The one-party state’s time to shine
Democracy not winning at the moment
I have long criticised the one party state of South Africa, arguing that we are in fact stuck as faux democracy with little prospect of economic growth and progression until the political landscape actually gets competitive. I saw no absolutely no benefit to our political set up and worried that Britain was heading the same way with the disastrous performance of Labour in the last election. I have changed my view. There appears be a major benefit of a one-party state and that is in the time of genuine crisis. And here we are, crisis time, so let’s see how it played out.
Let’s compare responses to the virus. South Africa shut its borders after 61 cases and went into full lockdown after 400 (after growing at almost 6x in a week). UK went into lockdown at 6,500 cases, Italy 5,800 and European countries similar numbers. Whether you believe lock down is the right idea is not up for debate. I am just looking at the speed of the response. Why did SA lock down after 400 cases and all other examples were well over 5,000? Is our government just better at making judgement calls than the Western world? Could be, but that would be a remarkably turnaround by a government which isn’t famous for being sensible. What else? Political win could be a factor. Let’s have a look at that.
To contrast South Africa’s one-party state, let’s look at the most famously competitive democracy — the United States. They seem to be in a bind, with both the democrats and republicans agreeing emergency measures need to be put in place, but they can’t agree on what those measures are. Thus, they’re in stalemate with no party wanting to seem weak at the exact moment that they need fast action most.
The likely reason for South Africa’s decisive action is the absence of political anxiety. In an election year or not, the ANC is never going to lose right now. There is no legitimate competition. Thus, draconian measures that may strangle the economy in the short term, but are the right move given current information are palatable to them. Not true for politicians close to an election, or ones that face the tight battle of a democracy.
Let’s look at the two major scenarios being toyed with at the moment. You shut down the economy for 5 weeks. You save a lot of lives (based on current modelling), but the economy tanks. But did you really save all those lives, the opposition asks 9 months later? What if you overreacted and tanked the economy for nothing? Before you know it this narrative takes hold and you’re the fall guy for a stuttering economy. Let the virus run and you risk being blamed for killing a lot of people. Bit of a lose lose. Middle ground is bailing out the economy with government debt and hoping this nullifies the impact enough to affect a quick recovery. Doesn’t work when your opposition blocks the bail out.
This back and forth is normally good, so that a governing party can’t run rampant with inappropriate spending, corruption, etc. (Yes, I’m talking about Zuma), but is exactly not what is required in a true emergency.
America is particularly interesting when you contrast the response of the Federal Reserve (their central bank, or the “FED”), which is given monopoly rights by the government to act as they please within the confines of the rules that have been put in place. With no one to answer to in the short term, the FED has taken unprecedented action at a rapid pace to keep financial markets open. This at the same time as the US government (through Congress) bickers over how best to enact a rescue package. Once again some argue that the FED is overreaching, which is the downside of having as much power as they do, but it can’t be said that their ability to react quickly was constrained in any way.
Sure, this stalemate didn’t have to happen. Countries like Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea enacted hefty measures early on to contain the virus. In theory they could face blowback for acting unnecessarily, but given what happened in the rest of the world, this blowback seems unlikely. European countries on the other hand have tended to wait until the last minute to take real action. Maybe the reason they waited so long to make the dreaded ‘full lockdown’ move was to illustrate to their people how bad the effect of the un-contained virus is before trying to fix it. This may not have been an intentional move, but the indirect consequence of how competitive political system function.
Let’s thank our lucky stars that from an ability to act stand point, we have a one-party state. But let’s also be careful with handing out adulation, praise and pride in our president too freely. When the emergency is over, it’ll be back to regular one-party governance. If there is one thing we know as South Africans, it’s that this is not pretty.