There was a time in our great Republic when HIV/Aids was a political football. On the pitch the dissident and orthodox camps engaged in a bruising battle.
President Thabo Mbeki was leading striker in the dissident camp. He fought civil society groups and drug manufacturers who wanted his government to provide drugs to those in need.
Mbeki expressed scepticism about whether Aids was the biggest threat facing Africa, as opposed to poverty, and whether a virus could cause a syndrome.
He believed there was a racist agenda to caricature Africans as “promiscuous carriers of germs”, suffering from “unconquerable devotion to the sin of lust”, “can’t keep it in their pants” ...
He also suspected that drug manufacturers who backed the orthodox view on HIV/Aids wanted to profit from an anti-retroviral drug market.
Mbeki took to lecture halls, parliament and the Internet, among other platforms, to express his unconventional views.
While the debate was ongoing, people were dying and infections were said to be on the rise.
For a while leaders in the ANC cheered him on, defended him or remained silent.
Only a few dared to raise a finger.
While Mbeki was absorbed in this controversy his administration had no clear policy on how to respond to the scourge. But after some time he buckled under pressure and decided to withdraw from expressing his views on the science and politics of HIV/Aids publicly, although he had accused those who opposed his views as “intellectual terrorists”.
But he told his biographer Mark Gevisser that it was “very, very regrettable” that he had been compelled by his colleagues and comrades to withdraw from the debate.
Regret or no regret, the government went on to implement a sound an unambiguous HIV/Aids policy after his withdrawal. Millions of lives were saved.
Mbeki’s dissident views on this topic were arguably the biggest blot on an otherwise decent presidential career characterised by well-managed public finances, a two-thirds majority at the polls and a continental renewal project.
Now that Mbeki has launched a series of articles to set the record straight about some of his decisions while in government, one hopes he will also reflect on the circumstances of his “withdrawal” from the HIV/Aids debate and whether he still feels he was misunderstood.
Whatever his final explanation, Mbeki’s decision to withdraw from the Aids debate and allow the government to develop a sound HIV/Aids policy provides a lesson for President Jacob Zuma. Not on Aids, but on when to stop commenting.
In Zuma’s case he should shut up about the economy.
But he needs comrades and colleagues to compel him to do so.
Like Mbeki’s views on HIV/Aids, which sent mixed signals about government’s commitment to fight HIV/Aids, Zuma’s utterances and decisions on the economy continue to have a negative impact on the country’s economic direction.
The difference though is that Mbeki’s views on HIV/Aids were based on his reading of dubious literature and hobnobbing with dissident scientists from around the world.
It’s not clear what inspires Zuma to say the kinds of things he does on matters economic.
Some of his remarks and decisions have caused irreparable damage. Now investors do not talk about South Africa without referring to “political risk”, a synonym for “Zuma risk”. This means the prospects of creating jobs are slim.
So is the plan to reduce inequality and poverty, government’s top priorities.
Bar the external factors over which South African policymakers have no control, there is no indication that Zuma knows how to instil confidence about the economy.
Zuma’s economic gaffes are too many to enumerate. But the latest was that the effect of his decision to sack Nhlanhla Nene from the finance portfolio and replacing him with a man of no standing in the world of finance was “exaggerated”.
How could he possibly even say this when investors lost billions of rands, confidence in the economy as an investment destination took a hammering and the rand got battered?
Whether it’s about the currency, sovereign debt, market perceptions, investor confidence, global economic dynamics and so on, the president either has a rudimentary understanding or no grasp at all.
To some members of the governing party and ordinary South Africans – the real victims of the president’s economic utterances – he might mean well and should be forgiven for his lack of economic sophistication.
But the globalised nature of stock markets and currency markets is such that with trillions of dollars in the hands of thousands of fund managers, there’s hardly room for people to consider a sympathetic view of Zuma.
Global markets are not forgiving and don’t operate on a philanthropic basis. If they have to dump the rand for the dollar because Zuma has pressed the wrong buttons, they will do so.
If investors have to quit our securities because they think Zuma is gambling with the economy, they will do so.
Of course, global markets do suffer from “irrational exuberance”, as Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the US Federal Reserve once remarked, and can operate like a casino, as the political economist Susan Strange once observed.
But when madness happens in global markets it must be met with rationality in the domestic economy.
If the madness of global markets combines with madness of the domestic terrain we can be sure of a catastrophic outcome.
South Africa escaped the Great Recession only slightly bruised compared to other countries because of the decision of the previous administrations, especially the implementation of the much-maligned Growth Employment and Redistribution (Gear) policy.
Public finances which were left in disarray by the apartheid government had been put in order. Government spending and debt were under control. Cash-guzzling state-owned parasitic public enterprises were weaned off taxpayers’ money. (Sadly, SAA remains an albatross).
And sovereign credit rating was at its most favourable. With this fundamentals in place, South Africa weathered the storm – somewhat.
This goes to show that even when the external environment is bad, sound domestic decisions can mitigate against the worst outcomes.
Zuma has been in government for too long and should know better.
It matters a lot to investors and traders what he, as the president of the most advanced and diversified economy in Africa, says – and does. Whatever he says and does, regardless of where he says it and in what capacity, it must be taken seriously.
Investors and dealers are not interested in whether the occasion is a chess festival in Nkandla or the state of the nation address in Cape Town. The point is, markets react to what the President does and says.
He and his advisors should have realised by now the extent of the damage and confusion caused by some of his utterances.
It’s about time he stopped making harmful utterances on the economy.
His colleagues and comrades must compel him to withdraw from such matters and give ministers in the economic cluster space to instil investor confidence in the country. It’s never too late.
Mpumelelo Mkhabela is the editor of
Sowetan
Zuma could learn from Mbeki when to shut up
President Thabo Mbeki was leading striker in the dissident camp. He fought civil society groups and drug manufacturers who wanted his government to provide drugs to those in need.
Mbeki expressed scepticism about whether Aids was the biggest threat facing Africa, as opposed to poverty, and whether a virus could cause a syndrome.
He believed there was a racist agenda to caricature Africans as “promiscuous carriers of germs”, suffering from “unconquerable devotion to the sin of lust”, “can’t keep it in their pants” ...
He also suspected that drug manufacturers who backed the orthodox view on HIV/Aids wanted to profit from an anti-retroviral drug market.
Mbeki took to lecture halls, parliament and the Internet, among other platforms, to express his unconventional views.
While the debate was ongoing, people were dying and infections were said to be on the rise.
For a while leaders in the ANC cheered him on, defended him or remained silent.
Only a few dared to raise a finger.
While Mbeki was absorbed in this controversy his administration had no clear policy on how to respond to the scourge. But after some time he buckled under pressure and decided to withdraw from expressing his views on the science and politics of HIV/Aids publicly, although he had accused those who opposed his views as “intellectual terrorists”.
But he told his biographer Mark Gevisser that it was “very, very regrettable” that he had been compelled by his colleagues and comrades to withdraw from the debate.
Regret or no regret, the government went on to implement a sound an unambiguous HIV/Aids policy after his withdrawal. Millions of lives were saved.
Mbeki’s dissident views on this topic were arguably the biggest blot on an otherwise decent presidential career characterised by well-managed public finances, a two-thirds majority at the polls and a continental renewal project.
Now that Mbeki has launched a series of articles to set the record straight about some of his decisions while in government, one hopes he will also reflect on the circumstances of his “withdrawal” from the HIV/Aids debate and whether he still feels he was misunderstood.
Whatever his final explanation, Mbeki’s decision to withdraw from the Aids debate and allow the government to develop a sound HIV/Aids policy provides a lesson for President Jacob Zuma. Not on Aids, but on when to stop commenting.
In Zuma’s case he should shut up about the economy.
But he needs comrades and colleagues to compel him to do so.
Like Mbeki’s views on HIV/Aids, which sent mixed signals about government’s commitment to fight HIV/Aids, Zuma’s utterances and decisions on the economy continue to have a negative impact on the country’s economic direction.
The difference though is that Mbeki’s views on HIV/Aids were based on his reading of dubious literature and hobnobbing with dissident scientists from around the world.
It’s not clear what inspires Zuma to say the kinds of things he does on matters economic.
Some of his remarks and decisions have caused irreparable damage. Now investors do not talk about South Africa without referring to “political risk”, a synonym for “Zuma risk”. This means the prospects of creating jobs are slim.
So is the plan to reduce inequality and poverty, government’s top priorities.
Bar the external factors over which South African policymakers have no control, there is no indication that Zuma knows how to instil confidence about the economy.
Zuma’s economic gaffes are too many to enumerate. But the latest was that the effect of his decision to sack Nhlanhla Nene from the finance portfolio and replacing him with a man of no standing in the world of finance was “exaggerated”.
How could he possibly even say this when investors lost billions of rands, confidence in the economy as an investment destination took a hammering and the rand got battered?
Whether it’s about the currency, sovereign debt, market perceptions, investor confidence, global economic dynamics and so on, the president either has a rudimentary understanding or no grasp at all.
To some members of the governing party and ordinary South Africans – the real victims of the president’s economic utterances – he might mean well and should be forgiven for his lack of economic sophistication.
But the globalised nature of stock markets and currency markets is such that with trillions of dollars in the hands of thousands of fund managers, there’s hardly room for people to consider a sympathetic view of Zuma.
Global markets are not forgiving and don’t operate on a philanthropic basis. If they have to dump the rand for the dollar because Zuma has pressed the wrong buttons, they will do so.
If investors have to quit our securities because they think Zuma is gambling with the economy, they will do so.
Of course, global markets do suffer from “irrational exuberance”, as Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the US Federal Reserve once remarked, and can operate like a casino, as the political economist Susan Strange once observed.
But when madness happens in global markets it must be met with rationality in the domestic economy.
If the madness of global markets combines with madness of the domestic terrain we can be sure of a catastrophic outcome.
South Africa escaped the Great Recession only slightly bruised compared to other countries because of the decision of the previous administrations, especially the implementation of the much-maligned Growth Employment and Redistribution (Gear) policy.
Public finances which were left in disarray by the apartheid government had been put in order. Government spending and debt were under control. Cash-guzzling state-owned parasitic public enterprises were weaned off taxpayers’ money. (Sadly, SAA remains an albatross).
And sovereign credit rating was at its most favourable. With this fundamentals in place, South Africa weathered the storm – somewhat.
This goes to show that even when the external environment is bad, sound domestic decisions can mitigate against the worst outcomes.
Zuma has been in government for too long and should know better.
It matters a lot to investors and traders what he, as the president of the most advanced and diversified economy in Africa, says – and does. Whatever he says and does, regardless of where he says it and in what capacity, it must be taken seriously.
Investors and dealers are not interested in whether the occasion is a chess festival in Nkandla or the state of the nation address in Cape Town. The point is, markets react to what the President does and says.
He and his advisors should have realised by now the extent of the damage and confusion caused by some of his utterances.
It’s about time he stopped making harmful utterances on the economy.
His colleagues and comrades must compel him to withdraw from such matters and give ministers in the economic cluster space to instil investor confidence in the country. It’s never too late.
Mpumelelo Mkhabela is the editor of
Sowetan
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos