A quarter century back, South Africa was flooded with futurists offering proposals for the way ahead. Clem Sunter, then at Anglo American, made his name by offering his famous High Road, Low Road suggestions. Most famous of them was sponsored by Old Mutual and Nedbank.
This offering, entitled SA: Prospects for a Successful Transition, was presented by the pioneer of scenario planning, former Shell Oil executive Pierre Wack and Harvard Business School’s Bruce Scott. There were queues outside their sessions around the country, with almost 50,000 attending in person.
A recurrent theme in these scenarios was how the route to economic nirvana was best achieved through a “benevolent dictatorship”. This was a system where an all-powerful leader had the ability to effect politically difficult structural changes. The argument was supported by numerous examples from history where dictatorial leadership delivered significant economic benefits.
___STEADY_PAYWALL___
Protagonists of this approach still exist, not least in Washington DC and Moscow. Singapore’s first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, was the poster boy for the model. He is credited with transforming the city state from backwater to powerhouse during his 31 years in charge (1959 – 1990) and a couple more decades of mentorship.
Lee used his power to shape a highly disciplined society with cornerstones of meritocracy, multiculturalism and economic liberalism; but was regularly criticised for wielding a heavy hand over the media, banning public protests and brooking no political opposition.
I thought about the late Singaporean icon’s success when reading this week’s in-depth piece in The Economist on Rwandan president Paul Kagame. There are many similarities in their styles: the exercise of virtually absolute power; little political dissent; achieving strong and sustained economic growth – and even their obsessive hatred of litter.
While I never got to meet Lee, through years of attending WEF events I’ve seen quite a bit of Kagame. Tall and thin, he speaks clearly and says all the right things about the path to economic advancement. He has a track record, too, with Rwanda’s GDP growth averaging 8% a year since 2000 while GDP per capita has risen from $150 to $700.
But the magazine’s lengthy analysis also leaves one with a sense of disquiet. You sense the authors believe social unrest is bubbling just under the surface. For instance, they ask: “Why, if Rwanda is so harmonious, are there soldiers everywhere? And what happened to all the hawkers, beggars and prostitutes?” They are also highly critical of a change in the Rwandan constitution allowing Kagame, in power since 1994, to rule until 2034.
It’s a well researched piece but a reminder for me that unless you’ve walked many miles in a local’s shoes, the best approach is to suspend judgement. This hit me in China where locals were amused when I asked them why they weren’t agitating for a vote. For now, seeing their once battered country flourish and its economy develop was more than enough. Perhaps that’s also the case in Rwanda.
It is easy to misread the situation based on one’s own experience and perceptions. In South Africa a similar scenario may well be playing out.
While the economically literate in the middle class are appalled at the rise in political corruption and Zuma’s network of patronage, millions in rural areas are delighted at free HIV medication and monthly social benefits. For them, both are directly attributable to the ruling political party.
In the long term, nothing beats the US Founding Fathers’ model of economic and social freedom promoting civil liberties and individual property rights. But those in previously repressed societies are often comfortable with something less ambitious. That’s something worth pondering when trying to make sense of SA’s current upheaval. And why 98% of Rwandans voted to effectively make Kagame their president for life.
