Ramaphosa, May are in same leaky boat
It’s just over two years since the UK voted to leave the world’s biggest and richest trading bloc, with dreams of setting up its own trade relationships with far-flung powerhouses such as New Zealand.
It might be a week late to be writing about British Prime Minister Theresa May’s visit to SA, but seeing President Cyril Ramaphosa and May together I was reminded of a conversation I had with a government official commenting on an earlier trip by a UK delegation.
The topic of discussion at the time was — what else? — the prospect of great post-Brexit trade relations. The official joked that the British must be desperate if they are trying their luck with SA, as we are hardly an economic powerhouse.
Not long after May was back in the UK, news came that we were in the midst of our first recession in a decade. The president would prefer us to use the term “technical recession” and be assured that it will soon pass. It would be good if he’d explain what a “nontechnical recession” is, and what that distinction means for the 27% of the population who are looking in vain for work.
Events in the past couple of days have demonstrated that May and Ramaphosa have one thing in common, which if unaddressed will fatally undermine their ability to govern effectively.
May half-heartedly supported the campaign to keep the UK in the EU, but positioned herself to benefit if the vote went the other way. And it worked, as she emerged as the adult in the room after the British narrowly voted to commit economic suicide.
It was clear to everyone, except maybe the UK government, that delivering Brexit was going to be a difficult, if not impossible, task and May’s opponents would bide their time.
So it has come to pass, with her former foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, likening her to a suicide bomber. Which is ironic, since she’s seemingly the only political leader who’s realistic enough to have realised, if belatedly, that the country is in a weak position relative to the EU.
Without the constraints of governing and being accountable, her opponents would rather she go on a more reckless path that could take the country out of the EU without a deal. Never mind that the country’s police are warning that this is a scenario that could lead to a shortage of food, medicines and other goods and “civil disorder leading to widespread unrest”.
French drug manufacturer Sanofi has confirmed that it is stockpiling medicines in case lengthy border checks and transport delays disrupt supplies. These are the little details that didn’t get a mention when the voters were given a binary choice, with no explanation of the implications.
Now the risks to the economy are becoming clearer, a prime minister leading a fractured party with internal opponents angling for her job finds that she’s in no position to do what’s right for the country.
It’s been a similar story here, and the headlines in the Sunday Times provide yet more evidence why the optimism that marked Ramaphosa’s rise to high office has evaporated. He also didn’t exactly rise to that high office on the back of massive popular support, having beaten Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma to the ANC presidency by a mere 179 votes.
According to the Sunday Times, his opponents in the party, led by Jacob Zuma, want to challenge the outcome. That’s not exactly a shock. Maybe the bigger surprise is that it’s only now they are making their move. Talk of a fightback has been doing the rounds for a while.
This lack of grip over the party explains a lot of the missteps of Ramaphosa’s presidency. Perhaps one should be balanced and also acknowledge that it does mean we should also be impressed that he has managed to show progress in some areas, from the initial steps to clean up state-owned enterprises to the resetting of energy policy.
Unfortunately, one of the most important areas where he allowed himself to be held hostage by internal party struggles rather than lead has come at a great cost. When Ramaphosa made the ill-judged announcement on land expropriation on July 31, the rand was trading well below R14. Since then the country is about 15% poorer in dollar terms and his credibility has been damaged, especially since — as an author of the constitution — he is aware that it is completely unnecessary.
Like his British counterpart, Ramaphosa seems to be a hostage to the factional fights within the ANC. Until he resolves that situation he won’t be able to govern for the benefit of the many.
May probably knows that the only way she can go down as a great prime minister would be to honestly tell the British people that Brexit is a huge historical mistake that will impoverish them and should be dropped.
Ramaphosa could do the same on land and banish all populist talk about nationalising the Reserve Bank.
Unfortunately, in both cases short-term party considerations are likely to win over the greater good.
UNFORTUNATELY, IN BOTH CASES SHORT-TERM PARTY CONSIDERATIONS ARE LIKELY TO WIN OVER THE GREATER GOOD