Mantashe clarification of Malema on mines rejected by ANCYL

One of the major problems politicians experience in living in a global village, during the information age, is that everything they say or do is quickly recorded, translated and then spewed out to a waiting world. The planet in its turn then analyses that information or data and assesses its impact on individual countries, their markets and the relationship that they will enjoy with the country from which the information emanates.

In the case of Zimbabwe, by way of example, the hostility shown in the past towards the United States and its allies left little room to manoeuvre once they experienced a change of heart. We need only have regard to the stiff resistance encountered by Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai during his recent overseas tour to raise funding, to realise how difficult it is to get people to change their perception.

Of course the fact that Zimbabwe has become an economic nightmare did not improve Tsvangirai’s chances of obtaining loans, aid or investment but there was something far more compelling than even that — perception of Zimbabwe as a lawless dictatorship. Anyone who puts money into a country wants to know that, all things being equal, there is at least a measure of stability, the rule of law and a government that can be held accountable should things go wrong. Here they had been observing court orders being ignored, farms being seized by cronies, political murder and the like over a number of years.

How then do you convince people that while the same party and president who behaved so poorly in the past are part of the unity government that things have and will change for the better if given another chance?

As Tsvangirai found out, unfair as it may seem, you don’t until a number of years of stability have passed by.

Worse yet is the fact that even where there is no malicious intent present, the use of language such as that which we witnessed prior to the last election can have an extremely negative impact on the government and the economy. It is more important to watch what you say than what you actually do because in the majority of cases that is what paints the picture. Long before the Zimbabwean atrocities became known the words of Mugabe and Zanu-PF were echoing around the world.

Accordingly when African National Congress Youth League President Julius Malema put forward the proposition that now may be the time to consider fast tracking one of the tenets of the Freedom Charter and nationalising the mines he put into play something that can only be described as the anti-Investor. You’ve heard of the anti-Christ now meet its financial equivalent.

Nothing scares people away from investing in your country quicker than the thought that at some point in time convenient to them they will take away everything you have invested on a whim.

Gwede Mantashe, ANC General Secretary, immediately intervened and pointed out that there was no intention or mandate which would provide members with the authorisation to bring about nationalisation at this stage. The party acts in accordance with the resolutions passed at its national conference and this was certainly not one of them. It was fortunate that this clarification was forthcoming and the speed with which it was done

Jesse Duarte then interjected and pointed out that this was merely Malema airing some points for debate.

This was rejected by the ANCYL who stood by “Malema’s” suggestion and took Mantashe to task for answering in the media.

Mantashe was not only right to answer the suggestion of nationalisation but it was also vital that he did so in the media.

While the ANCYL president is fully within his rights to put forward ideas for debate and consideration there has to be a realisation that there is a financial world out there in which words like “nationalisation” are pure poison. As such any quest for investment or loans will be seriously retarded by a concept such as the one suggested by Malema. The perception of investors will be that the party is contemplating it for the future and that they must give South Africa a big miss.

It is the ANCYL who need to be taken to task for raising an issue like this in the media. Only after careful consideration of all options behind closed doors should a government ever raise a potentially highly damaging issue like this. In that instance when they see no other choice but to proceed with it they should put it to a referendum — where even ANC followers will reject it.

The fact that it is not ANC policy makes the ANCYL decision to air it in the media wholly reckless. South Africa suffers all the damage and negative publicity relating to an issue which can only be considered at the next national conference 5 years from now. Overseas investors don’t know that.

In a year from now the planet will descend on South Africa for a world cup.

If they are confronted with strikes and hostility we will have missed the greatest public-relations opportunity this planet has to offer.

If the opposite proves to be the case the people of South Africa could be given a significant economic boost for the years ahead.

It really is in our hands.