Too early for affirmative action to come to an end

The Times (South Africa)
Jimmy Manyi
October 12, 2008

It is not uncommon to hear the critics of affirmative action citing the continued plight of the rural poor, and the disproportionate benefit that a few of the elite have gained from the process, as indications that employment equity programmes are failing.
The purpose of employment equity is to achieve racial diversity in the workplace in such a way that it reflects the demographics and values of the wider society. Employment equity is not a medicine for all the social and economic ills of the country.
Yes, indeed, affirmative action may be a race-based strategy, but it is aimed at achieving a race-blind end. If you remove the race criteria of affirmative action, it would be tantamount to denying that apartheid targeted black people.
For the purposes of the Employment Equity Act, the end state has been defined to mean the equitable representation of an economic active population (EAP) in terms of all the race groups.
In the September 2007 Labour Force Survey, the EAP within the various race groups was as follows: Africans (74,8%) coloureds (10,3%), Indians (2,8%) and whites (12,1%). Within these numbers, the act requires that gender be tracked separately, which resulted in the following EAPs for women: Africans (34,4%), coloureds (5,0%), Indians (1,0%) and whites (5,4%).
In terms of the provisions of the act, these percentages should be reflected at all levels and across all categories.
It is against this background that the 2007 snapshot of progress, or lack thereof, should be measured.
In understanding this data, it is crucial to point out that it is only designated employers — both public and private sector — that are participants in this game. These are sizeable employers with a prescribed number of employees and turnover. Needless to point out, the act does not apply to spaza shops, street hawkers and one-man-band operations .
If one draws a trend line from 2003 to 2007/8, it is very depressing to note that at the level of top management, Africans are 18,8% against an EAP of 74,8%; coloureds are at 3,9% against an EAP of 10,3%; Indians are 6,1% against an EAP of 2,8%; and whites dominate at a whopping 68% against an EAP of only 12,1%.
It therefore defies logic that a sunset clause on affirmative action is even being discussed.
Figures also show that white women, in particular, have been the main beneficiaries of the act. This over-representation of white women leads one to conclude that because the gatekeepers are almost exclusively white, perhaps they can only see merit in their own kind. [To see the entire article, go to: http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Insight/Article.aspx?id=861270 ]