South Africa today: A personal assessment

Assessing the political and social conditions in a country is like volunteering an opinion on religion or sex; everyone believes that he or she is in a position to say something authoritative about it without necessarily doing so from an informed position. Moreover, what counts as being “informed” about such matters is not always easy to ascertain either. Some would appeal to the weight of demonstrable “facts”, while others would point out that, without the requirement of discerning judgement, facts would be mute. The point is that even the most factually informed person unavoidably has to render a judgement that takes the form of an evaluation: some would take a set of “facts” to be a reason for optimism while others would construe the “same” facts as auguring badly for the future.

Hence the present “personal” assessment — while I take certain “facts” in the sense of documented events as my point of departure, I am aware that my own interpretation and evaluation of them rest on a host of factors which influence my assessment. These factors include a personal set of political, social, cultural, ethical and philosophical values shared, to a greater or lesser extent, with other like-minded people, as well as a unique personal history and experience in this country and abroad. Together they comprise a personal perspective on a given situation — South Africa today.

What strikes me as being most incongruous about living in this country after fourteen years of democracy is the fact that most economically active South Africans — that is, those with a regular income for above-board work of some kind — seem to be blissfully unaware that two entirely disparate, socially, culturally and economically irreconcilable worlds exist side by side in South Africa, comprising a social space fraught with potential conflict. Driving or walking through Central, Port Elizabeth, in the Eastern Cape, for example, witnessing the scores of homeless people, street children and so-called car guards trying their best to eke out a livelihood doing South Africa’s most popular “job”, one wonders whether the people driving the advertising industry, as well as those financial advisers who regularly report and advise South Africans on the best ways to invest their money, are even aware that economically empowered “consumers” and would-be clients comprise a minority in a country where poverty is rife.

Anyone sensitive to the symbolism of spatial social configurations would not have to look far to figure out where the fault-lines of the South African economy run. One merely has to observe the interaction between car guards and motorists in the streets to notice that the economically disempowered occupy a position of economic dependence and — more disturbingly — “demand” in relation to those with economic means. It is as if they are demanding to be accorded the dignity of being recognised as working individuals, despite the fact that cities and towns don’t pay them a wage. Motorists are expected to do so, despite the fact that they are supposed to make urban spaces under municipal control more “secure” regarding potential car theft. Why call this disturbing? Because it is a symptom of a more widespread relation of dependence which could easily change — and in some instances perhaps already has — into an attitude of demanding the means for a living from those with money or jobs.

The debate concerning a basic-income grant in South Africa has many different aspects and implications, but it seems to me unavoidable that, because the gap between the rich (or even those with jobs) and the poor in this country continues to exist, if not to widen (numerically as well as financially) because of the seemingly unstoppable series of increases in the cost of basic commodities recently, the demand for such a grant will increase. Ironically, those who need it most are voiceless, and have to depend on concerned others to represent them.

Protestations on the part of government that “normal” fiscal constraints are such that a basic-income grant is unaffordable seem disingenuous, if not downright ludicrous in the light of such profligacy as donating, a few years ago, R10-million towards the bicentennial independence-celebrations of Haiti, especially given the evidence at the time, that it was anything but a democracy in practice. I realise that this is a paltry amount compared to the potential expenditure on a basic-income grant to all citizens below a certain standard of living, but most people would probably agree that it would be worth spending money on the material well-being of the poor instead of facing an uncertain future because of growing discontent on their part.

Economic woes not only face the very poor in South Africa today, of course, although it affects them worst. Ordinary working people are punch-drunk from a series of cost-rises, most notably in petrol costs and interest rates, both of which set in motion a chain of successive economic effects, given the interconnectedness of everything in the economic system.

In a country that lacks an affordable public transport service and where housing has become increasingly expensive, these cost-increases will mean that people will have less income that can be used on basic necessities such as food, with the result that, to survive, they may have to renege on their bond-repayments and car installments. This, in turn, may lead to repossessions, with consequent hardship concerning transport and accommodation. All in all, this is not part of a rosy economic picture.

Politics and economics cannot be separated, of course, and one may expect that the economic adversity referred to above will not leave the political landscape — with clouds already building up above it — unaffected. Whatever the denials and protestations affirming unity may be on the part of the ruling party, no one seriously doubts the existence of a serious schism among its members. And while even some non-ANC members may believe that unity in the party is a prerequisite for political and economic stability, I believe quite the opposite. If the party were to acknowledge the political and economic differences in its ranks, instead of trying to conjure up a smoothly united front, it may just signal its willingness to rise above a self-deceiving adherence to the monolithic PARTY, split into two different parties (with Cosatu and the SACP in one of them), and launch a period of healthy multi-party democracy in South Africa — which, incidentally, does not exist at present; the ruling party’s majority is far too overwhelming for that, so that it can blithely ignore opposition parties on any issue that it is determined to push through parliament. A case in point seems to be the intended dissolution of the widely respected crime-fighting unit, the Scorpions. I was astonished to hear Jesse Duarte on SAFM, disingenuously defending the decision to disband the unit and incorporate it into the SA Police Service, justifying it by saying that the ANC was no less determined than before to fight crime. (I wonder just how determined it is to tackle crime head-on; judging by the fact that crime is continuing unabatedly at horrendous levels in the country, it seems to me that it completely lacks the determination to do so.) At the same time I am convinced that the ANC is quite aware of the Scorpions’ high standing because of its past successes, and of the message that dissolving it would send to South Africans and overseas observers alike, namely that the crime-fighting outfit has been too successful for its liking (as shown in the fact that some of its own members have been successfully prosecuted by the Scorpions), and that this is the true reason why it has to be neutralized. Besides, incorporating it into the SAPS would convince no one of its continued efficacy — the idea smacks of intended domestication.

The ANC should weigh carefully the possible gains that may be had from assimilating the Scorpions into the SAPS against the accompanying loss of credibility that it would suffer in the eyes of citizens of this country as well as of the world community. In my view the latter would far outweigh the former, and the reputation that South Africa has constructed since 1994, of being a relatively stable, reliable member of the world community of states (the persistence of problems such as a high crime rate notwithstanding) would be seriously damaged. Already certain overseas publications have started comparing recent events in this country with the process of social and economic corrosion that has unfolded in Zimbabwe over the last 25 years, and unfair as that may be, de-clawing one of the best law-enforcing agencies in the country is no way to reinforce (or re-establish) one’s credentials among your peers.

Ms Duarte is not the only government spokesperson who has been guilty of disingenuousness, however. When, in the face of demands that Eskom directors return the bonuses (running into millions) that they were paid recently to compensate for their ineptitude that has caused the present electricity crisis in the country, Mr Alec Irwin defended their right to keep their bonuses (which were connected to the previous year’s good performances), he conveniently remained silent on the fact that it is precisely Eskom’s performance over the last few years (leading up to 2008) that has paved the way for the present crisis.

The “gate keeping” function he referred to, which supposedly prevents bonuses being paid in non-deserving cases, doesn’t appear to have focused on the relevant factors — after all, in a company such as Eskom, planning for the future always happens NOW, and looking back what seemed to have been deserving at the time must surely be perceivable as having precipitated present problems.

In sum, while none of the present difficulties facing the country seem to be insurmountable, it is a moot question whether the decision makers involved in tackling them have the wisdom and resoluteness to do so effectively. And apart from this, there is the inescapable, sobering reminder, that no country in the world can separate itself from others — economic and political difficulties in other countries (such as the precarious state of the US economy at present) invariably reverberate around the globe, and these, too, must be taken into account when making important decisions concerning the future of this country, however difficult it may be. Not a reassuring thought.