In
2000, leaders from 189 nations signed on to the eight Millennium
Development Goals (MDG) designed to significantly the reduction of
global poverty and disease
Since
2000, tangible results prove that dramatic progress is possible when
developing countries and donor governments fulfil their ends of the
bargain. But despite these successes, much more needs to be done to
ensure that MDG are met by 2015, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, which
is the region farthest off-track from reaching the goals.
The same political parties have been in power in South Africa since the global decision to make poverty history.
How
do the South African politicians demonstrate through their own
lifestyles that they are prepared to share wealth with the poor?
One only needs to read the local news
on government and political spending to find that answer. If the
government leaders cut their own wasteful spending then it would not
have been necessary to tax the 25 percent of citizens, with sustainable
jobs, into the poverty bracket.
If
BBE companies were being built from the grassroots up, instead of
hijacking the employment selection of profitable companies, the 75% of
black managed companies would have been a reality and not just a dream.
One can not exchange experience or education for skin pigmentation.
The
failure of poverty reduction lies in the fact that the government
wanted to steal white positions instead of building international
trading centres. The money was there to do it. There was a time
when the world poured cash into African countries, until they found out
that it all ended up in the hands of executives while the poor grew
poorer.
It
is time to reflect on past failures on the home front; the failures
of the last twenty years. Think how much money would there have been
if companies did not move overseas to escape government interferences.
How
much money and expertise would there have been if people were not made
redundant while they were in their prime just to make way to empower
other with less experience.
It
is time that executives realize that decisions do not need to be made
in expensive restaurants or in private jets. Much money can be saved
if the system of video conferencing is utilized to its fullest.
Perhaps
we can, from now on, calculate spending, like the cost of executive
dinners, with the number of basic wage packets spent on one sitting,
instead of just considering dollars and pounds. We need to see
actions in perspective.
The penny has to drop in such a way that each leader evaluates his own financial footprint.
RW
