Poor end to twisted sideshow

So finally, and to the delight of many, the Gauteng e-tolling review process has gotten under way and general consensus seems to be that government will have no option but to reconsider the current funding system, which has spectacularly crashed and burned - less than a year after the unveiling of e-tolls.

How could such an unpopular system, with so much opposition from the very start, have been forced on the citizens of a democratic country?

In fact, Gauteng premier David Makhura was last month quoted as saying his e-toll assessment panel would consider all proposals to find solutions to the failing system, including alternative ways of funding. Naturally, the scope of the assessment is supposedly wider than just finding a way to save the dying white elephant, and the process has been pretentiously described as "public consultations on the socio-economic impact of the e-tolls".

I say pretentiously, because underneath it all, I can't help but feel this is nothing more than a face-saving exercise for the Department of Transport and its debt collectors - the South African National Roads Agency (Sanral).

This sudden concern for the "socio-economic impact" of e-tolls could ultimately give government and Sanral a "legitimate" out and reason to change its stance of the user-pay model, which - just a few months ago - was the "only way" that e-tolling could be funded, according to Sanral CEO Nazir Alli and his merry band. In fact, Alli and his merry men repeatedly took sadistic pleasure in telling us that e-tolls are here to stay and we should just learn to live with them. Shut up and pay up, in other words.

Well, things were not so certain anymore, when transport minister Dipuo Peters revealed last month that, as of 31 May, the amount owed by motorists exceeded R1 billion. This revelation came just after Makhura announced that e-tolls would be reviewed, and Peters also ordered Alli and his debt chasers to hang up their whips and chains until the review process has been completed - thus not allowing Sanral to prosecute toll defaulters for the time being.

On the surface, this looks like an early victory for all those who opposed this ill-conceived system. It should be seen as Gauteng's own Arab spring, a show of unity, a perfect tsunami of civil disobedience - the people have spoken, and the system has fallen.

Well, this may be so, but it certainly gives rise to a rather disturbing question: how could such an unpopular system, with so much opposition from the very start, have been forced on the citizens of a democratic country?

Perhaps the answer lies somewhere within the DNA of the South African consumer - that docile beast of burden that has historically shown it is happy to suffer in silence, rather than make waves, or - God forbid - break the law.

And Sanral, with its predatory tendencies, decided to go straight for the jugular. I suspect the heavy-handed, antagonistic attitude the agency adopted from the very beginning was primarily driven by the knowledge that it would not be able to spin this in any sort of positive light. After all, how do you defend the indefensible?

Hence, Sanral took the less-than-subtle approach, meaning it vilified the middle-class and tried to beat it into submission, before anyone even had a chance to complain. To get buy-in from the masses, it tried to spin e-tolling as a curse that would only affect those evil middle-classers - that malevolent group of citizens that deserves to be punished for having jobs, driving cars, being largely law-abiding and paying taxes. They are, generally, the most compliant of the lot and least likely to kick back.

As for the poor, Sanral somehow tried to convince us that the poorest of the poor would hardly be affected, and would, in fact, be better off once the e-toll system came into effect. Unsurprisingly, the unions didn't really buy that.

So, why would Sanral decide that offence was the best form of defence, and would it think this irrational approach would fly? Perhaps, because historically, the South African consumer is accustomed to bending over and taking it in silence.

Here's an example: Since 1 September 2010, South African consumers have been paying a motor vehicle carbon dioxide emissions tax, when purchasing a new vehicle. While the National Association of Automobile Manufacturers of SA made some subtle bleating noises in opposition to this tax, this fell on deaf ears and consumers simply continue to cough up.

This, despite arguments that this tax is not transparent enough, is discriminatory as it is only levied on new vehicles, and that government should rather introduce "green fuel" to South Africa. Nonetheless, in its first year, the carbon dioxide emissions tax was said to have added R450 million to government's coffers. Whether this carbon tax has had any real impact on consumer behaviour, or what this money was used for, is something that we'll never know. But why should anyone protest, or even ask? It's only a couple of thousand rand on top a couple of hundred thousand rand, which works out to just a few hundred rand more per month. What's the big deal?

Another shocking example of consumer apathy (in the face of government dishonesty) is our continued and unquestioning support of the plastic bag levy. You know, that 30c-50c you pay per bag when you go shopping.

Well, the original concept behind this levy can arguably be described as sensible and good for the environment. In short, introduced in 2003, the levy would see consumers paying for their plastic bags at till points, and this money would in turn be used by government to establish and run a Section 21 company called Buyisa-e-bag. This entity was meant to facilitate improved waste collection, the establishment of rural waste collection, small, medium and micro enterprises, job creation, etc. All very noble. It is estimated the levy has raked in more than R1 billion since its inception - more or less at a rate of R150 million per year. The kicker is, though, that Buyisa-e-bag folded in 2010, having not met its objectives and, according to various sources, having not recycled a single plastic bag. Yet, we keep paying. A few cents here and a few cents there, what's the big deal?

So, I guess it's no surprise that Sanral would try its luck, except this time it was just a stretch too far. I have no doubt that had the e-toll fees been set at half of what they were, many more consumers would have shut up and paid up. And e-tolling would have been here to stay.

But greed was Sanral's main undoing, or perhaps it was poverty that saved the day for Gauteng motorists. I seriously suspect the civil disobedience that ultimately derailed the system had more to do with affordability than 60% of motorists refusing to cough up to Sanral.

The anecdotal evidence is certainly there. We all know at least one person who vehemently opposed e-tolling, yet ran off and bought an e-tag at the first mention of prosecution, criminal records and whatever other pleasantries Sanral promised to bestow on the non-compliant.

Have no doubt that e-tolls, in some form or other, are indeed here to stay. But perhaps in its next incarnation the system will be funded via a more palatable mechanism, such as the fuel levy.

Regardless, I for one am happy that this unfair and irrational system is failing - even though it might just be nothing more than a pitiful-poor end to a twisted sideshow.