Misusing demographic representivity

Unfortunately, the controversy has missed the most important issue: the misuse of demographic representivity, both national and regional, in the quest for justice in the workplace.

The misuse arises from three important mistakes: faulty logic, ethical error and conflict with the Bill of Rights in the constitution.

The errors of logic arise from some muddled thinking:

Firstly, when those involved fail to distinguish properly between activities where freedom of choice plays a key role and ones where it cannot; secondly, when they disregard the vital role of choice in the workplace, and thirdly, when they apply the logic of activities where choice cannot be a key factor, to activities where it is - like employment.

Think of activities where choice is not a key factor - like anything required of us all by law: such as having identity documents.

When demographic representivity is necessitated by law...

Since about 75% of our people are black Africans, it is logical to expect that around 75% of all ID documents should be held by those of us who are black Africans. The same goes for school attendance in the years when the law requires it of all our learners.

This shows that demographic representivity can logically be expected of any activity that is necessitated by law for all members of the groups concerned. Quotas can then be set both as a just ultimate goal and as a just way of moving towards it.

When there is a choice, however...

Things are quite different when we are dealing with voluntary activities like careers, religious affiliation, party membership and sport.

For example, there is no logical reason to demand that a certain percentage of Catholics, based on national or regional demographics, must come from our previously disadvantaged communities, because people are free to choose in matters of religion, and the results of genuine choice are unpredictable. Maybe about 75% of Catholics will be black Africans, but maybe not. And if not, that does not make the Catholic Church guilty of inequity.

Similarly with careers: maybe many Indian South Africans will want to work in the professions, maybe not.

Maybe significant numbers of Jewish or Muslim South Africans will favour business, maybe not. And so on.

Ethically flowed

Though the work we do is obviously affected by the availability of jobs, it is to a significant extent a voluntary matter, so there is no advance way of stipulating what percentage of participants from our ethnic communities, in any given career or workplace, would count as equitable. Yet this is exactly what some of our politicians and others seem to demand when they call for demographic representivity and quotas based on them for the workplace.

Their commitment to justice in the workplace is clear ... but are they really thinking about it logically? It seems not.

What about ethics?

Demanding quotas based on demographic representivity for voluntary activities is ethically flawed because it results in unfair discrimination.

For example, it is unfairly discriminatory to make people lose their jobs in the cities and towns where they work because of their skin colour, and be told to go somewhere else where people of their colour are allegedly needed. What is that but outright racism and thus one of the cruellest kinds of unethical practice?

Freedom of choice

Not being trained in law, I have sought legal expertise about the legality of the matter, and have had confirmed that the use of demographic representivity as a way of enforcing workplace equity would be unconstitutional.

Our Bill of Rights makes freedom, which includes freedom of choice, a fundamental value in its very first clause. It also gives us freedom of association in Clause 18, which includes the work we want to do. A policy that treats voluntary pursuits like careers as if freedom of choice were not a key factor violates that right.

The way ahead proposed by supporters of the use of demographic representivity like Manyi is the wrong way to go about the quest for employment equity. It is illogical, unethical and evidently also unconstitutional.