Gideon Rachman
During the 1980s and 1990s, the struggle against apartheid made headlines all over the world. Nelson Mandela’s dignity, first as a prisoner and then as president, gave him the international status of a Gandhi. Events in post-apartheid, post-Mandela South Africa, were always likely to seem relatively humdrum.
But the political struggle currently under way in the country still matters to the world. Its outcome may determine whether South Africa can arrest an alarming slide in its fortunes. Cyril Ramaphosa, the new leader of the governing African National Congress, is attempting to ease President Jacob Zuma out of his job early. The operation is delicate and its outcome uncertain. Even if Mr Ramaphosa succeeds, he will face formidable challenges in reforming a corrupted government and a stuttering economy.
But that makes it all the more important that South Africa’s slide is halted quickly — before the glory of the Mandela years gives way to something altogether more disturbing. In the immediate post-apartheid years, South Africa seemed poised to buck the dismal trend of much of post-colonial Africa. Mandela, its first leader, was a liberation hero who governed wisely and did not attempt to cling to power in the style of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe or Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire. In the post-apartheid era, the country became the informal spokesman for a continent But even at the moment of peak Mandela-worship, there were dissenting voices on both the right and the left. One argument — mainly heard from conservative whites — was that in the end South Africa would become a failed state. The Mandela story, according to this narrative, was a comforting fairytale that was belied by the history of post-colonial Africa. The second form of dissent — mainly heard from blacks on the left — was that Mandela had sold out. He had bought white assent to a peaceful transition by allowing existing power structures and economic privileges to remain largely undisturbed. As a result, ordinary blacks had failed to see their lives improve significantly.
Both of these rival narratives have gained more adherents during the Zuma years. Those who argued that South Africa would eventually slide into state failure can point to burgeoning corruption, power cuts, high unemployment and a weak economy. South African bonds were downgraded to junk status by S&P in November. In April, the taps may run dry in drought-stricken Cape Town. South Africa under Mr Zuma has not even come close to the political brutality and economic collapse of other southern African states, such as Zimbabwe or Congo. But as the Zuma years advanced, it was not just white racists who were muttering that South Africa was heading the way of Zimbabwe. The same fears were expressed by some veterans of the anti-apartheid struggle.
Mr Zuma’s presidency has also seen increasingly vociferous complaints on the left about continuing inequality and economic injustice. Critics have pointed out that the post-apartheid period has seen the creation of a small, black elite, but continued poverty for the masses. Mr Ramaphosa is, in some ways, the epitome of these trends. He is a former leader of the mineworkers’ union, prominent in the liberation struggle, who became a seriously wealthy businessman. On the other hand, nobody doubts Mr Ramaphosa’s intelligence or administrative ability. And, unlike Mr Zuma, he has never been charged with corruption. In fact, his background equips him to understand both the struggles of ordinary South Africans and the concerns of big business. Three reasons why Jacob Zuma's succession matters Play video Whether Mr Ramaphosa succeeds matters well beyond South Africa. The population of the African continent is expected to nearly double to 2.4bn by 2050. A population explosion of that magnitude means that what happens in Africa will not stay in Africa. The EU is already struggling to cope with desperate refugees and migrants from countries such as Eritrea, Nigeria, South Sudan and Somalia. Those migratory pressures are only likely to increase as the African population surges and the effects of climate change take hold. To avoid that situation, governance and economic performance need to improve dramatically across Africa. If things go really well the continent could even become a new pole of growth for the world economy. What happens to South Africa will matter hugely in this story. In the post-apartheid era, South Africa became the informal spokesman for a continent.
It is the only African country that is a member of the G20. Recommended Jacob Zuma, the Guptas and the selling of South Africa South Africans pin their hopes on Cyril Ramaphosa Listen: South Africa’s Zuma refuses to go quietly Although it is not the largest economy on the continent (that title belongs to Nigeria), South Africa has the highest per capita gross domestic product of any large African country, world-class companies, a sophisticated financial sector and excellent transport infrastructure. If, despite all this, South Africa slides inexorably backwards, cynicism about the future of the African continent will grow in the rest of the world. Some Africans will be infuriated by this tendency to generalise about the fate of an entire continent from the events in just one country. But the drama of South Africa’s recent history and the sophistication of its economy means that it inevitably has become a standard-bearer for Africa. Mr Ramaphosa’s responsibilities extend well beyond the borders of his own country. gideon.rachman@ft.com
No comments:
Post a Comment