Protest Insurance - Really?

As I sat in an empty mall, two hours early for work contemplating what I could possibly blog about this week, I read an article on News24 about how South African councillors want insurance against protestors - at the expense of the municipalities! I thought this is too good a topic for me not to sink my teeth into. Enjoy:



So, let's start with an excerpt from the News24 article:

"Councillors should be entitled to, at the cost of municipalities or the state, risk benefits including but not limited to death cover, disability benefits, funeral benefits and cover for assets lost or damaged as a direct result of public violence,” reads a Salga letter to Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs Minister Richard Baloyi.

Say what now?? I can not help but CMAO (chuckle my ass off) at the notion that tax payers money should go towards covering councillors for possible property damage as a result of service delivery protests. I'm not saying I support/condone violence in any form, but really now?

Let's break that statement from the letter down into basic, everyday language that you and I can comprehend. Basically, what these guys are saying is as follows:

1. We're failing miserably at performing our jobs, therefor

2. The service delivery we promised people when we got our jobs/got elected isn't happening, so in essence

3. We're being paid to do nothing and this is pissing people off, therefor

4. Seeing as we are the faces of government, people are holding us to task for the non-service delivery through violent protests resulting in

5. Our property getting damaged. Property which we paid for with money we "earned" sitting on our asses playing solitaire on computers, therefor

6. We require protest insurance at the (additional) expense of government to protect our property.


If anyone feels that's an unfair summation of the excerpt please feel free to offer your take on the matter.

Moving right along, I foresee two main problems with the suggestion that government subsidizes insurance for its employees. My first concern here is, in actual fact for the safety of these councillors. Think about it, if a lion watches you walk past it's cage everyday with a fresh steak in hand while it sits hungry, does it make ANY sense at all for you to step inside its cage to retrieve the lettuce you saw growing next to its waterhole? I think not. People are already upset, and protesting violently mind you, about wasted funds and now the very people seen to be wasting these funds want to go and spend more money - ON THEMSELVES nogal! Clearly common sense is not their friend.

My second concern here is that this would be a classic example of addressing a symptom and not the cause. Contrary to popular belief, black (South) Africans are not blood hungry, criminal savages. People didn't JUST wake up one day and decide to stone and burn down other people's property. In case people have forgotten, and I doubt they have, this country earned its civil freedom through violent protests. Is it then really such a big surprise that they would default to the same tactics in a bid to win economic freedom and service delivery that was promised to them more than 17 years ago? What's that saying again, " if it's not broken..."

I have only one piece of advice to give our councillors: get your heads out of your asses and smell the roses. You have a job as a result of promises you said you could deliver on. This might have been explicitly expressed by you, or tacitly implied by the fact that you took on the job. Were you employed by a private institution you most likely would've been suspended/fired by now. So, you can do one of two things here: actually start doing your jobs, or step aside and let people who can do the jobs take over. It really is that simple.