Does South Africa still require affirmative action policies?

South African management positions (both top and senior) remain occupied largely by a white, male populous while improvements in the employment standing of designated groups (namely woman, blacks and those with disabilities) is continuously lacking (Department of Labour, 2013: 52-53). It is the role of affirmative action policies, like the Employment Equity Act and Black Economic Empowerment, to shift these statistics to better reflect the South African reality. The evidence available paints a grim picture; despite the end of apartheid and its policies, the landscape of the workforce remains generally unchanged with a white majority in management positions and women under-represented. It will be argued that affirmative action is undoubtedly necessary, and will remain so for years to come, but the policies must be amended to better achieve the goals.

This essay aims to critically address the sensitive issue of affirmative action and its role in South Africa’s path to equality. The Department of Labour’s annual report and the findings therein will form the cornerstone of the debate in favour of affirmative action, but the opinions of various academics will be called upon to provide alternative policy solutions. Because of time and length constraints this essay will limit its analysis to national figures and will give special focus to management statistics.

Evaluating affirmative action in South Africa
The role of affirmative action in South Africa is to ensure equal opportunities for blacks, women and people with disabilities (Department of Labour, 2014). Affirmative Action is carried out in South Africa through two broad policies; the Employment Equity Act and Black Economic Empowerment (BEE). BEE is intended to supplement the Employment Equity Act and it does so by focusing solely on race objectives, while the Equity Act protects all designated groups.


The intention behind affirmative action in South Africa is to address past injustices brought about during, and because of, apartheid. Decades of discrimination, segregation and denied opportunities left South Africa with a majority population uneducated and a small minority empowered. Affirmative action, and its consequent policies, was designed to combat rife inequality and to allow blacks, women and people with disabilities equal opportunities in the workplace. It has been argued that the demographics of South Africa should match the demographics of the workforce (African National Congress, n.d). To illustrate this idea with an example, if South Africa consisted of only 80% blacks and 20% whites then the workforce would be made up of 80% blacks and 20% whites. The Department of Labour has not issued this as a formal goal, but a move to a more representative workforce is the underlying aim of affirmative action.

The success of affirmative action policies has been limited. The graphs (sourced from the Department of Labour, 2013: 27 & 34) pictured below outline the current representation in top management and senior management positions.






It is clear that, overall, white males still dominate leadership positions in South Africa. Woman continue to be under-represented in leadership positions, with males accounting for just under 70% of senior and top level positions. It is also clear that a discrepancy exists between hiring practices of government and private firms. Government is actively promoting blacks (both male and female) while the private sector lags behind.

In brief, affirmative action policies have succeeded in forcing government to make changes in their hiring practices but have not gone so far as to make meaningful changes to the South African workforce as a whole. The Private Sector has not been incentivised to make the same changes and have thus become stagnant in their progress. Across the board, females remain under-represented. Coloured and indian statistics are the most reflective; their representation in top and senior positions closely matches their demographic population.

Policy solutions
To effectively provide policy solutions to the current employment inequality crisis in South Africa it is necessary to understand the problem.

Apartheid, and its various policies, meant that South Africa in 1994 was critically unequal. The most crucial inequality, it will be argued, is that of education. The Bantu education system destroyed most black children’s opportunity for success and that legacy remains.

Benatar (2008) raises an important debate around equal opportunity. He argues that streamlining black candidates into management positions in the hopes of creating equality is unproductive and unsustainable, and that offering equal opportunities is the correct way to administer affirmative action (Benatar, 2008: 276). This process is long-term and will not yield the short-term results government would hope for, but is likely the only sustainable solution to the embedded inequality.

Essentially this approach would require government to focus on providing a solid education foundation that would be readily and cheaply available to all designated groups. What is important is access and opportunity to attend school and acquire education. If all citizens of South Africa were privy to a good school education the inequality present in the workforce would diminish overtime. Some might argue that this notion is currently evident in university systems whereby black students are offered entrance with lower marks than their white counterparts, this is incorrect. The argument would be sound if financial assistance was given to those without the means to afford university, as this is what is hindering opportunities. The key determinant of the policy is the opportunity involved and the opportunity to attend university is directly linked to previous education. The current system, particularly in the workplace, of allowing designated groups direct access to jobs without the relevant skills and education is a similar paradox to treating symptoms and not the disease.

A word to the critics

Much of the current literature on the subject of affirmative action is negative. The rhetoric opposing affirmative action usually contains one of three broad approaches: affirmative action is deemed to be an unethical/racist practise, affirmative action is assumed to be economically inefficient, or heavy criticism is placed on the actual policy at play (as opposed to affirmative action as a whole). What critics fail to understand is the link between social welfare and economic efficiency. South Africa’s economy can only flourish for so long in a society plagued by inequality and anger. It is important to address social change and allow economic improvement to come about as a result.

Conclusion
Affirmative action in South Africa has produced lack lustre results. A strong focus on education and allowing for equal opportunity will, in the long-run, allow for more equal distribution and representation in leadership positions, not only in the public sector but in the private sector too.

------

References
African National Congress. N.d. Affirmative Action and the New Constitution. Available Online: http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=283 [26th September, 2014]

Alexander, N. 2007. Affirmative Action and the Perpetuation of Racial Identities in Post-Apartheid South Africa. Transformation: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa, 63: 92-108.

Ansell, A. E. 2006. Casting a Blind Eye: The Ironic Consequences of Color-Blindness in South Africa and the United States. Critical Sociology, 32: 333-356.

Benatar, D. 2008. Justice, Diversity and Racial Preference: A Critique of Affirmative Action. South African Law Journal, 125: 274-306.

Department of Labour. 2013. 14th Annual Commission for Employment Equity Report 2013/2014. Pretoria.

Department of Labour. 2014. Basic Guide to Affirmative Action. Available online: http://www.labour.gov.za/DOL/legislation/acts/basic-guides/basic-guide-to-affirmative-action [26th September, 2014]