Ramaphosa’s wasted years make for few Tintswalos
CThe era after Jacob Zuma’s removal is one of great underperformance, according to most indicators
yril Ramaphosa had an exciting entry into the South African government. The air was pregnant with expectation as the gloss of a billionaire shone from him. “I am a three-minute man,” I’m told he said, as he prepared to speak at his first cabinet meeting. The ANC made him its deputy president in 2012, expecting him to be a powerful No 2 to Jacob Zuma.
This is how Gwede Mantashe, then ANC secretary-general, explained their choice: “Cyril Ramaphosa has acquired many new skills that I have no in-depth understanding of — as a businessman that will give him an edge and open up avenues for the ANC to interact with business and maybe reduce the suspicion on the part of business about the relationship with the SACP, which is supposed to be hostile towards business.”
Mantashe said Ramaphosa would not be a lameduck No 2. “I think that will add value to what we are doing. No 2 is an experienced leader in the ANC, having played many roles, and a negotiator who can unblock bottlenecks. That skill is quite important. He doesn’t like ceremonial roles — he loves doing work. So that’s another advantage.”
On Thursday, Ramaphosa delivered the state of the nation address for the sixth time, to mark his decade in government. He has already described Zuma’s reign as nine wasted years. The wasted years is probably a theme borrowed from China, referring to the period before Deng Xiaoping unleashed an era of runaway economic growth, to making it the world’s fastestgrowing economy. Rampahosa admires Deng, the late Chinese paramount chief.
A strong thread in his state of the nation address was how South Africa had reduced its poverty rate to 55.5% in 2020, as reported by the World Bank, from 71.1% in 1993. That is remarkable. No sane person can argue with his story of a South Africa that is better now compared to the apartheid era.
Not many of the successes Ramaphosa gloats about were implemented after 2014. They emanate from the 2000s and coincided with a commodities boom, and the macro-economic astuteness of the Thabo Mbeki era. Ramaphosa can rightfully boast about the 9-million people who received the “Ramaphosa grant”, the R350 social relief of distress payment to help people cope with the destruction wrought by the Covid-19 pandemic.
His legacy will not be drawn from what he does: evidently, he is not a doer. He likes the idea of power but not the reality of doing things to bring change. He will be remembered as the guy who entered the ring and helped South Africa eliminate Zuma.
All he does is snooze in a ring with no opponent. His most significant victory was stepping into the ring. Of course, it would have been difficult to stop the Zuptas’ reign and control of the ANC had Ramaphosa not put his hand up to take them on. That he was part of the system and Zuma’s sidekick is a fact that needs to be examined in context. Of course, state capture happened because Ramaphosa and others allowed an incorrigible Zuma to lead the party.
Ramaphosa used the story of an imaginary “democracy’s child” called Tintswalo to illustrate the ANC’s success. The question of the Tintswalos, for me, is whether South Africa could have created more in 30 years. Also, whether it can create more in the next decade. The Ramaphosa era is underperforming, according to most indicators. The energy and logistics crisis has hobbled faster growth. The government is the weakest arm of the South African economy.
In 1993 — the year Ramaphosa chose as his baseline for the poverty comparison — South Africa’s gross capital formation stood at 15%. In 2020, it was 14%, according to the World Bank stats he relies on. In 2022, Azerbaijan and Burundi recorded 13%, so we are in good company, while Bangladesh easily reached 30%, with China at 42%. The higher the capital formation, the more money swirling around the economy, translating to investment and the production of goods and services.
South Africa’s GDP per capita was $3,461 in 1993, reaching a peak of $8,737 in 2011 before falling to $6,766 in 2022. Our GDP per capita is down 4% over the last 10 years while the higher echelons of ANC rule hosted Ramaphosa.
That South Africa is in a better place than it was in 1994 is a moot point. Being better than the deplorable, racist apartheid state is nothing to gloat about. A better question is whether South Africa could have lifted more people out of poverty in the last 30 years. We have to ask if the ANC can even repeat its early successes in creating black diamonds and BEE fat cats such as Ramaphosa. It already seems unlikely.