elections, (and of course assuming that it stays together as a single party), we can then see the potential of a reorganised single opposition party going well over 35% in the 2014 election, and being able to position itself as an alternative government by 2019.

Do any of the opposition parties have the foresight to see this scenario, and the courage to take the first steps or make the first moves? My sense is that fortune will favour the brave.

Election over - what next?

What a disappointing election campaign. I have been looking hard for interesting or even exciting things to write about, from an appreciative perspective!

There have been some positive aspects, some mentioned in my previous posting. It was good that COPE managed in the end to publish an election manifesto – find a link to it on their website. And good that the franchise was extended, as a result of a court case, to South Africans temporarily overseas – although more will need to be done to make it possible for South Africans living away from capital cities, perhaps by allowing an extended postal voting arrangement.

I cannot help but feel hugely disappointed by the opposition parties. While none of them excite me particularly, they (COPE and the DA in particular) had a real opportunity to establish themselves as real opposition parties that showed the potential to really contest for government at some point in the future. All was in their favour – widespread concern about a Zuma Presidency, infighting within the ANC leading to the splintering away of COPE, growing concern amongst marginalised communities about the slow pace of service delivery, and an economic crisis starting to impact on jobs in South Africa.

The one point on which the DA and COPE could potentially have made substantial inroads was in their criticism of the ANC’s policy of ‘deployment’, through which the ANC deploys loyal cadres to key positions in state and semi-state institutions (but they failed to capitalise on this point). The policy of deployment essentially means that people are appointed to key institutions as a result of political largesse, rather than on the basis of competency for the position. We have seen, on many occasions, people being fired or resigning from such positions as a result of incompetence or mismanagement, (and sometimes being paid out large sums to go quietly), when they should probably never have been appointed in the first place. This has led to major problems in key institutions such as the SABC and SAA, and also meant that the in fighting within the ANC spilled over into these bodies as well.

The Independent Electoral Commission has somehow stood above such challenges, with the result that the vast majority of South Africans have great confidence in the electoral process. It is a substantial democratic achievement to have reached the point where the main difficulties with these elections have related to the defacing of some posters on lampposts – “Election marred by disfiguring of Jacob Zuma poster by COPE supporter on Jan Smuts Avenue”.

So the ANC seems likely to win by a substantial majority (of course, I may be wrong!) How is this? The fact is that the ANC is still the party trusted by the majority of South Africans as the one party willing and able to work for the rights of poor and marginalised people in South Africa. It may also be the only political party that can contain both the hopes and the frustrations of the majority of the people, as we work as a country to improve the lives and living conditions of all. The ANC was also the party that brought liberation and hope to South Africa.

It is also the case that no other political party is currently able to win the trust and faith of the people, despite all the failings of the ANC. The ANC, together with alliance partners, COSATU and the SACP, is still a broad church, bigger than Jacob Zuma, within which many perspectives are accommodated, and complete dominance of any one grouping or faction over the others would probably lead to a split – and a much more significant one than that represented by the COPE splinter. My sense is that such a split, if and when it comes, will be defined along policy lines, rather than as a breaking away of personalities.

For now, unless the different opposition groupings, and especially COPE and the DA, can come together to define an alternative policy framework for the country as a whole, the ANC is likely to remain the largest and most dominant party for some time to come.

So what does this mean for trust in our body politic? For now, the majority of people are prepared to trust the ANC with the governance of the country. Other parties are trusted to the extent that they seem to respond to the hopes and fears of particular groupings only. The opposition parties need to articulate a forward-looking agenda that the South African people ‘as a whole’ can identify with, and which offers hope, and enables people to trust them. This will also mean finding new and trustworthy leaders who can articulate that agenda. Sadly, we are a long way from that at the moment.

With the ANC firmly in control of political institutions, the role of civil society, the media and other voices in society will be to ensure accountability on the part of government and parliament, and work for sound governance and competence in the management of public and private institutions.

Reasons to be cheerful!

One of the people who commented on my last post criticised my posting for lacking in insight and another assumed that I need some kind of political education. While I do not intend to defend myself on either charge, and being quite conscious that I do not pretend to be any kind of political analyst, I do feel it useful to perhaps explain the context in which I will on occasion share my perspectives on our political situation – apart from the fact that anyone has a right to comment on politics even if not a political commentator or analyst (or Helen Zille supporter!)

My purpose in writing my last posting was really to illustrate some of the ways in which politicians sometimes betray the trust of the electorate – by using trite slogans, trying to be on more than one electoral list at the same time, projecting image above policy, pretending to be what you are not etc.

And the reason the issue of trust in politicians is important, and related to this blog, is that trust in politicians is an aspect of social capital. Inasmuch as politicians set themselves up to be political leaders, trust in politicians goes to the core of how we see ourselves as a nation and what we want to become. In seeking our trust, and asking for our votes, politicians should be modelling and representing the social capital we need to create and invest in. Trust is therefore a vertical as well as a horizontal phenomenon, existing - or not existing – between people in communities and networks as well as between those who govern and aspire to govern, and those who are governed. (To read more about political capital, see Kenneth Newton's article 'Trust, Social Capital, Civil Society, and Democracy').

A healthy democracy is one in which significant numbers of people vote, and do so to make real choices about politics – policies and leadership. And to facilitate this process we need political parties and political leaders that are able to articulate a clear national vision and alternative choices that appeal to the people of our country on the basis of policies that rise above racial, tribal or sectarian divisions of the past.

Some further feedback I received on my previous posting is that I was surprisingly cynical and unappreciative! So I thought I would take up the challenge and point out various aspects that I do appreciate about the way the parties have conducted their election campaigns.

I am impressed with the moderation (in style and content) displayed by Jacob Zuma. He has been measured and calm in his rhetoric, and I believe this has helped to create a more peaceful atmosphere – important in the light of political tensions in KwaZulu Natal and the arrival of COPE on the political scene.

I am impressed by the DA’s commitment to working in coalition – this bodes well for the development of opposition politics in South Africa.

I guess I am impressed by the fact that COPE has just arrived on the political scene and has managed to conduct some kind of national campaign within a few short months.

I believe that the PAC has done well to come through its recent troubles and is presenting itself in a more coherent fashion to try and win votes.

The Independent Democrats have run a quite focused campaign and have also managed to project themselves as being slightly more than just a political machine for Patricia De Lille.

The ‘A’ party has done well to arrive on the political scene as a smart combination of smaller and minority parties that by themselves would not have been able to afford the deposit to run on the national list.

Well let me stop lest I am next accused of damning with faint praise! Considering that our democracy in South Africa is still less than 6,000 days old, and despite many reasons to be cynical or despairing, I believe that there are also quite a few positive signs that we are a steadily maturing political democracy.

The opposition hands it to the ANC

What a disappointing election campaign. With national elections on 22nd April I have seen slightly more evidence that something is happening than there is of the FIFA World Cup coming here next year (but not much).

No leaflet from any political party through my letter box as yet. No phone call, SMS, or e-mail from anyone. Some posters on lampposts, but none from COPE. The DA has pictures of Helen Zille, and some other people (but no idea who). The Freedom Front Plus has posters of happy white people, which at least makes clear who they are targeting. The ANC says that “together we can do more”, which is hardly inspiring.

COPE has marginalised itself by failing to produce anything substantial by way of policy. Some brief lines do now appear on their website. The 2 most recent ANC defectors who joined COPE (Sello Moloto and Dennis Bloem) between them made a farce of the whole process – Dennis Bloem by managing to appear on both the ANC and the COPE lists simultaneously (to appear on a list you have to sign nomination papers) and Sello Moloto by resigning as Limpopo Premier on joining COPE, but not quickly enough to avoid being COPE’s first, possibly last, and undoubtedly shortest-lived Provincial Premier for a few hours last week before the ANC hastily replaced him with an acting Premier (Cassel Mathale). Interestingly the Who's Who profile of Moloto shows that he was also a member of the South African Communist Party - I wonder if he also remembered to resign from the SACP before joining COPE?

The DA has all the colours of the South African flag incorporated into its new logo (er, except, er… black). Party leader Helen Zille effectively gave it up to the ANC when she descended into a name-calling tit-for-tat with ANC Youth Leaguer Julius Malema, only for President Motlanthe to chide Malema for being an unruly child, leaving Zille with lots of egg on her face and looking distinctly un-Presidential. In one well swoop, by calling Malema an uncircumcised youth, she probably alienated some hundreds of thousands of potential DA voters. Recognising the value of these type of silly exchanges, Malema on Saturday reportedly perpetuated the exchanges by referring to Helen Zille as a "toddler".

Helen Zille is now reduced to attacking COPE, saying that a vote for COPE is effectively voting for the ANC. I don’t quite get that, but it shows that the main concern of the DA is that they will lose support to COPE, which at least managed to remember to have some black in its logo.

So the likelihood is that the election will confirm
that the COPE breakaway does not represent a major
split within the ANC – more just another stage in the
continuing realignment of opposition parties.

Social capital in the workplace

Miro's 'Personages in the presence of a metamorphosis'

So, following on from my last post, if we accept that social capital is a real form of capital (even if it is hard to measure), then why do we invest so little in creating it?

Joseph Kessels and Rosemary Harrison distinguish between human capital and social capital – describing human capital as “the knowledge, skills, competencies and attributes embodied in individuals that facilitate the creation of personal, social and economic well-being” and social capital as comprising “networks together with shared norms, values and understandings that facilitate cooperation within or among groups” (Harrison, R. & Kessels, J. 2004. Human resource development in a knowledge economy. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan).

In South Africa we invest significant resources in human capital development – a whole bureaucracy (SETAs, SAQAs, national qualifications frameworks, unit standards and so on) exists to skill and train our people, even beyond the formal schooling and tertiary level education sectors. And yet, by comparison, almost no resources are directly allocated to promoting social capital.

Three years ago the Macro-Social report produced by the Presidency recognised the apparent low levels of social capital in South Africa – reporting that over half of all South Africans claim to have no close friends, with almost another 30% claiming to have only one or two close friends. The Report indicates that membership of voluntary groups (churches, youth groups etc) has fluctuated since 1994, with no clear trends emerging, suggesting that the value of belonging to such groups is not obvious to all. Somehow I found these figures quite disturbing – I had imagined that communities in South Africa contain vibrant networks and that people have strong support networks and friendships, but maybe many relationships are more casual, occasional and temporary than appears on the surface…

Social capital can bring significant advantages to individuals, communities and society at large. So much so that the World Bank supports social capital development projects around the world. The advantages are many and varied – for individuals a strong social capital network can bring support in times of crisis, new business contacts, support in bringing up children etc. Communities benefit from a stronger sense of identity and cohesion, and society at large benefits from the harnessing of new ideas, higher levels of innovation and productivity and a stronger sense of shared values.

And there is an increasing interest on the relationship between social capital and learning in the workplace. My colleagues Tjip de Jong and Joseph Kessels have argued that whereas the returns on investing in human capital development (through more traditional training interventions) can be measured in terms of improved performance within the confines of existing job descriptions and linear performance management systems, investing in social capital in the workplace can contribute to higher levels of productivity, innovation and creativity (see their paper.

Investing in social capital then is different from training and ‘capacity building’, and is more concerned with building lifelong learning and supporting a learning perspective to how we work. This could involve, for example, building communities of practice, action learning sets and ‘brown bag’ events, as mechanisms for connecting professionals both within their own working environment and connecting them with their broader professional community.

Social Capital – a trendy concept, or a real form of capital?

The popular debate about the value or usefulness of social capital is a relatively recent one – popularised by Robert Putnam, who wrote a book called Bowling Alone, in which he looks at the decline in popularity of bowling clubs in the US, as people stay at home to watch TV, and how this is symptomatic of a decline in social capital in that country. Putnam sees social capital as consisting of features of social organisation that depend on trusting relationships and networks that facilitate business and cooperative activity in society.

One of the challenges in building an understanding of social capital is that it appears to be very intangible and is hard to pin down and measure. How can we put an objective measure on the value of our relationship with our next-door neighbour? While we may instinctively understand and appreciate the importance of that relationship, it may only provide real or significant returns in times of crisis or when we need each other, and the importance of that relational social capital is not given a value by society.

While it may not be easily visible, we instinctively create and invest in these social relationships, knowing that they may also be useful for us and provide returns at some point, as with other forms of capital. The ‘returns’ may simply be the value we gain from having social contact (friendship), but may also be more (practical assistance in times of hardship, business engagement etc).

It is useful to think of the trust and networks that constitute social capital as constituting a real form of capital, similar to human, physical and financial capital – even if it is less easy to measure.

Paul Adler and Seok-Woo Kwon, writing in the prestigious Academy of Management Review (Adler, P.S. & Kwon, S. 2002. ‘Social capital: Prospects for a new concept’, Academy of Management Review, 22(1): 17-40) examine whether social capital is actually a real form of capital, and they argue that social capital is similar to other types of capital in that it represents an asset that one can invest in with expectations of future returns, that it can be used for a range of different purposes and that it can substitute for other resources, and that it requires maintenance (similar to human and physical capital, but unlike financial capital).

As such, social capital can be understood as a real form of capital with meaningful value that can be exploited in similar ways to other forms of capital, even if it cannot be seen and measured easily.

If it is a real form of capital, then it is perhaps surprising that we as a society do not invest more in creating and stimulating social capital. I will explore this question further in future blog posts.

Low Trust Globalisation

I have indulged myself somewhat in recent posts with my thoughts on the Open Doors and Flags scenarios developed by the Shell scenarios team in 2005, in which they explore possible future worlds in 2025.

To complete the picture, the third scenario they imagine is ‘Low Trust Globalisation’. This scenario is perhaps closer to a representation of the world as it is today, and less idealistic than ‘Open Doors’ and less fatalistic than ‘Flags’.

These 3 Shell scenarios were developed through a process of exploring the results of trade-offs and choices that can be made in managing the interplay between powerful forces that exist in the global business environment. The forces derive from a drive for efficiency and the power of the market, the need for security (in the broadest sense) and the consequent push for coercion and regulation, and the push for social cohesion that arises from the human need for community.

So, while the Shell team emphasises that these three forces will continue to shape our world for the next number of years, it is the business choices and political trade-offs that will impact on the balance of these forces and lead to the scenario alternatives. So ‘Flags’ represents a world where the balance is found between the needs of security and community, with free markets playing a less significant (but not absent) role. ‘Open Doors’ emphasises the balance between community (social cohesion) and the market, with less concern about security and higher levels of regulation. And the ‘Low Trust Globalisation’ scenario is a world that finds itself concerned primarily with market efficiency and security, and in which community power and the drive for social cohesion struggle to make as big an impact.

The current global economic ‘crisis’ has had interesting consequences, with western ‘capitalist’ governments effectively nationalising banks and propping up the motor industry. It was Karl Marx of course who in the Communist Party Manifesto called for the nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy. Come back you Reds – all is forgiven!

And it seems to be agreed, amongst economic commentators in the Western media, that much tighter regulation is needed of the banking system and the behaviour of senior banking, auditing and other financial directors and CEOs.

If this represents a fundamental shift away from the values of the market, it could lead us towards the ‘Flags' scenario, in which national interests take precedence over the globalisation trends of the last 30 years. My sense, however, especially after following what has been happening in Davos, is that the leading economic powers will seek to re-establish the power of the markets as drivers of economic growth and that Western governments will have little appetite for running banks for very long, even if new regulatory systems are negotiated and put in place.

The prime challenge facing those who see the need for a more environmentally and ecologically sustainable world system at peace with itself then remains. As the forces of globalisation reassert themselves, how can companies, organisations, communities and governments, especially those in the developing world, create innovative, practical and dynamic products, services and initiatives that stimulate more sustainable ways of living and lift people out of poverty?

We certainly live in interesting times, and the world and South Africa seem to change markedly even in the time between my blogposts! But these times are times of great opportunity and optimism, even as we face deep and sustained crises of one kind or another. Seamus Heaney, one of Ireland’s leading poets, wrote of the time when ‘hope and history rhyme’:

from The Cure at Troy

Human beings suffer,
they torture one another,
they get hurt and get hard.
No poem or play or song
can fully right a wrong
inflicted or endured.

The innocent in gaols
beat on their bars together.
A hunger-striker's father
stands in the graveyard dumb.
The police widow in veils
faints at the funeral home.

History says, Don't hope
on this side of the grave.
But then, once in a lifetime
the longed for tidal wave
of justice can rise up,
and hope and history rhyme.

So hope for a great sea-change
on the far side of revenge.
Believe that a further shore
is reachable from here.
Believe in miracles
and cures and healing wells.

Call the miracle self-healing:
The utter self-revealing
double-take of feeling.
If there's fire on the mountain
Or lightning and storm
And a god speaks from the sky

That means someone is hearing
the outcry and the birth-cry
of new life at its term.

~ Seamus Heaney ~

Fresh air!

I write this while watching the announcements by Hillary Clinton of George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke as special envoys for the US to, respectively, the Middle East and Pakistan and Afghanistan. A ‘dream team’ in terms of their combined experience, although Al Jazeera commentators are tonight sounding notes of caution about Clinton’s perceived Zionism. Nonetheless, it is refreshing is to hear a new language coming from the US State Department about peace, and the possibility for peace, and the vital need for intensive processes of diplomacy and development as critical to achieving these goals. The presence of President Obama and Vice President Biden at the event on the second day of the new administration emphasises the momentum and energy behind this new approach.

Without getting starry-eyed about US foreign policy, this marks at least a different articulation from the recent past. A new approach to policy based on diplomacy rather than military strength is consistent with the Open Doors scenario discussed in my recent blogs, and a move away from the more nationalist Flags scenario.

This new wind will hold a mirror to the rest of the world. Can South Africa bring a new and urgent focus to efforts for peace and development in Zimbabwe? Where is our Special Envoy to Harare? We need to be doing much more to address the humanitarian crisis on our northern border.

The inauguration of President Obama leads us to recall the day that Madiba was inaugurated as our first democratic President. The ANC government, in my view, still represents the best continuing hope for peace and development in South Africa. Nonetheless, the ANC needs to retain a sense of humility and humanity in these tasks. It was saddening for me to hear the response of ANC Secretary General Gwede Mantashe to the defection from the ANC of former President Mbeki’s mother to the new COPE political party. He described this as a “non-event”, saying that she had not campaigned for the ANC since the 1950s. The implication is that individuals are not important unless they have power, and that individuals leaving the ANC are of little concern to the party. This is unfortunate for a party that has always been grounded in the people of this country, and I hope does not represent a shift away from the idea that South Africa belongs to all the people who live in it.

more scenarios, and working through the crunch

In contrast to the Open Doors approach, Shell also offers us the Flags scenario. This is probably the most gloomy prospect, and represents a retreat into nationalism, local community, tribalism and a backtracking on processes of globalisation. It is the opposite of an interconnected world.

And of course, there are examples around us of how this plays out. The conflict in the Middle East, and the particular conflict in Gaza at present, shows how the Flags scenario unfolds. The real tragedy is that the Israeli approach is likely to be counter-productive in the medium to long-term. As Jonathan Freedland has written, the danger of destroying the Hamas leadership is that more sinister forces arise in their place. This has happened before – the intensive and illegal bombing of Cambodia by the US in the 1970s (in an attempt to disrupt the Ho Chi Minh trail – along which weapons were transported into what was then South Vietnam) created fertile conditions for the rise to power of the genocidal Khmer Rouge. Of course, the Khmer Rouge posed no direct threat to the US, whereas Gaza is on the doorstep of Israel.

As Harold Macmilan (not Winston Churchill) once said, “jaw jaw is better than war war”. In South Africa, it is good to see that the Chief Rabbi Dr Warren Goldstein and Muslim Theologian Moulana Ebrahim Bham can sit together and debate Middle Eastern politics in a civilised way on Radio 702. We do not expect them to agree, but the fact that they are able to talk at least keeps alive the prospects for dialogue – this is more consistent with the Open Doors approach and should be welcomed. And, similarly, the talks held between French President Sarcozy and the Syrian President Assad also demonstrate the importance of dialogue, even when people may disagree or not be on the same side.

One of the most outstanding war poets was Wilfred Owen. He wrote many poems about the futility of war, and was killed, aged 25, 7 days before the end of the First World War, shot dead whilst arranging some duckboards at a river crossing. One of his poems Dulce et decorum est scoffs at the idea of finding glory in dying for one’s country. Here he reflects on the smallness of nationalism and imagines a better human purpose:

Oh, Death was never enemy of ours!
We laughed at him, we leagued with him, old chum.
No soldier's paid to kick against His powers.
We laughed, -knowing that better men would come,
And greater wars: when each proud fighter brags
He wars on Death, for lives; not men, for flags.

from The Next War, Wilfred Owen, 1893-1918

With looming elections in South Africa, we need to be mindful of the lessons for us. Arguing about flags and symbols leads nowhere. We need real civilised debates about issues, and the forward direction for our country. We have big problems to solve, and need to put aside arguments about party names and logos.

The present global economic climate is one that may not seem conducive to boosting foreign direct investment into South Africa and for stimulating expanding economic activity. But there are opportunities. The approach we take in Kessels & Smit (see our new website) is to support companies to focus on what works and those strengths and core competencies that already exist in the organisation, rather than trying to identify gaps and failings. By leveraging existing capacity, in an appreciative way, we are able to help create real value.

My Dutch colleague, Paul Keursten, puts it like this:

“The current crisis is caused by a search for financial gain without adding value: packaging bonds and loans into big bundles, cutting them into pieces again and selling them on does not add any value, it only creates margins that have to collapse at some point.. A stock market where investors are not shareholders but share speculators, eager to sell shares at a higher prices, where you can win money by gambling on shares going down, and where hedge funds are looking to buy companies to break them up and sell the pieces at a higher prices – this is no longer a useful market in which capital is invested and available for companies to grow and add real value, and where banks exist to provide access to finance and insurance, and to provide financial security.

At Kessels and Smit, we work on the basis what is already there, what is possible (in stead of what is lacking and what is not possible). In these times of limited resources companies need to mobilise what they have to make it and to build on it. They need all their strength and creativity to avoid downsizing or closing as their only option. Our approach is also means less out-of-pocket costs (we work with them and connect with their strengths, which is cheaper and quicker)”.

So we are looking forward to an exciting year, working with existing and new clients. Our work will include supporting personal growth of employees and teams, through coaching, mentoring, team building and creating feedback cultures. We will be supporting strategic processes, for companies, NGOs and government departments. And we will also be creating new partnerships with other organisations that leverage our complementary capacities.

more on Open Doors

The appointment of Justice Edwin Cameron as a judge of the Constitutional Court is very much to be welcomed, and is also an example of an Open Doors approach (see my last blog). Justice Cameron is eminently qualified from a legal perspective, but is also an interesting choice because of his openness about his sexuality and his HIV status – he has been living openly with HIV for some years. This means that he brings an important human rights perspective to his new role, and strengthens confidence in the Constitutional Court as an institution that is able not only to defend the Constitution but also to articulate and stimulate our emerging human rights culture in South Africa.

Beyond the implications for our Constitution, his appointment is also an expression of tolerance and an embracing of diversity in public life that sends a wider message. How many judges, or other high public officials, around the world have ever been able to declare their HIV status, let alone done so in a country where this does not hold back their promotion. We should celebrate his appointment for what it means for South Africa at the start of 2009, and hope that the ANC government in the run up to and beyond the upcoming election can continue to promote diversity, openness and transparency in its governance of the country and its tolerance of differing and even opposing opinions.

Of course, the Open Doors scenario is about much more then political tolerance. It is the Shell scenario that appears to offer the best prospects for enhanced economic growth over the next 15 years. As such, it is useful to think about it as a template for democracy and development, whilst also engaging critically with the insights we gain from the Open Doors perspective in addressing South Africa’s challenges.

We tend to take for granted the idea that economic growth needs to be pursued almost at any cost. We know, from what happened with the power crisis last year, that a growing economy needs to be fuelled with oil, water and electricity, so we immediately need to think about how we create a sustainable growing economy – one that addresses both the demand and supply side of the economic equation. The Open Doors scenario is the one that places the greatest demand on oil reserves as rapid economic growth, particularly in the developing world, means that millions more people buy cars and seek middle class lifestyles.

In consequence, if we seek to create the open and accountable society envisaged in the Open Doors scenario, we need also to focus on issues of sustainability and think creatively about strategies to address energy needs. And the issue of poverty, and the associated consequences, risks falling from the agenda. I will share further thoughts in future posts. Meanwhile, a happy new year!