Publications
Partners
It is is often said, by way of excuse for the ruling ANC's piss-poor ability to deliver to its constituency, that 21 years is simply not enough time to overturn the legacy of apartheid.
On one hand, perhaps even the figure of 21 years is not entirely accurate. As early as the late 1980s, liberal corporations, state-owned enterprises, and institutions of higher learning recognised that equality was a foregone conclusion. Restitutive concepts such as affirmative action and bridging programmes appeared long before 1994. It is also common cause that as much as FW de Klerk was the de facto president up until 1994, not much of importance happened without the say-so of Mandela's ANC. Therefore, arguably, black South Africa has had a full quarter century to make its mark on history.
On the other hand, some note that 21 (or 25) years is still not as long as the Nationalists were in power, ergo, 46 years. To my mind, the greatest external discontent with apartheid only arose following the 1976 student uprising. There may have been UN resolutions following Sharpeville, the ejection from the Olympics in the mid-60s, and hostility from newly liberated African states in the late 60s, but the real isolation, the sanctions, the multitude of condemnations, only really kicked in after Soweto.
That period signified the beginning of the end. Botha, ironically regarded as a liberal at the time, took over from Vorster in 1978. The country spent vast sums on defence, which, without access to foreign funding, effectively killed the economy. The tri-cameral disaster was spawned in 1983. And the series of states of emergency in the mid- to late 80s signalled the death of the system. So if you regard 1976 as a seminal date, the Nats essentially ruled unfettered for only 28 years. And 21 years is awfully close to 28.
But that is to miss the point. Stacking the years the ANC should have, against the years the Nationalists did have, is pointless. But it is instructive to note what can be achieved in 21 years, given the right leadership, and more than that, a focus on the economy. When you focus on the economy, you create wealth organically, which leads to jobs. Real jobs, that pull people out of poverty. Expanding the civil service, which is Jacob Zuma's only contribution to jobs, is not organic growth.
* USA, 1929 - 1950 : In 1929, the USA experienced the start of the Great Depression. This was exacerbated by a series of agricultural disasters in the 1930s (research the Dust Bowl). In 1939/40/41, the US stayed out of the war, only entering the fray in December of 1941. Yet, in that time of hardship, it was still able to assist the UK and France militarily, and develop its own industries. In war-time, it developed the first nuclear weapons, long-range bombing, and jet engines, technologies that would entrench its status following the end of hostilities. By 1950, it was by far the world's greatest economic power, and still had enough in the tank to rescue Europe, by way of the Marshall Plan.
* Japan, 1945 - 1966 : In August 1945, the country was for all intents and purposes wiped out. It had been the target of two nuclear weapons. Fire-bombing had obliterated its major cities. The emperor, epi-centre of power for the people, was humiliated, becoming a mere figure-head, as democracy was foisted on the nation. With allied support, the country pulled itself up by the bootstraps. After some false starts in the 1950s, when "Made in Japan" was regarded with the same derision we reserve for cheap tat made in China today, the focus on quality became a national obsession. By the 60s and beyond, if you wanted a quality car, you bought a Toyota or Datsun. Electronics, National Panasonic and Sony. A reliable motorcycle, a Honda. Heavy industrial equipment, Mitsubishi and Fuji. Ironically, it is Japan's all-encompassing commitment to work and to quality, characteristics which endure to this day, that the country is in trouble, because family life has taken such a back seat, and the country is running out of workforce.
* Finland, 1970 - 1990s : At the end of the war, Finland experienced something of a baby boom. Yet, almost half of the country was entirely focused on agriculture. Only one-third of the population lived in urban areas. As the baby-boomers of the post-war period became adults in the late 60s and 70s, there simply weren't enough jobs to accommodate them all. A great many of them were forced to flee to neighbouring industrialised Sweden, to make enough money to survive. The government took note and re-invented the economy, to focus on manufacturing and high-tech. As an example, by the 1990s, with Sweden's Ericsson, Nokia was the world leader in the provision of telecomms products and services. The country joined the European Union and adopted the Euro in the 1990s. Today, it is one of the wealthiest, most advanced countries in the world.
One could go on an on, dredging up examples of countries who made good in two decades or less. China even. You can also look at countries who have gone backwards, even with 50 years of liberation behind them. Most are in Africa.
How long will it be before South Africa stops the bleating, and begins taking responsibility for its own future? How long will it be before the ANC acknowledges that its policies, and their implementation, are simply faulty, and that no quantum of time will overcome the inequities of the past?
How long?
