South Africa has been suffering a bad case of guilt by association. As Zimbabwe has disintegrated, South Africa’s reputation (and currency) have taken a beating. “They are facing a very serious perception crisis,” says Konrad Reuss, managing director for sovereign rating at Standard and Poor’s. “They are lumped together with Zimbabwe… Many international investors can’t differentiate.” The neighbors share similar histories of racial strife. Both broke free of white-minority regimes. Both face challenges of income inequality, black poverty and land redistribution. As a result, Americans and Europeans, appalled by the racial violence and tumult in Zimbabwe, ask: can South Africa go the same way?
So, let’s end the speculation here and now. South Africa is not Zimbabwe. Let’s all say it together: South-Africa-is-not-Zimbabwe.
South Africa is a democracy. It has one of the most progressive constitutions on the planet, and an independent judiciary empowered to uphold it. South Africa has a strong and growing civil society, an increasingly multihued middle class, a free media (witness the very public brouhaha over President Thabo Mbeki’s views on HIV transmission) and a powerful and vocal business community. After decades of doomsaying about the coming Armaggedon during white rule, and years of hand-wringing about what a black government would do, South Africa’s economy is growing. Unlike the United States, it has a budget surplus. It has a debt level that would qualify it for membership in the European Union, today. In his annual budget speech two weeks ago, Finance Minister Trevor Manuel, lauded internationally as South Africa’s Alan Greenspan, actually announced a tax giveback–and an increase in social spending.
Zimbabwe? Zimbabwe has had the same leader for its entire existence. (South Africa’s first universally elected president stepped down after a single term.) Mugabe is part of a moribund breed of corrupt autocrats ruling failing kleptocracies that have little transparency. There is no rule of law. Zimbabwe is suffering from international opprobrium, fuel and food shortages and 100 percent inflation. Mugabe’s heroic accomplishment, leading his people to freedom, has putrefied to a legacy of failure. The power of the Big Man never became the power of the state. Mugabe and his cronies never relinquished the commanding heights of the economy. Lately he has made things worse, firing Supreme Court judges and moving to seize the one sector of the economy he had not commandeered: commercial farming.
The two countries have similar pasts, but crucial differences. South Africa was born of a determination for reconciliation, Zimbabwe of war. S&P’s Reusse notes South Africa is led by a legitimately elected technocrat, working to build a growth economy while alleviating inequalities and increasing services to the poor. Moreover, land reform is being implemented in a measured, deliberate–and legal–manner. The government has swiftly arrested land invaders who had other ideas. South Africa is committed to a modern, open economy. So when Argentina and Turkey collapsed, currency traders took it out on the rand, forcing a 20 percent decline against the dollar in December (and setting off inflation pressures).
Yet, South Africa’s leaders are not blameless. Mbeki’s silence on Mugabe’s terrorism has fed international skepticism. Whether in the name of African solidarity, or gratitude for Mugabe’s unfailing commitment to the war against apartheid, Mbeki has refused to condemn Mugabe’s actions loudly and often enough. As analyst John Kane-Berman recently wrote, “If we had made our attitude clear maybe the rest of the world would have seen that we are different instead of being left by our equivocations to wonder if in our heart of hearts we do not sympathize with Mugabe.”
Where South Africa and Zimbabwe are twins is in the mistaken international perception that it’s all about race. It is not. South Africa has largely, and miraculously, moved beyond the racial issues that once infected every aspect of national life. And even in Zimbabwe, Mugabe’s problem is not with white farmers; he’s only using land grabs to rally his rural supporters and sow chaos. In reality, he targets all who challenge his rule, which is why scores more black activists have been killed than white farmers.
Sadly, none of this may matter. Global markets are pitiless. And as long as they fail to distinguish between South Africa and the loon across the Limpopo, South Africa will pay the price in lost foreign capital, investment and prestige. Analysts say the weak rand, the strong performance of current Western investment, new trade deals with the EU and the United States–as well as a renewed push for privatization and to fight HIV/AIDS–may yet bring South Africa the praise and the dollars it deserves. And if they don’t? That would be the real tragedy in southern Africa.
