The Statement of Intent (SOI) pertaining to the creation of a Government of National Unity (GNU) has been signed by Fikile Mbalula and Helen Zille on behalf of the ANC and DA, and other parties, and a new era in the political history of South Africa has commenced.
Despite this momentous occasion there is little wild jubilation in the streets or amongst the punditry or even, as far as I can see, in the political ranks. There are many reasons for this. South Africans have had their hopes dashed too often to fall for ephemeral visions of Utopia. Innocence lost is realism gained.
Even a cursory reading of the SOI reveals severe political cleavages between the signatories which remain as ticking bombs as the hard work of implementation is commenced.
In short, the document looks like a horse designed by a committee, which should surprise no-one. Then of course there is the usual obstacle course of ambitious (and greedy) egos, ethno-tribal loyalties, ideological obsessions and ignorance, conflicting histories and narratives – not to mention the disruptive potential of the political and civil groups outside the inner laager.
We’re not a particularly sophisticated country, which may be a good thing. When one watches the extraordinary vulnerability of the dominant democracies of the West to the bloody-minded strategy of a pre-medieval movement from the Middle East, our historical experience with the intractable challenges of human co-existence has stood us (so far) in good stead.
We have not gone down the Venezuelan-Zimbabwean highway. We have not (quite) taken the path of an oligarchic autocracy like Russia, or shown the capacity (or serious inclination) for efficient Asian-style tyranny, or for the murderous cartels of South and Central America − yet.
At our best, maybe we can call our system a ‘balanced diversity’. We wish to believe that the GNU is a significant step towards the better management of our labyrinthine political-social-economic system, but we’re too aware of the South African realities to tempt fate by premature jubilation.
This has not stopped others responding on a positive note to this move. A Bloomberg headline reads “Markets Cheer South Africa’s Move to Broad Government Alliance“. The Economist, in an insightful commentary which recognises the political hurdles ends on an optimistic note “Thirty years after 1994, the Rainbow Nation has shown that it still has lessons in democracy for the rest of the world.” I agree, but now to some nuts and bolts.
Nuts and bolts
For me it seems the nuts and bolts fall into three main categories:
Firstly, the Basic Minimum Programme of Priorities
Secondly, the contractual details on how differences of opinion and stalemates will be settled within the GNU.
Thirdly, the ideological, historical, ethno-cultural and socio-economic cleavages in South Africa which inevitably project themselves onto the political domain, and will also inevitably be instrumentalised by political actors. That’s part of democratic politics and the trick is to tame the disruptive actors and movements.
To start with the nine-item Minimal Programme of Priorities: they are well chosen and appropriate to an ambitious Developmental State. The list includes issues around economic growth, the elimination of corruption and the strengthening of law and order, good governance along with devolution of responsibility and developing the capacity of the civil bureaucracy while improving the legislative and oversight functions of Parliament. Foreign policy receives a mention as does social cohesion. Merit as well as transformation and social justice make an appearance, as does private enterprise together with state support and participation.
Under each item in the SOI appear the different ideological and cultural preferences of the signatories as well as evidence of a search for common ground. Given the limited time and intense pressures on the participants, I believe it represents an admirable effort. But I missed mention of the preservation and optimal utilisation of our natural resources or the strengthening and expansion of our different national cultures and public upliftment in general. These should be added.
It is absolutely a given that, in order for the aspirations of the Programme of Priorities to be significantly achieved, brave and insightful leadership will be vital. The SOI provides both ample ground for productive collaboration as well as endless opportunity for bickering and sabotage.
Ideology
The potential for destruction will come from the outsize role of ideology and party instead of human-centred thinking in the minds of our political class in general. Furthermore, personal ambition and ego-driven disruption will come from both within and outside the GNU, as we can already see. I cannot see Ramaphosa alone bringing the strength and vision to the task without very significant pressure and support from others.
Three priorities are likely to prove the most sticky. Firstly, corruption (in its multiple forms) is widespread and embedded throughout government, the civil bureaucracy and civil society. It will prove very difficult to eradicate and will need constant surveillance and serious sanction where it occurs, in order to change the institutional climate. It must be made a priority amongst priorities, since it is also closely aligned to the importance of merit.
Merit must be the overriding criterion for advancement and appointment. This runs counter to dominant cultural trends in the West and will be strongly resisted in South Africa under various ideological labels. The DEI movement is closely allied to power and privilege amongst the political, educational, academic and media elites. But merit is perfectly compatible with transformation, and this dividing line will need to be stoutly defended if we’re going to develop the skills and attitudes required for success.
Finally, we need to institute from the outset policies which will strengthen the South African national identity as special, inclusive and worth defending. This aligns with the following section and should be seen as going beyond the idea of social cohesion which was mentioned in the list of priorities.
Enlightened pragmatism
Great things are achieved in politics by vision, tenacity and enlightened pragmatism. The vision behind the GNU outlined in both the Preamble and Foundational Principles is intelligent, civilised and pragmatic. What it lacks is aspiration and poetry, passion and soul. We need these to overcome the obstacles in our path.
In the words of Sam Burja, author of the Great Founder theory of Civilisation, “a small number of functional institutions founded by exceptional individuals form the core of society. These institutions are imperfectly imitated by the rest of society, multiplying their effect. The original versions outperform their imitators, and they are responsible for the creation and renewal of society and all the good things that come with it—whether we think of technology, wealth, or the preservation of knowledge, ideas, and culture.“
We can translate the Great Founder idea into the political domain. The preamble to our Constitution enshrines the idea of individual rights and equality, social justice and the rule of law. We also need to recognise that South Africa is the crucible of a great experiment: to transcend historical conflict and injustice, diverse historical, racial and cultural traditions and massive inequalities to create a new reality, one in which all the talents and experiences of its peoples are acknowledged and utilised to build a fresh South Africa.
To do this successfully while creating a functional modern democratic state will be a great achievement. The South African vision translated into words and actions appropriate to the challenges we face could match the impact of the dreams which have made civilisation possible elsewhere. And South Africa can set the pace for Africa and the developing world without being drawn into the tawdry geopolitical machinations of the great powers.
While rhetoric certainly has its place in human affairs it is always trumped by reality, something of which the hardened veterans who hammered out the agreement were undoubtedly aware. So the greater part of the SOI was devoted to the nitty-gritty of working together under the euphonious heading “Modalities of the Government of National Unity“.
While consensus was the target, most of the section was devoted to mechanisms to break deadlocks and, if those failed, how to resolve stalemates. Given the realities of democratic party politics, such devices will undoubtedly be required to prevent the machinery of government grinding to a standstill at moments of high conflict.
Pressure of time
But perhaps we can strive for a more imaginative implementation than what is described in these clauses and sub-clauses, hammered out under the pressure of time. While, in theory at least, democracy promotes the rational contestation of ideas, in practice what we see is the politicisation of ideas, followed by intense public and political polarisation with severe damage to the social fabric and political paralysis.
Undoubtedly, this is partly a function of social media, the undue influence exerted by extremists and algorithms promoting the emergence of ideological tribes and echo chambers. But, in my view, the interaction between human nature and democratic contestation is the more important driver of bad judgments and executive vacillation and paralysis.
This has been all too apparent in the spectacle of that powerhouse of democracy, the USA, in response to the conflicts with lesser rogue and authoritarian powers in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere. At the core is a false understanding of how freedom of speech and ideas can be implemented in democratic societies without rendering them impotent in the face of disruptive tactics.
That’s a large topic which can be pursued over time. I would like to suggest that much can be gained from studying the mechanisms used in large complex corporate entities to achieve their objectives and compete in open markets. I’ll mention just three: defined objectives, quantifiable metrics and experienced goal-orientated leadership.
The SOI has declared its objective in clause 3, namely, “…we must act to ensure stability and peace, tackling the triple challenges of poverty, unemployment and inequality, entrench our Constitutional democracy and the rule of law, and to build a South Africa for all its people.”
Rhetoric and obfuscation
This statement can be improved and then expressed in quantifiable metrics. It is possible for the people of South Africa to evaluate the performance of our GNU shorn of rhetoric and obfuscation. If this sounds like a ‘South Africa Inc.’ approach to politics with the South African people as its shareholders, the reader has correctly identified my drift.
The competence to do this exists within South Africa, and any shortcomings can be overcome by reference to international indices of human welfare and happiness, economic performance, crime, health and poverty statistics, etc. etc. Granted, this shift away from tribal and ideology-based reporting will be a difficult pill for many to swallow, but perhaps it’s time for South Africa to set the markers for other struggling democracies to follow.
The final point is leadership. Political leadership is geared towards confrontation and propaganda. It’s geared towards power, not performance. This will not be easily overcome, but we need to import managerial best practices at ALL levels of governance. There are examples around the world and, if our GNU is to function not according to our worst fears but closer to our highest hopes, these will need to be imported and tuned to South African political advantage.
These are desperate times calling for heroic measures. The GNU is an impressive step in the right direction, but we must expect of it a performance commensurate with the task ahead. We cannot look simply to our leadership to do the heavy lifting. The people of South Africa must rise to the occasion, hold our leaders accountable and also contribute in word and deed to the common weal.
As the tide turns
This will, if history is any guide, fall to a small subsection of the population, but as the tide turns, a greater number will join. The voyage will be long and arduous with undoubted setbacks, but as skills and confidence mount we may find ourselves in happier waters.
But I don’t want to end on a high note. The forces of real and manufactured identities coupled to real and manufactured grievances within an oppressor-victim narrative have liberated the dark human impulses which the West thought had been decisively defeated in the aftermath of WW2. They were mistaken.
These psycho-political mobilisation techniques are at the disposal of Utopian revolutionaries, ordinary political opportunists, would-be criminal warlords, religious fanatics and other enemies of civilisation. They cannot be defeated by military power alone, but they cannot be defeated without force. In the end, victory can only be achieved by offering people a better alternative: a happier and more complete life within a supportive social environment.
The West is struggling on both counts: forceful opposition and a better alternative. South Africa can take the lead in Africa.
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend