16 Oct 2012 | Tony Leon | Original Publication: BDlive
On the basis that misery likes company, it is comforting, although not
reassuring, to look around the globe, writes Tony Leon
WARREN Buffett, the famed
US investor, noted: "Only when the tide goes out do we see who has been
swimming naked." This seems an apt metaphor for diagnosing the ills
afflicting South Africa and the world at present.
On Sunday, The New York
Times, so often a cheerleader of South African exceptionalism, published a grim
piece, as a result of the recent waves of violent strikes, under the headline,
Upheaval Grips South Africa as Hopes for its Workers Fade. In similar tenor,
Lex, the Financial Times’s anonymous but hugely important arbiter of investor
sentiment, recently heralded South Africa’s rainbow’s end. Noting the
"volatile cocktail" of flat-lining growth, currency slide, surging
protests, inflationary pressure and government paralysis, it suggests a
"South African Spring" will soon be upon us. This is, of course, not
a reference to the seasons but to the sociopolitical revolution that gripped
much of North Africa and the Arab world last year and which continues to hold
Syria in its grip.
Since my return to our
shores just two weeks ago, after three years away, I have been struck how we
seem to be displaying collective signs of a national nervous breakdown. And
this is not just the noises from the "usual suspects" in the
opposition ranks and the suburban chattering classes. It appears to have afflicted,
in equal measure, some significant personalities in and many ordinary, and
increasingly disenchanted, supporters of the governing party.
On the basis that misery
likes company, it is comforting, although not reassuring, to look around the
globe. Last week, the Nobel committee awarded its peace prize to the European
Union. It might have helped keep the postwar peace, Yugoslavia excepted, but
the grand design of an increasingly close and more inclusive and prosperous
union is unravelling, especially in its southern flank.
To return to Buffett:
many of the institutions we built to bed down democracy in South Africa and the
world and improve its condition do just fine when growth is up and conflict is
down. But they sometimes falter when they are stress-tested by adverse currents
and rough tides. The paralysis of the United Nations Security Council over
Syria, the inability of the eurozone to arrest the fear of debt default in its
southern flank and the difficulty of the Group of 20 in turning around the
global financial crisis are three instructive examples. Simply put, some of the
challenges we face are simply too big for the institutions designed to contain
them.
There is much talk, as
well, of the decline of the world’s hyperpower, the US, and whether it is
temporary or terminal. Another endless debate concerns whether China’s rise is
assured and what this means to the Pacific and beyond. The developing world is
also "enjoying" a better financial crisis than developed economies,
but according to the latest International Monetary Fund forecast, both are
severely underperforming.
But however fundamentally
these shifts in the tectonic plates of international economics and diplomacy
reset the future world order, right now we are somewhat suspended in a
leaderless world. Political consultant Ian Bremmer described this new order as
the unstable "G Zero World".
South Africa spends much
time and effort exporting to the world the example of our constitutional
"miracle"; indeed, in my recent work abroad, I found it to be an excellent
example of South Africa’s "soft power". However, the other day I felt
obliged to ask: "If our constitution is so good, why do things seem so
bad?" Perhaps the great Thomas Jefferson gave us the answer more than 200
years ago when he noted that the best constitutions are those that are
"most sceptical about the virtues of the powerful". This is something
Parliament and the African National Congress should remember as they go about
poking into the work of Public Protector Thuli Madonsela, who appears to share
this Jeffersonian scepticism.
A recent official visitor
of mine in Buenos Aires, one of our Cabinet’s wiser and more distinguished
members, was engrossed in reading arguably the most important recent addition
to the vast literature on what separates winning nations from the also-rans.
Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty, by Daron
Acemoglu and James Robinson, reaches an influential conclusion. Good
institutions, they argue, separate the winners from the losers. These in turn
take root and flourish in countries that are "inclusive states" that
give everyone access to economic opportunity. Political power in such places
rests with a broad coalition or a plurality of groups. This is a relatively
elite set of countries.
Far more crowded is the
losers’ circle, the "extractive states" controlled by a narrow ruling
elite that tampers with institutions in order "to extract as much wealth
as they can from the rest of society".
As our ruling elite goes
about selecting its next leader, I hope my recent visitor passes the book
around the Cabinet table.
• Follow Tony Leon on
Twitter: @TonyLeonSA
No comments:
Post a Comment