MANAGEMENT

        BRIEFING

 

16 July  2003

 

 

 

© Copyright Reserved
 
 


INTERSEARCH      

 

Dr. J.A. du Plessis

P.O. Box 25587

Monument Park

South Africa 0105

 

Tel:      (012) 460-6366

Fax:     (012) 460-6366 (ask for)

 

E-mail: insearch@mweb.co.za

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOUTH AFRICA: BEYOND DEMOCRACY (PART II)

 

 

General Observation

At present nothing is final or fixed. No information or policy has a lasting capability. Not even the futures of government and politics have enduring qualities.

 

As far as the future is concerned, there is no textbook to follow. There is almost a general agreement that the next decade or more will be fraught with danger in the Southern Africa region. The year 2010 reflects almost a magical date. The current instability will continue until 2010 and then, somehow, a turning point is expected. How this will occur, is not clear.

 

Yesterday’s political thinking and institutions seem increasingly unable to address present problems. Government and society are under stress because existing policies are unable to cope with demands from the external environment.

 

In 1994 free and fair elections and the establishment of a new democracy was the key to solving the country’s problems. By the year 2003 society has adopted a new dynamics which has moved beyond the democracy of 1994. New external factors, existing outside the confinements of democracy, have emerged and their impact cannot be contained at the ballot box.

 

This report will attempt to identify the relevant information and driving forces in society, which will impact on companies in their decision-making. However, an identification of the driving forces is not enough. What is new about 2003 is the way in which these driving forces have started to interact. An analysis of this interactive process provides really useful and highly disturbing information.

 

By 2003 it has become evident that a new society is being moulded in South Africa - the country is exploring new unchartered territory.

 

Change in Society

 

South African society has experienced some major changes since 1990. Indications are that the present change around 2003 is to be the most dramatic, with far reaching consequences in the following decades.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The pre-1994 profile of society – a conflict driven society

In the pre-1994 period the Liberation Struggle and Apartheid were the two dominant driving forces in society. This confrontation can be dated back to the early 1950s and resulted in:

·         An armed conflict;

·         Political isolation of the country;

·         Economic sanctions.

 

The result was an unbalanced society in which everything was interpreted in terms of “the conflict”.

 

After the elections in 1994 the liberation struggle continued in the political structures of the ANC who obtained a majority in parliament. The former National Party became the main opposition party and apartheid disappeared from the political scene.

 

 

From 1994 – 2003. A new democracy – a politically driven society

In this phase the ANC increased its political majority in two elections and, as a result of the recent turbulence in opposition politics, it also obtained a two-thirds majority in parliament.

 

The ANC’s political power was never in question in this phase and it has achieved a dominant profile in society.

 

Democracy was clad in the ANC’s drive to rid society of the last remnants of apartheid. The result was the “fundamental transformation of society” which implied “the need to redress the imbalances of the past to achieve broad representation” in the public administration (Constitution, Chapter 10.) The public service had to reflect the population compilation of the country.

 

With this, the perception of “democracy” was firmly embedded in representation of numbers. The result was an outflow of white public servants and the immediate loss of expertise. By the year 2000 the public service was close to “broad representation of the population” and already experienced severe management problems. This was acknowledged by Mbeki in June 2000 and again in December 2002.

 

By 2003 a number of government departments had become practically dysfunctional. A lack of “good governance” is perhaps only a more courteous expression for “government collapse”, but the ANC government has come very close to that. This situation should be understood very clearly by the business sector: there is no threat to the ANC at the ballot box - the major threat occurs at decision-making and management level.

 

Globalisation: low profile

As a result of the dominant position of the ANC in this phase and the emphasis on the restructuring of society in order to rectify the past, very little attention was given to the imminent challenges of globalisation. In fact, South Africa only obtained access to the internet in 1993, a year before the democratic elections.

 

The ANC government’s preoccupation with restructuring left it completely unprepared for the emerging demands of globalisation. Many a government policy in this phase has endangered the capability of government departments and the private sector to deal with the process of globalisation.

 

HIV/AIDS: low profile

In the run-up to the first democratic elections in April 1994, HIV/AIDS was not even an issue during political discussions. The disease held such a low profile that it was basically invisible. The infection rate in 1990 stood at 0,76% - the disease was not even an epidemic. Ten years later, in 2000, HIV/AIDS had grown into a full scale pandemic.

 

(Epidemic: a disease affecting many individuals within a population or region at the same time. Pandemic: a disease occurring over a wide area and affecting an exceptionally high proportion of the population)

 

The rate at which the disease spread in South Africa, and government’s inability to do something about it, still baffle analysts and ordinary people alike and they find it difficult to explain. Perhaps government felt itself at ease as a result of its total control of parliament and the issues of the day. Whatever questions and information emerged, government was numerically strong enough in parliament to withstand any attack. This led to a public debate that was outrageous at times (there was no link between HIV and AIDS in spite of the scientific evidence), even funny (olive oil could help) and ludicrous (do not forget to take some garlic).

 

The fact of the matter is that government, during this phase, completely underestimated and failed to understand the genuine nature and impact of HIV/AIDS on a population. Effective decisions should have been taken a long time before. By 2003 it had already become too late. The HIV/AIDS challenge had moved outside the confines of parliament into a sphere where government’s majority had no effect.

 

Beyond democracy: 2003 - 2010

The factors impacting on society – the profile – have altered. In this phase government has already accepted a lower profile, which implies that government’s capabilities to exercise a positive influence over society will be decreasing. In contradiction to this, both globalisation and HIV/AIDS have already accepted a dominant profile, which predicts a much stronger impact on society.

 

This change in itself is enough to completely alter the face of society in the next decade – this is the very essence of the new dynamics in society.

 

Government: low profile

In the phase beyond democracy the following factors have contributed to the low profile of government:

 

  • Factors external to the political process have started to impact on and determine the dynamics of society. Politics does not have the last word anymore.
  • Government’s management style is still dealing with the past. Its major effort is to redefine and redesign the past. The legacy of apartheid has to be destroyed and “new policies” introduced. This has led to an inability to identify and deal with new challenges from the external environment. Very often “different opinion” has been confused with “enemy”. The same political slogans are repeatedly applied in every situation.
  • The transformation of society over the past decade has, in practical terms, lead to dysfunctional government systems – mis-management is not the exception; it has almost become the rule.
  • Good governance will be very difficult to achieve. Government has already lost too much expertise as a result of transformation. There is reason to believe that the quality of government will deteriorate even further.
  • The staying power of government will come into question within the next few years. This will not be the result of a new effective growing opposition, but of the dramatic impact of collapsing systems on government’s capability to provide services. This basically implies the spontaneous implosion of government. The result will be that rights and services promised in the Constitution will not be found anywhere in society.
  • The ultimate consequence will be that democracy itself will come under pressure. The ultimate cause for this will not come from within parliament, but from the new external environment dominated by globalisation and HIV/AIDS.

 

 

Globalisation: dominant profile

Globalisation has achieved a dominant profile in less than a decade and its impact on society is expected to continue at an accelerating rate:

 

  • Globalisation has fundamentally changed the way in which societies interact in order to survive. This implies that the game rules of society have altered.

 

  • Globalisation is being driven by the Information Revolution. In the world beyond democracy: 2003 -2010, information will be the major driving component. The quality of information will be determined by levels of expertise. This is directly related to a country or a company’s competitive advantage in world markets.

 

  • Access to and participation in the world of globalisation is therefore not dependent on political numbers, but on the quality of information and levels of expertise.

 

  • Politics can no longer protect itself behind a wall of sovereignty and national interests. Globalisation has broken down national borders and has placed parliamentary decision-making under pressure. When governments make wrong decisions, international markets will penalise them that same day, long before the next election when the electorate will get a chance to do so.

 

  • Globalisation is not a political force and has neither political authority nor a power base. However, as an external force on the political process, it has come to stay.

 

HIV/AIDS: dominant profile

HIV/AIDS has achieved, like globalisation, a dominant profile in less than a decade. It has moved from disease to pandemic without any remedial interference from government.

 

  • Available information indicates that 5 million people were infected with HIV/AIDS in 2002. The projected infection rate for 2006 is 7,7 million. These are, however, broad figures. The crucial question is: who is really infected? In the year 2002 some 4,7 million people were infected in the age group 15 – 49. The people who are infected are the productive section of society. The average life expectancy for men in South Africa is expected to decline to 43 years in 2005 and 38 years in 2010. The average life expectancy for women is 43 years in 2005 and 37 years in 2010.

 

  • The stark reality is that HIV/AIDS has irrevocably altered the demographic profile of society. When this happens, it impacts on the whole of society. This is where the country is entering unchartered territory. South Africa of 2003 – 2010 is no longer the same country than the one that voted in 1994.

 

  • The change in the demographic profile will not leave society unaffected. In South Africa the process of transforming society and restructuring of the civil service was built on the idea that the public sector must reflect the population compilation of society.

 

 

 

  • If HIV/AIDS begins to alter the population compilation of society, it can be expected that the disease will start to impact on government policies in a dramatic way in the near future. HIV/AIDS is not only a disease, it has the capability to destabilise functioning structures in society.

 

  • HIV/AIDS will not only kill substantial numbers of people in South Africa; it will completely alter existing government policy and structures – without any approval from parliament or the electorate.

 

Decision-making in the phase: 2003 – 2010

At present no final answers or solutions about the situation around 2010 can be provided. The best that can be done is to provide sound information about what is happening now and to stimulate thinking about the future. In this new environment no two companies will be affected in the same way. Each industry will have to conduct an individual assessment of its own position in the new environment.

 

What makes 2003 – 2010 different from the past?

Since the beginning of 2002 a steady release of warnings has been issued about the situation in Southern Africa by the UN and other relief agencies. In general, the warnings all emphasise the fact that new thinking and strategies are of dominant importance in the region.

 

  • “Good [cereal] production may not be enough to sustain people as it would have been 10 years ago." (Neil Marsland. SADC report. IRIN. 7 May 2003)

 

  • The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies also warned that the policies of donors, governments and humanitarian agencies would soon lag behind the region's growing challenges. (IRIN 28 May 2003.) "The interaction of HIV/AIDS, failed health care, poverty and food insecurity had created an unprecedented disaster conventional intervention could not contain."

 

  • The explosive combination of acute food shortages and the HIV/Aids pandemic has called for a "total rethink" when dealing with Southern Africa's current humanitarian emergency. (Meeting of UN Aids and the UN Regional Inter-Agency Coordination Support Office (Riacso) in Johannesburg, November 2002.)

 

  • "The connection between HIV/Aids and food security has not always been recognised. The food crisis is the manifestation of a larger HIV/Aids crisis." (Urban Jonsson, UN Children's Fund Regional Director for Eastern and Southern Africa.)  "And around July and August (2002) it became clear to observers that this famine or threat of famine was not a traditional famine, it was a 'new variant famine'. And it was new because we discovered that the causes of the famine were not just bad weather."
An HIV/AIDS induced destruction of society

The common denominator in all these statements is the fact that HIV/AIDS has become a dominant role player in society - to such an extent that it has become possible to speak of HIV/AIDS induced destruction. The UN has already identified HIV/AIDS induced famine, HIV/AIDS induced poverty, HIV/AIDS induced collapse of education and HIV/AIDS induced collapse of national security.

 

As indicated, HIV/AIDS has already led to a distortion of South Africa’s demographic profile. Once this happens, it impacts on every sector of society. It is impossible to have law and order, a sound educational system, medical services and even good economic growth embedded in a distorted demographic profile.

 

A transformation induced  loss of expertise

The HIV/AIDS induced destruction does not occur in isolation. It happens simultaneously with government’s new low profile in terms of good governance – a lack of expertise and imploding government structures. The direct result is that government does not have the capabilities to support society at a time when structures are crumbling due to HIV/AIDS.

 

Essence of the challenge

This double negative - lack of expertise and imploding government structures - occurs exactly at a time when globalisation puts a high premium on expertise and know-how.

 

This is the essence of the challenge South Africa is confronted with in the next decade. If this challenge is not met by government and the private sector, the scenario for South Africa reflects a bleak outlook: more problems with law and order, an even less effective police service, a strong possibility of the collapse of the defence force, collapse of national education and health services, loss of the competitive advantage of the agricultural sector and eventual decline – to mention but a few.

 

Survival of the country at stake

There is not a single sector of society that will not be adversely affected. If this dynamics of the self-destruction of society is not contained in the next few years, the collapse of society with all it structures may become a possibility by 2010. One can try to formulate it in inoffensive terms, but the reality remains the same: South Africa could cease to exist in its present form.