committed to its common good
Hamid Bouchikhi
Professor of
management and entrepreneurship
ESSEC Business
School, FRANCE
I am a North African scholar who grew up
hearing negative comment about South Africa almost every day, for years, and
who rejoiced when the country embarked on an unprecedented experiment.
I have visited South Africa three times,
talked to many fellow South Africans and read a good deal of media coverage and
ANC policy documents. My research on the role of transgressive leadership in
times of deep crisis and the insights gained from readings and conversations
about South Africa lead me to contend that the country, and the ANC in
particular, need a new breed of ethically strong leaders willing to and capable
of transgressing foundational myths to better serve the common good of the
country and of Africa.
Reading the official document prepared by
the ANC for the 4th National Policy Conference in June 2012 enlightened
the malaise I sense in discussions with South African friends and colleagues
across the rainbow. I am worried for the future of South Africa if the leaders of
the democratically elected majority continue to subscribe to myths that prevent,
or worse exempt, them from embracing the real strengths of South Africa and
addressing the real challenges facing the “beloved country”.
The policy document abounds with scary
ideas and language. Claiming that “the transition in the current South African
context refers to a single and ongoing transition from Apartheid colonialism to
a National Democratic Society” strikes me as utterly simplistic. It is not hard, even for someone like me who
has spent little time in South Africa, to enumerate a series of other far
reaching, and equally challenging, transitions unfolding at the national and
the international levels.
It is shocking to read that “The Commission
also noted that the South African population is constituted by 52% women, 74%
youth and children below the age of 35, and 79.5% Africans”. What does
this mean about the other 20.5%? Why
does the ANC leadership feel a need to suggest so openly that they are not African?
Similarly, I cannot understand why the authors
of the policy platform wrote “The Commission also expressed concern about the
current individualism paradigm permeating society as well as the domination of
English as a medium of communication”. Why should individualism and English coexist
in the same sentence? Isn’t individualism intrinsic to life in a free society?
Why should the wide diffusion of English be a problem for South Africa? How
would the translation of “all pieces of legislation and public policies…into
all official and indigenous languages” enable equitable development of and in
South Africa? Personally, I would see the so called ‘domination’ as a strong
asset in an increasingly global village where English it is the common medium
of communication. This does not mean that other languages, including Afrikaans,
should be forgotten but I am not able to see the value of treating more than
ten languages as official. I am writing this from the perspective of someone
who had to pay a high price for learning French and then English to communicate
with and work in the world. South African leaders should feel blessed that
their fellow citizens are comfortable with Shakespeare’s language.
The “Land Reform Policy Discussion
Document” also released in June 2012 compounded my anxieties. It is full of tortured language about the
‘need’ to redistribute land and, at the same time, preserving South Africa’s
remarkable agricultural output. The meandering language suggests that the ANC
leadership is stuck in another foundational myth which has to be ditched
urgently for the sake of the common good of South Africa. Committing a new
injustice in the name of repairing a historical one does not make good policy.
Twentieth century history shows us that government driven land redistribution
was always fatal to productivity.
South Africa needs leaders who are proud of
all South Africans, regardless of where their ancestors came from. The country
needs leaders who can heal the wounds of the past instead of exacerbating them.
The ANC needs transgressive leaders who have the will and strength to update
the party’s software.
If recent North African history can be of
any help, there is a lot that can be learned from Algeria where a liberation
movement became a huge liability, where the majority is struggling to make ends
meet in a country endowed with huge natural resources, where food is imported instead
of being exported when the country was under French rule, where “arabization”
has produced a generation of poorly educated people who precipitated Algeria in
a civil war in the name of a narrow understanding of what Arabic civilization
and Islam mean.
It is time that all South Africans look for
leaders who have the guts to do the unthinkable. What a better gift could they
make to Frederick de Klerk and Nelson Mandela as we approach the twentieth
anniversary of the courageous gesture they made for the common good of all
South Africans.
