We dare not let president’s ‘new dawn’ be a false one
Hope cannot survive in a vacuum. Without adversity, crises and challenges, there is no hope. It is, therefore, not surprising that in the minds of many South Africans a “new dawn” must follow the “darkness at noon” of the presidency of Jacob Zuma.
As I have said before, the decade of Zuma’s presidency of the ANC was a decade of ignominy. I suppose it is understandable that the expectation would be that such a decade must be followed by the “Thuma Mina” age of economic prosperity, democracy and peace.
It is for this reason that the election of Cyril Ramaphosa as ANC president and head of state has caused many among us to be seized by a sense of hysterical optimism. It seems to have resuscitated the sense of idealism of the early years of Nelson Mandela’s presidency.
This too is understandable, I suppose, given the fact that with the advent of democracy in 1994 paradise was found, only to be lost during the Zuma years.
The “new dawn” therefore dare not be a false dawn. There are still too many South Africans who are being ravaged by the wild dogs of inequality, poverty and unemployment.
They need hope, but their sense of hope must have a material basis. It must be informed by actual change in their lived reality.
For this to happen, Ramaphosa and the ANC government must bridge the gap between words and what they purport to describe.
The words “a new dawn” are not a new dawn. The word “renewal” is not actual renewal.
A new dawn may come alive in the pages of the speeches of ANC politicians, but is not something that will come into existence by declaration.
The last time this happened was in the Bible, but I have a feeling Ramaphosa’s words do not have the same power. Wallowing in a sense of pessimism, hysterical pessimism, is a luxury we can ill-afford.
IRREVERSIBLE GAINS
That said, without exaggerating the changes that have occurred since Ramaphosa ascended to the throne, we must give real content to the “Thuma Mina” moment and work towards the irreversibility of the gains that have been made since the birth of Ramaphoria.
We must do this armed with the understanding that Ramaphosa and the ANC are faced with the difficult job of striking a balance between the interests of capital (global and domestic) on the one hand and those of the poor and the working class on the other.
Ramaphosa must defy the perception that he has a bias towards the dominance of the interests of political actors such as ratings agencies and international and domestic investors, as well as the amorphous markets whose political interests tend to wear the camouflage of economic interests. In emerging markets, the nexus between politics and economic policy is not insignificant.
As I have said many times before, when money talks, politicians mumble.
Ramaphosa must be courageous in navigating the tension caused by the internal opposition he faces in the governing party and the constant shouting of capital in his ears.
If his spine lets him down, SA is heading towards another period of jobless and exclusionary growth.
His communication strategy must make it clear to all constituencies what they will and will not get from his government. More important, however, is the need for Ramaphosa to impress upon all key social partners to be clear about the concessions they need to make for the greater good. If he mumbles, fumbles and stumbles, his presidency will not be a new dawn.
That will depend on the quality of his decisions.