The reality in South Africa. (Not in Black or White).

Don't mention the "A" word. You see, it has become rude to remember Apartheid these days. It ended such a long time ago, well over nine years. And we have to "move on". Easy to do when you are being driven in a limousine, or driving your own flash motor.

It no longer pays to be white in South Africa. well, that's the theory, anyway, that many an embittered white person expounds on at length. The prospect of a minority white skin no longer being an automatic pass into privilege, riches, jobs, has led to an exodus of young, educated, affluent whites to places like London and the English shires.

But what is the reality in South Africa? For the majority, their black skin still means no jobs, no businesses, no riches, unemployment. It still doesn't pay to be black in South Africa.

Where are the jobs? Who is getting training? Who is learning new skills? Who is still in the money? Show me the money and who's got it--still.

Distribution of income, redistribution of wealth--there I've said it! Redistribution of wealth is the elephant in the living room called the South African economy. But why do people-- mostly whites - believe that there is a contradiction between redistribution of wealth and economic growth? The way I see it, there isn't. Vast inequalities prevent growth.

However, some people just don't like sharing economic power and its financial benefits--even if you did save them from a bloodbath. Some people like skipping over the appalling legacies of you-know-what.

Don't mention the "A" word. You see, it has become rude to remember Apartheid these days. It ended such a long time ago, well over 7 years. And we have to "move on". Easy to do when you are being driven in a limousine, or driving your own flash motor.

One of the major problems when people forget very quickly (very deliberately) how fortunate they are, how lightly they have got off, is that they start becoming complacent about deep, necessary, structural changes needed in society. In fact, after a while, they even have the nerve to get shirty, or ridicule change being discussed at all.

"Don't you dare," said a woman through clenched teeth. She sat in front of me at a meeting a couple of years ago. One of the speakers had said that, yes, crime was high in parts of South African cities--but given the plight of "the previously disadvantaged", the country was actually very lucky indeed that frustration and anger were being shown that way.

It was at the mention of 'the previously disadvantaged" that the white man sitting next to the woman tried to stifle a guffaw. He couldn't. Interesting, I thought. It's only seven years since "the end" of the A-word, but already "the previously disadvantaged" can be laughed at. Are they a joke? Comical losers whose plight is of their own making? I shared the woman's fury.

The situation has got worse. People like that man now appear to have a free hand and a free voice, especially in business circles. People who don't care two hoots that "historically disadvantaged persons" are the majority population of South Africa and their situation needs alleviating.

There is deeply entrenched resistance to change. Training black people and transferring skills from white to black are "a burden", cry white businesses. "Taking on black partners and employees reduces competition," They claim. "It's a turnoff." "We don't know any qualified blacks." Hostility, suspicion, antagonism reign. Attitudes have not "moved on".

I get very irritated when, from the way someone is speaking or writing, it is obvious that you are supposed to keep quiet about "black deprivation" in polite company.

Sod that. "South Africa's Economic Trans formation: A Strategy for Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment". This is an excellent, captivating document, just issued by their Department of Trade and Industry. If you are setting up or doing business in South Africa, get it, read it. You need to. It brings together the government's thinking; takes stock of what they have tried to do; and outlines new initiatives.

For black business start-ups and entrepreneurs, whom the government identifies as "having limited knowledge of government policies and enterprise support measures", (whose fault is that?), the paper is succinct (34 pages), and digestible. It is a public policy document which headlines forthcoming legislation and regulations. Take part in the consultations. Own it.

Thankfully, I am not a short-memoried woman. "Apartheid systematically and purposefully restricted the majority of South Africans from meaningful participation in the economy. The assets of millions of people were directly and indirectly destroyed, and access to skills and to self-employment was racially restricted." That's how the strategy paper, quite rightly, begins.

"The accumulation process under Apartheid confined the creation of wealth to a racial minority and imposed underdevelopment on black communities. The result is an economic structure that today, in essence, still excludes the vast majority of South Africans.

"Vast racial and gender inequalities in the distribution of and access to wealth, income, skills and employment persist. As a consequence, our economy continues to perform below its full potential." Apartheid was uneconomic and inefficient, and so are its legacies.

How do you dismantle the architecture of Apartheid? Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) is the answer, says the government. The struggle continues. Societies that are characterised by racial or ethnically defined wealth disparities are not likely to be socially and politically stable." Vast inequalities are undemocratic.

The paper states that underdevelopment and inferior education were imposed on black communities to ensure that they became suppliers of cheap labour. So what is needed? "Necessary government intervention" to address systematic exclusion. Tackling and overturning structural disempowerment. Redressing the inequalities of the past. As mandated in the 1994 Constitution.

In that case, what is BEE? "An integrated and coherent socio-economic process that directly contributes to the economic transformation of South Africa and brings about significant increases in the numbers of black people that manage, own and control the country's economy, as well as significant decreases in income inequalities."

Excuse me, some of you may interject, who is "black" in South Africa? The paper defines "black persons" as "a generic term, which means indigenous Africans, Coloureds and Indians." Black is not white.

There has to be "deracialisatiOn" of the economy. But BEE is not to be narrowly limited "to a set of transactions transferring corporate assets from white to black ownership." Even if that is how a lot of people see it. Discount shares, anyone?

Running businesses is the most direct way to economic empowerment. "This means that a significant proportion of black persons' ownership of assets and enterprises must be a controlling interest, reflecting genuine participation in decision-making at board, executive management and operations levels, and the assumption of real risk."

A black enterprise is "one that is 50.1% owned by black persons". Control means active ownership. Not passive ownership, as in cases where blacks are zoomed into a senior boardroom position, "fronting" for the whites behind who are really in charge.

Progress has been "far too limited" says the government. New policy tools are required. But where will the money come from?

"Any financing strategy should not jeopardise domestic or foreign sources of saving or investment. In short, BEE has to be part of our overall growth strategy."

As ever, everywhere, the biggest problem for blacks is "access to capital and collateral -- both structural problems for the black community". Black enterprises are seen as high risk in a "risk-averse financial system".

"Rural communities, particularly black women, are denied access to affordable financial services. Most of these women still cannot open bank accounts. Furthermore, millions of black persons are unable to access any form of credit. The financial sector remains geared to meet the needs of the minority section of the population and those in urban areas."

Critical action is vital. An "Empowerment Investment Grant" is one proposal, and a good one. But, in general, the State will only facilitate access to money - it will not take on your commercial risk.

BEE policy objectives are clear: substantial and significant increases in black ownership, control, and management of existing and new enterprises. Particularly in priority sectors of the economy.

Therefore companies will have their cards marked. Public and private organisations will be "encouraged" to get a BEE "Scorecard" done. "Government will use a 'balanced scorecard' to measure progress made in achieving BEE."

Businesses will be marked on indicators like "equity ownership", "management", "skills development", "preferential procurement", "enterprise development". Percentages will be given for, say, the amount of skills development expenditure as a proportion of your total payroll, Or the percentage of black persons in your executive management.

The BEE Scorecard will lead to ratings, rankings and, I'm sure, good old tables. Will your Scorecard reveal you as "good", "satisfactory", or "limited" when it comes to black empowerment?

The rankings will direct "government support" in many areas. Think public sector restructuring, state-owned enterprises, privatisation, procurement contracts. Think hard.

Empowerment "Charters" will be developed for different sectors. Mining's was first, and will guide the others. A BEE Advisory Council -- chaired by President Mbeki -- comes into being.

South Africa's strategy paper on Black Economic Empowerment is a clear "call to action". Empowerment to the people! Walter Sisulu and Nina Simone would approve.