Today in the World: South Africa

South Africa will continue to manage its economy with restraint after next year's elections, despite pressure from leftist allies seeking to adopt more expansionary policies, ruling ANC leader Jacob Zuma said.

Zuma, who is likely to become president after the elections, told the American Chamber of Business late on Wednesday that the government would maintain the policies that had spurred a decade of strong growth and prepared the country well for the choppy economic waters ahead.

"We are proud of the fiscal discipline, sound macro-economic management and general manner in which the economy has been managed. That calls for continuity," he said in a copy of his speech. -Reuters

Why should you care about that? There are important divisions in the ANC, which is normal considering it was an umbrella organisation whose sole purpose had been to end the Apartheid and full equality for blacks. Divisions on other subjects did not matter when they were out of power, but ever since 1994 they have been the ruling party they have taken a growing importance. Mandela and his successor Mbeki decided to run South Africa in a pragmatic and business friendly way which did not please the leftists and the communists inside the party. They have managed to achieve good economic growth, but poverty remains rampant. The left wing and the communist in the party did not leave it to form another party, they stuck around and complained bitterly.

Zuma associated himself with this wing of the party, who successfully forced Mbeki to resign recently. There will be elections in 2009 and Zuma is widely expected to win. But after Mbeki resigned there was a split in the ANC with pro-Mbeki ministers defecting to form a new party. There was fear that the whole Mbeki faction and all the business interests that supports it would follow the split group, who is supposed to meet in a Congress in December. In this case it could have forced the first real electoral battle in South Africa since the end of Apartheid. But Zuma just said clearly that he will not change the way the economy is managed. Everything will stay the same. The odds are, the business community will stick with the ANC and support Zuma after what he has said.

The ones who seems to be the losers here are the leftist groups and the communists inside the ANC; they fought tooths and nails internally for years to have their voice heard and they managed to force Mbeki to resign through some internal infighting. The goal was supposed to put a lefties-friendly Zuma in power and instead they got a business-friendly Zuma. They will not be happy.

But it has to be said, the economy under Mbeki and Mandela has been doing quite good with solid growth, and it seems strong enough to withstand the current international crisis without too much problems. And the economic growth has not benefited only the very wealthy, it has created a brand new black middle class. But of course, wealth does not appears overnight and there is still widespread poverty left. Growth takes times, just look at China: even with 10% growth for decades it is still mostly poor even though it appears to be on the way to go the Taiwan/South Korea/Malaysia route in 2-3 decades.

South Africa: unstable?

There is change in the air in South Africa, and I'm not sure it's the kind of change we can believe in.

The African National Congress (ANC) was united for decades in its fight against the whites that were in charge of the country. Following the transition to full democracy in 1994, the ANC emerged as the dominant party in South Africa and the source of all patronage. But like all coalitions fighting for a higher cause, it was a bizarre mixture united only in their opposition to the ruling power. It appears that this cohesion is slowly eroding.

The way Mandela and his successor Mbeki chose for the country was more business-friendly than some would have liked. It managed to create a relatively stable economy. It also established a modest black middle-class through patronage and affirmative action. But a majority of the population hasn't seen any improvement in their situation in the past 14 years. This has led to frustration among the communist/union/left wing of the ANC who has been trying to take control over the government. Needless to say, this has lead to some intra-party frictions.

In 2005, Jacob Zuma, a powerful ANC politician associated with the left wing of the party and one of the favorite to replace Mbeki, was accused of corruption and rape charges. This was widely seen abroad as a righteous move by the government to root out corruption within its rank. But at home, it was perceived by the left wing of the ANC and Zuma's fellow Zulu (SA most populous ethnic group) as a hit-job on Zuma. He was subsequently cleared of most of the charges (for the rape case because it was judged the woman was willing and the corruption charges were dropped due to procedural errors in September of this year), which is important because if indicted he would have been barred per the constitution from running for President.

On September 20th, President Mbeki stepped down before the end of his turn in. Once again the international media, never one to become obsessed with an African country backdoor politics, interpreted the move as a simple change of government. The reality is that it was "mavericks" from the left wing in the ANC National Executive Committee who kicked him out (after Zuma was cleared of corruption charges). Now Zuma is the frontrunner in 2009 and is widely expected to win.

However a split has appeared in the ANC with the formation of a new party (yet unnamed) that appears to be lead by Mbeki loyalist that held its first convention last weekend. The identity of the new party and whom it will attract isn't entirely clear, although the middle class that favored from the last 14 years is probably going to support them. There are two ways to interpret the changes and predict how things will turn out. The first scenario is that this split is healthy in a liberal democracy. It will lead to a stronger multi-party system, hopefully weakening the ANC hegemony over SA politics. The other way to look at it is that we're seeing a major split within competing elite groups which both want power, all in a context of a dangerous rise in violence and militaristic behavior.

Here's an excerpt from an interesting article by Johan Rossouw from the Guardian & Mail (bold mine):

It is unlikely that a "Lekota party" will threaten the ANC's hegemony, since the constituency of the politicians mentioned in connection with such a party is the same constituency that was defeated at Polokwane last December -- the black middle-class. It is also unlikely that the ANC will rupture further soon, as too much economic interest for a new generation of patronage seekers in the current ANC leadership depends on the illusion of party unity.

The fact is that the ANC is a party in disarray, where internal division and violence is on the rise. The clash between the big capitalists and the socialists in the ANC is an explosion waiting to happen, as both sides know all too well that there is simply no serious vision in the ANC unifying them anymore. This lack of vision is all too graphically illustrated by the increasing violence and violent rhetoric in the ANC, as well as the tendency to use quasi-religious revolutionary purity as a political yardstick.

All this is taking place against the backdrop of serious instability in South Africa. This includes: the fact that the government's commodity bonanza-financed grant system could not prevent May's xenophobic attacks; the fact that Thabo Mbeki twice in the last four weeks of his term saw fit to remind the security forces to act professionally and maintain the Constitution; representatives of the South African Security Forces Union during August said that they would not intervene if the crowd outside a Zuma court appearance got out of hand, as they themselves support Jacob Zuma; increasing militarisation of ANC gatherings, where MK veterans in military outfits are more visible; and that South Africa's security forces may be unionised, whereas South Africa's biggest labour federation is now a serious player in the ANC's faction fighting.

This article seems to point in the second direction. But maybe it's simply a transition period toward a new faction of the ANC and that once they're in power the old elite will resign itself to their fate. Maybe once Zuma is in power, he can reign in the more militaristic factions. But this (from the same article) makes me doubt that he'll be able to do so:

Those who think that Zuma will provide the necessary leadership to ensure stability must perhaps think again. If there was one issue on which Zuma was consistent since Polokwane last December, it was his preference for Mbeki to finish his full term. Precisely on this issue Zuma failed his first big political test when the mavericks in his party succeeded in toppling Mbeki.

It would appear he is not in total control.

So in the next few months and years it will be essential to watch South Africa to answer several questions. How peacefully will the "Mbeki loyalist" accept loss of power? Who will the new party attract? Will they fall along classes lines or ethnic group? Will the violence increase and will it become more politically targeted? Will Zuma be a strong enough leader to take power and control everyone in his coalition or will it fragment in a number of semi-independant factions? Are South Africa's civic institutions strong enough to withstand the instability?

I'm seriously hoping that South Africa is only passing through a "phase". The idea of civil strife in sub-saharan Africa's most prosperous country is too depressing to think about.