I am curious why in the face of all forms of perniciuos racism and genocide committed in the world in the last century you are so intent on continuosly rekindling the flames of the tragedy that occured during the nationalist apartheid period. Does your focus on history delimit you to South Africa only? Before you go down the track and argue that refererring to enormous social crimes committed elsewhere does not absolve apartheid, may I qualify that I am referring to the healing process that followed large scale social inhumanties committed against people. Or are you saying that the atrocities, rape, plunder and massacre of people in the name of war or invasion does not count in the scale of human suffering as much as racial discrimination does? There are many nations and ethnic groups who are today recovering and growing out of their terrible pasts and yet one reads very little about pepetuating memories and hatred in the way you seem to favour. Twenty five thousand Afrikander women and children were murdered by the British through internment camps and the loss of wealth caused by the war is incalculable. Twelve million people died in the concentratio camps of Germany. Millions of Chinese died horrifically during the Japanese invasion. The horrors inflicted on South Koreans by communist North Korea are beyong description. The genocide commited by Stalin and Mao in their social engineering endeavours are of an order that would competely annhilate the population of South Africa. These are just but a few examples but most importantly these are nations that have recocered and rebuilt rather than continuously and obsessively relive, reconstruct and immortalize the wrongs suffered. That is why people with greater wisdom than you lead the Truth and Reconciliation process. Its about healing, not vengeance.

The private sector has, of course, by and large lived in networks in which giving and sharing are the most basic principle at all. A quantitatively small part of the private sector, however, with very few exceptions been living and is still living in networks that had inherited or accumulated wealth or very often acquired under questionable conditions better economic opportunities exclusively for itself – to say the least. How can these two parts of the private sector learn to grow together in a giving and sharing community at long term? That is the question at stake – learning to grow together!

Whilst I subscribe to the interpretation of Desmond Tutu’s proposal as a call to solidarity – to an ‘uBuntu Solidarity Scheme’ as Ben Khumalo terms it -, I am of the opinion that, if certain amounts of property and wealth that had been acquired or inherited prior to a particular date – let us say, the date the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was published – would be taxed for purposes of contributing towards reducing inequality, eliminating poverty and enabling the two parts of the private sector to start learning to grow together, our country would at last be about to truly become a post-apartheid society. That starting point could for example entail acquisition of land by the state especially for rural residential projects and enabling former labour-tenants and the growing masses of shack-dwellers and their children to at last afford living under just as reasonable conditions as everybody else and to become part of that just social and economic system our Constitution aims to accomplish. For that purpose I maintain: Voluntary civic commitment would not suffice; compulsory regulatory measures would prove more effective.

Desmond Tutu’s proposal could open doors and lead to wider horizons: Solidarity tax would do a great deal to put individuals and interest-groups from the two parts of our private sector on a common platform, install in them the notion and give them the opportunity of active participation in reducing inequality and eliminating poverty in our post-apartheid venture in the process of giving and sharing. What are we waiting for?

The private sector has, of course, by and large lived in networks in which giving and sharing are the most basic principle at all. A quantitatively small part of the private sector, however, with very few exceptions been living and is still living in networks that had inherited or accumulated wealth or very often acquired under questionable conditions better economic opportunities exclusively for itself – to say the least. How can these two parts of the private sector learn to grow together in a giving and sharing community at long term? That is the question at stake – learning to grow together!

Whilst I subscribe to the interpretation of Desmond Tutu’s proposal as a call to solidarity – to an ‘uBuntu Solidarity Scheme’ as Ben Khumalo terms it -, I am of the opinion that, if certain amounts of property and wealth that had been acquired or inherited prior to a particular date – let us say, the date the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was published – would be taxed for purposes of contributing towards reducing inequality, eliminating poverty and enabling the two parts of the private sector to start learning to grow together, our country would at last be about to truly become a post-apartheid society. That starting point could for example entail acquisition of land by the state especially for rural residential projects and enabling former labour-tenants and the growing masses of shack-dwellers and their children to at last afford living under just as reasonable conditions as everybody else and to become part of that just social and economic system our Constitution aims to accomplish. For that purpose I maintain: Voluntary civic commitment would not suffice; compulsory regulatory measures would prove more effective.

Desmond Tutu’s proposal could open doors and lead to wider horizons: Solidarity tax would do a great deal to put individuals and interest-groups from the two parts of our private sector on a common platform, install in them the notion and give them the opportunity of active participation in reducing inequality and eliminating poverty in our post-apartheid venture in the process of giving and sharing. What are we waiting for?

If we were to start implementing Desmond Tutu’s proposal, we would by so doing, of course, not be re-inventing the wheel: In almost every family throughout our country there are men and women who give, take and share without making an issue out of it. Many others make their contribution as tax payers and enable the state to live up to its obligations towards the community.

These two sectors of our community – the informal and the formal, the private and the public – could together be the corner-stone of a solidarity-system in the true sense of ubuntu, based on the understanding that everyone accepts the necessity of making available just and affordable living conditions for everybody at long-term within the reaches of the economic power we have today and the wealth we have inherited. A small range of short-term projects could be focused on – for example: a water-supply scheme for certain rural residential-areas; subsidies for vocational training and attainment of skills in agricultural, artisan, commercial and industrial professions most likely to secure adequate living income and to sustain economic growth; adult education in cooperation with trade-unions and other interest groups to enhance in-service training at all levels and to enable interested individuals from outside formalized educational institutions to qualify for alternative occupations and augment their prospects to stable employment opportunities).

Such a solidarity-scheme could function experimentally at a small-scale for a start and set a model for implementation at a large-scale later. Pioneer-communities – in Gauteng, in the Western Cape or elsewhere – could take the lead and set the pace. South Africa has, undoubtedly, many suitably qualified men and women who could cooperate in developing Desmond Tutu’s proposal into a viable public project in tune with the best intentions of our Constitution. Such an “uBuntu Scheme” could be an initiative of great effectiveness that South Africans in their diversity all over the country would take in their own interest as a young democracy and as an investment in a peaceful future.

The tax was not necessarily welcomed. The history of erecting the wall and the separation of East and West dated back more than 30 years. Shortly after the initial historical euphoria of unification, its cost became one of the biggest obstacles between people of the East and the West. Initially, the tax did not bring people closer together but rather had the reverse effect on perceptions about ‘each other’. Yet there is little doubt that the reconstruction and development of East Germany has contributed to the position that Germany occupies today, as Europe’s financial leader. Interestingly, earlier this year, the German constitutional court ruled that the tax is still constitutional and should remain in place.
The discussions regarding the ‘wealth tax’ consisted largely of finger pointing. It was all about who has to pay the tax – ‘the Rich’? ‘The Whites’? ‘The older generation’? which is going backwards in history and encourages thoughts in rather dividing categories.
A solidarity tax in South Africa gives the current debate a different spin and moves away from classifications. It brings the caring humanness back into the discussion. By claiming ubuntu as a form of social solidarity, we say that caring for others is in our genes and it is not about blaming and shaming. It is an opportunity to actually be who we are. Applying the term ‘solidarity’ sends out the message: “Because we care about our fellow South African…’
It does not take much to imagine why living in a more equal society will make all of us happier. The book The Spirit Level, by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett claim that inequality lowers life experience. The book also states that ‘It is the experience of low social status and low self-esteem that encourages violence, obesity, teenage pregnancy, drug use, and so on; and it is the fear that drives consumerism, longer working hours and other economic dysfunctionalities of unequal societies.’
To implement a solidarity tax through a jointly managed fund by private sector, government and civil society could be one of the solutions instilling trust and confidence in citizens that the money will be spent in the allocated manner.
A solidarity tax of this nature will assist South Africa to become more equal. It will not perform miracles but it may assist to rectify some injustices of the past, contribute to closing the economic and social gap, and contribute to our well-being.