Chances are that you are familiar with the term ‘radical economic transformation’, even though you might not quite know what it means. What does it actually mean? Have you ever come across its definition?

Well, that’s the thing; it has not been defined. It is not un-Googleable. It is Googleable, but it simply returns no definition, for it has no definition.
I kid you not. It is a term of deflection. It is merely a collective of three words, devoid of any similarity or association, masquerading as a slogan. It is the linguistic equivalent of the Emperor’s – or rather Emperors’ – new clothes or cloths. It is linguistic sleight of hand. It reminds me of my old no-nonsense economics professor, who used to rebuke us, his students, when we offered answers that were off the mark. The would say: “Sir, there is a technical term for that.”

‘Radical’ is defined as a departure from tradition. It also means innovative or progressive. ‘Economic’ means being justified in terms of profitability, and ‘transformation’ is a marked change in form, nature or appearance.

So, as a collective, radical economic transformation implies a departure from tradition in an innovative and progressive manner in an effort to achieve profitability, while aspiring to achieve a marked change in form, nature and appearance.

It is all quite confusing. But then, as my father used to remind us, “if you are confused, then you do not have all the facts”. It is also quite amazing that a European language is used to express an inherently South African challenge. The English language is, at best, confusing, particularly when used by non-mother-tongue speakers for expression. (A declaration: English is not my mother tongue.)

A favourite word of mine is ‘quite’. It has a wide range of application. My personal favourite is, when someone tells you something and you do not quite know how to respond, you simply respond in a single word – ‘quite’. I am not sure quite what it means. (Apologies: I could not resist using the word.)

When I hear of radical economic transformation, I think ‘quite’. Quite what? Well, that is for another day.

I might well have missed something. Have the South African economy and society not been subjected to transformation? All forms, for that matter. The most visual of the transformation, without question, has involved State-owned enterprises (SOEs). They have largely been transformed from operational efficiency to operational deficiency. Without exception, they have been transformed into a state of dilapidation – a state of decay or disrepair. It reminds me of the Vodacom advertisement: “We’ve Been Having It!”

SOEs cannot be subject to transformation. That has already occurred. What is now required is a process of restoration – the action of returning something to a former condition. You cannot transform something for a second time; you can only restore it.

It is more apt to speak of radical economic transformation if you are slogan inclined. But if you are slogan inclined, then why not be a fun one? “We put the FUN in dysfunctional!”

The last thing South Africa needs are new words and slogans that are deceptive in nature and understanding and simply lack meaning or substance. South Africa needs action. Decisive action.

South Africa currently has the opportunity for decisive political leadership change, but it will amount to nothing if it is not associated with structural economic change.

The dawn of a new leadership is usually associated with a honeymoon phase. A time of promise and optimism. However, it will all amount to nothing – it would just be another opportunity missed, of which there have been many, if the increased wealth is not associated with the more equal distribution of such wealth.

If South Africa has the desire for transformation, it needs to ensure that wealth is no longer attained through the three fs – favour, friend and family.