LAST week’s State of the Nation address (Sona) was nothing of the sort. It was more like the state admitting dysfunction. Sad. When President Jacob Zuma did eventually get a chance to speak, the EFF had been forcefully removed and the DA had chosen to leave.
It was an embarrassing affair and made it clear that the state of political leadership in South Africa is in dire straits. But did it tell us anything about the state of the nation?
I’d like to venture that not. The day after Zuma’s speech and Parliament’s circus, social media was a flurry of negativity along the lines of “Quick – sell your rands”, “The rainbow of our nation is dimming”, “Foreign investment is sure to fly now”. While South Africa is definitely not on its strongest foot at the moment, these comments directly after Sona bled with Je suis Jacob Zuma – an assumption that we are Jacob Zuma and that the state of his leadership is a representation of us and our country.
But this is our choice. We are not Jacob Zuma and we are not Parliament. If Zuma takes others’ money to build his own house that does not mean we become thieves.
If Baleka Mbete calls one of the opposition party leaders a cockroach, we do not follow her down to that level. If derailing a public meeting is the EFF’s best way to make a point, and the DA sees walking out as the best path to progress that does not mean that we cannot find a more innovative way to address our challenges. South Africa is not its Parliament – South Africa is its people.
In the same light, just because the government proposes new economic policies does not mean they get to decide them for us. Through action or inaction we have the capability – albeit sometimes limited and challenging – to steer the future of our country. And what is needed after speeches such as Sona is level-headed debate and increased education around the proposals, followed by strong resistance if need be. Negativity and dismay need to be made useful.
For example, Zuma’s proposal to limit the size of farm ownership to 12 000 hectares is a poor attempt to dress populist and emotive policy with economic reasoning. Yes, redistribution of wealth is necessary. Yes, more inclusive growth is necessary – especially in agriculture. But limiting the size of a farm to some arbitrary number will not achieve these goals.
At best it will incentivise inefficient ways of getting around the law, such as forming co-operatives of smaller farms that have ghost owners – much like the workarounds used in fake BEE ownership.
More likely is that this policy will reduce growth in agriculture by taking out the economies of scale and wealth of experience accumulated by large farms. Local food production will decrease and food will either be in short supply, or need to be imported. Both cause food prices to increase and it is well-documented that food inflation hits the poor harder than the rich.
Zuma can talk all he likes, but in order for this bill to go through it needs to pass extensive legal process and be voted in by Parliament. Civil society has a role to play at every level and it’s a role that must be played so that the Sona of 2015 becomes just a dark spot in South Africa’s success story and not a sign of its decline.
The state of South Africa’s current Parliament must not be allowed to become the state of the nation.
Pierre Heistein is the convener of UCT’s Applied Economics for Smart Decision Making course. Follow him on Twitter @PierreHeistein