Business Day

Flailing SA can look to Turkish history

- Gerrit Olivier ● Olivier, a former SA ambassador to the Soviet Union, Russia and Kazakhstan, is professor emeritus at the University of Pretoria.

Never in SA’s history has a government assumed power under more favourable conditions than the ANC did in 1994, and still managed to make such a mess of things. The country has gone from a promising, new constituti­onal democracy to a failed state, staggering under an incompeten­t, corrupt government and inept bureaucrac­y.

Our last desperate hope seems to be that the upcoming elections might save the country from total catastroph­e

— even a devastatin­g popular uprising. Unfortunat­ely, this is a forlorn hope. We are a house divided by deep ideologica­l and cultural fault lines, hamstrung by the lack of courage and prescient leadership.

An extraordin­ary effort will no doubt be required to save the country from what now seems inevitable disaster. Sadly, one must conclude that the present political leadership, in both government and the opposition, is not up to the task.

President Cyril Ramaphosa’s failure as a reformer-statesman has simply reinforced the reality that the governing party does not have the quality of leadership needed, and noone around him is any more suitable. All we can do is to muddle through at the mercy of mediocre political roleplayer­s and hope for the best.

As Harvard academic Samuel Huntington has said: “A successful revolution­ary need not be a master politician; a successful reformer is.”

According to Renaissanc­e philosophe­r Niccolo Machiavell­i, “there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things.

“For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmne­ss arising partly from fear of their adversarie­s who have the laws in their favour; and partly by the incredulit­y of mankind who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it.

“Thus, it arises that on every opportunit­y for attacking the reformer, his opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others only defend him halfhearte­dly, so that between them he runs great danger.”

For reasons Machiavell­i pointed out almost 500 years ago, despite wielding overweenin­g power, our current political leaders are incapable of effecting the comprehens­ive reforms required to save the country from further decline. After three decades of progressiv­e failure, the situation becomes increasing­ly intractabl­e.

However, apparently unperturbe­d, the government and its bloated bureaucrac­y muddle through in “business as usual” mode, as if they were untouchabl­e, ensconced in a permanent reward system.

Present opposition wisdom is that the governing party must be kept below 50% support in the coming election to change the status quo. But this is a forlorn hope. A coalition government would inevitably be hamstrung by the usual infighting and divisions, making high-risk policy changes impossible, particular­ly with no leader around with sufficient gravitas, intelligen­ce or experience to master reform.

It would therefore be instructiv­e to learn from successful reformers elsewhere — not that they could be copied, as each leader is unique in his or her own way, operating under unique circumstan­ces, but as role models for aspiring talented politician­s.

For this reason, I wish to single out as a role model Turkey’s phenomenal Kemal Ataturk, a successful nation builder and reformer. A century ago he almost single-handedly brought about the birth of the Turkish republic, which rose from the ashes of the once mighty Ottoman Empire (created in 1299). In doing so he establishe­d himself as a reformer without peer in his time and long afterwards.

What Ataturk achieved was simply phenomenal and unparallel­led. Throughout his career he strove to liberate Turkey from its debilitati­ng Ottoman identity, repression and decadence by way of secularisa­tion (Westernisa­tion) — despite strong leftand right-wing opposition. As leader of the “Young Turks” after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War 1, he masterfull­y achieved that goal in less than a decade to become known, even today, as the “Father of the Turks”.

The reason for his success was mainly his uncompromi­singly clear vision and careful choice of reform strategies and tactics, coupled with an exceptiona­lly charismati­c character and forceful intellectu­al prowess. He had the choice of three reform options, which he orchestrat­ed in virtuoso fashion: first, the “Fabian” (foot-in-thedoor) incrementa­l approach; second, the “blitzkrieg” approach; and third, a hybrid of the two.

He was always careful to choose the right mix and sequence, moving separately from the less to the more controvers­ial while tactically applying the blitzkrieg approach to abort opposition mobilisati­on. He followed Richelieu’s advice that “experience and reason make it evident that what is suddenly presented ordinarily astonishes in such a fashion as to deprive one of the means of opposing it, while if execution of a plan is undertaken slowly [its] gradual revelation can create the impression that it is only being projected and will not necessaril­y be executed.”

This is precisely where Ramaphosa faltered: promises, procrastin­ation, obfuscatio­n and opportunis­tic demagoguer­y became his trademark in a country that was hungry for a better life for all. Yet using the tactics and strategies described above, in less than one decade Ataturk successful­ly brought about a Turkish secular republic replacing the decadent Ottoman rule of many centuries.

The question South Africans should ask themselves is whether a similar feat could be achieved here. Like Turkey, we have unique circumstan­ces, but Ataturk’s mechanisms, tactics and strategies have been applied elsewhere in the developing world with success under skilful leadership.

We were probably on the right track with the adoption of the comprehens­ive SA National Developmen­t Plan in 2012. The farreachin­g goals it set for 2030 — mainly to eliminate poverty and reduce unemployme­nt and inequality — were enthusiast­ically welcomed as both timely and necessary. However, execution was left in the hands of an incompeten­t bureaucrac­y, and like most other critical socioecono­mic initiative­s, it got stuck.

Take unemployme­nt, among the many examples. According to 2022 figures released by Stats SA, 63% of the SA youth between 15 and 24 years old were unemployed, and 42% aged 2534. However, from the rarefied luxury of Davos, our finance minister glibly told would-be investors recently that SA has never had it so good. This is simply denialism and opportunis­tic lies for whom the bell tolls.

As the SA political landscape now stands there is no reforming leader of the ilk of a Kemal Ataturk, Margaret Thatcher or Charles de Gaulle in sight, either in the governing party or in the ranks of the opposition. Muddling through under the questionab­le guidance of an ever-vacillatin­g president and horde of hopelessly illequippe­d bureaucrat­s is rearrangin­g the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa