Apartheid Policy in South Africa - Essay Example

Apartheid, policy of black and whites separate development ravaged South Africa for a very long time. The beneficiaries of this government policy were the whites while the blacks continued to suffer restrictions, killings and violations of every black’s rights. The blacks struggled to redeem themselves from the choking government policy of apartheid. The blacks were not alone in the war against the vice that apartheid was because they could receive support from nations abroad and the church councils also played a key role in fighting the vice. Foreign companies doing business also made efforts to empower the blacks with an intention of ending apartheid. The companies’ efforts were however met with government’s counter strategies to maintain the practice of apartheid. Caltex, owned jointly by Texaco and SoCal is one example of foreign company operating in South Africa whose shareholders on many occasions tried hard to pass resolutions that were anti apartheid. This paper seeks to highlight Caltex, its conception in the South African market, its operations and how it affected the growth or downfall of the practice of apartheid. First we consider whether the entry of Caltex in South Africa empowered apartheid. Whether or not the utilitarian benefits of Caltex’s operations stood above the moral rights and justice violations that its presence seemed to propagate. In 1975 Caltex sought to expand its investment in South Africa. The expansion could cost $135 million, increase south Africa’s refining capacity by 11% and it promised a return on interest of about 20% i.e. approximately $27 million annually. In essence, a Return on Interest of $27 million annually, had a strong utilitarian benefit. After all Caltex is a profit making company and profit making is the major focus. However, this expansion would consequently strengthen the economy of the very government that was steadfast at maintaining apartheid as its legal policy. A strong economy meant a strong government and thus widespread apartheid. The commitment that Caltex later showed to the plight of their black employees is another utilitarian benefit that requires consideration. They moved 40% of their black workers to refinery jobs initially held by whites and they moved a total of 29 to the topmost four of the white collar and skilled job categories. Even though most blacks remained in the lower job categories, Caltex had at least shown their commitment to eradicating apartheid. The utilitarian benefits of Caltex presenting better working conditions got cancelled by the fact that the working conditions had to be in tune with the pro- apartheid South African government’s specifications. The bottom-line remained that apartheid was still rife and violations of rights and justice did not stop. Therefore, however much we can wish to focus on the utilitarian benefits of the Caltex plant operations, the fact that the utility was cancelled by violations on human rights and justice which was indirectly caused by the presence of the plant itself can not be ignored. This then implies that the utility did not manage to stand above the violations of human right and people would always see the violations other than the utilitarian benefits. Despite the pressure on Caltex from its shareholders to show some concern and leave South Africa, the company still stayed on. If I were one of the shareholders, then my voting in the three resolutions could have followed the reasoning that Caltex had a corporate responsibility to prevent apartheid by avoiding an indirect support of a pro- apartheid government. The first resolution was that Caltex leaves South Africa until the government had taken measures to ensure full political, legal, and social rights for the majority population. This is a resolution that I could comfortably vote for because as long as there was apartheid there would always be political unrest which is not in any way a favorable environment for doing business. The return on investment would have been far much above 20% in a peaceful environment of political, legal and social equity. The general political situation affects business. A cool and stable political environment is business friendly. The second resolution involved Caltex stopping supply of oil and oil products to the police and South African military. I would have voted for this too because an increased dealings with the government meant an endorsement of its policies. The National Supplies Procurement Act was meant to force foreign-owned companies to produce strategically important petroleum products and sell oil products to any credit-worthy customers, including any branch of government. Any company keen to comply implied that it was interested in continued business operations in South Africa. The government reckoned the importance of foreign countries remaining in South Africa and that was why it set out to draft legislation to make the companies stay. This reckoning implied two things; first, the government could change its apartheid policies if all foreign companies were to stop operations because this meant a standstill of the economy. Second, the government was aware that its policy of apartheid was unpalatable to the foreign companies and they could be contemplating moving out. Therefore, Caltex had no responsibility of continued supplies to the military and police since this could go against its social responsibility of fighting apartheid. (Smith, 1971) Third resolution by the shareholders was to force Caltex to implement Tutu’s conditions. I would still vote for this resolution because the Tutu conditions were aimed at stopping apartheid. It was important for these conditions to be implemented because once you make a stand you are supposed to do all that that stand entails. There is no way you can claim to be against apartheid and then fail to implement the conditions. That would be conflicting interests from a single party which could be read simply as dishonesty. How then could Caltex have responded to these resolutions? By simply following the advice of the shareholders and make a decision of leaving the country until the government had shown some commitment to abolishing apartheid. This would have been possible because Caltex was a key player and indeed a heavyweight whose withdrawal from the market could have made a big impact that could possibly force the government abandon apartheid. (Magarrell, 1979). In conclusion it is important to note the fact that the management of a company has other responsibilities of other than ensuring high returns for the shareholders. One such responsibility is to ensure that the maximum returns are via sound business practices or operations carried out morally. When a company does business with a government that violates the rights of the very people it purports to govern, then the company endorses such government’s policies by implication. Any business done with such government is not moral because the more business done, the more the government grows economically and thus the more human rights violations. If the same company insists on doing business with such a government citing legislation, then that is nonsensical. A law that is drafted to serve the interests of a minority thereby excluding the majority ceases to be law. Any adherence to such laws makes the adherents, accomplices of the minority that drafted the law. Therefore, if law has to be followed, then a detailed evaluation of the law’s moral and logical standing must be made. No company should sacrifice morality in the name of following laws. REFERENCE Magarrell, J, 1979: U.S. Adopts Stand on Apartheid; Backed on Many Campuses," The Chronicle of Higher Education, 12 March 1979. Smith T, 1971: South Africa; The Churches vs. the Corporations, Business and Society Review, 1971, Read More