The Tribune

Observers and admirers of the modern South Africa will have been shocked and dismayed by the current images of looting, violence and general mayhem being beamed around the world on TV screens for all to witness. This has been sparked by the jailing of the nation’s former President Jacob Zuma for contempt of court.

Their concern may have grown further after the current President Cyril Ramaphosa described the breakdown of law and order that has rocked the nation as an assault on its democracy, though he did not elaborate on this. In such a significant country as South Africa - with a population of some 60 million, its traditional economic strength and its chequered political history of racial division - this is a matter of considerable interest to others, in Africa and beyond.

Supporters of Zuma reacted furiously to his detention by blockading major roads and calling for a shutdown of the economy. Factories, businesses and retail stores have been looted, burned and petrol-bombed, with witnesses saying it feels like a war zone with gunshots and fires and smoke everywhere. All this has resulted in over 200 deaths so far and widespread damage to property and infrastructure at a level said to be rarely seen in South Africa - with one business group describing the situation as an ‘unparalleled emergency in our democratic history’ and calling on the government to re-establish law and order.

The areas mainly affected have been Zuma’s home province of KwaZulu-Natal (the location of South Africa’s main port of Durban) which has been the epicentre of the violence, and in Gauteng which surrounds the country’s biggest city of Johannesburg.

President Ramaphosa has said the unrest and violence was pre-planned, instigated and coordinated and had been taken over by criminal elements. He has given an assurance that ‘anarchy and mayhem’ will not be allowed to spread and that the government is deploying troops to regain control; and it will pursue the instigators, some of whom have already been identified and arrested. In his words: ‘If we stand together, no insurrection or violence in this country will succeed. We are engaged in a struggle to defend our democracy, our Constitution, our livelihoods and our safety.’

The rioting and looting started more than a week ago after Zuma had handed himself in to the police to serve a 15-month sentence. But, although this is ostensibly about what is perceived to be harsh treatment of the 79-year-old - who suffers from unspecified medical ailments and, it is feared, could die in prison - it appears the underlying causes are wider and deeper.

Since the ending of apartheid and the transfer of power in 1994, the country has been faced with key socio-economic challenges including high rates of poverty, social inequality and unemployment; and most recently it has been one of the worst-affected countries worldwide by the pandemic - even having a variant attributed to it. Meanwhile, for various reasons, its vaccine rollout has been slow. So, an already volatile situation had created a tinderbox that just needed a spark to ignite it.

A brief look at the history of the ending of apartheid shows it was a gradual process involving international pressure to force the white minority government to agree to meaningful reform.

As a young diplomat serving in South Africa during the height of apartheid, one was well placed to observe the best and worst of the country. Politically, it was living on borrowed time and the pressure for change was growing inexorably - and later, for example, decisions taken at the 1985 Commonwealth Heads of Government in Nassau contributed to the intensification of the momentum of the anti-apartheid struggle that was long and tortuous but ultimately successful.

In the early 1990s, South Africa was still the highly developed industrial giant and economic power house of Africa. There was every hope that, after the dismantling of apartheid and the first fully democratic elections in the nation’s history in 1994, this would continue. Certainly, with Nelson Mandela at the helm, expectations were high. Some historians maintain that he ought to be remembered as the leading black statesman - as opposed to being simply a politician - in Africa; not least because the cynics maintain that a statesman thinks of the wider picture and the next generation whereas a politician only thinks of the next election.

Nelson Mandela was, of course, also revered for his moderation, magnanimity and spirit of forgiveness, an important example of which was his founding of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 1995 to help bring about atonement and peace throughout the land.

More recently, however, there has been a measure of political instability with alleged splits inside the ruling African National Congress, allegations of corruption, economic difficulties and high levels of unemployment leading to increased crime and social problems. But, while current economic conditions remain uncertain, many hope President Ramaphosa and his colleagues will now take firm action in defending South Africa from forces intent on destroying the democracy enjoyed by this beautiful country.

So, is this really worth all the hype and money?

Judging from a range of media reports, reaction to billionaire industrialist Richard Branson’s flight last week to the edge of space has had a mixed public reaction. Described by one commentator as a ‘tempter of fate’, he was reportedly launched 53 miles high in his own Virgin Galactic spaceship – just below the 62-mile mark which is apparently recognised as the boundary of space – in order to fulfil a boyhood dream.

Whatever view critics may take about the purpose of this adventure, there is no denying it is a landmark moment for opening up the exciting prospect of commercial space tourism, since Virgin has said it will conduct one more test flight before starting to take paying customers on a daring journey costing in the region of $300,000 per round trip flight. To some, that looks to be a somewhat hefty price to pay for what amounts to a few minutes in zero gravity, though it is true, of course, that space tourists will have a magnificent view of our planet in all its wonderful glory.

Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon and said to be the richest person in the world, is quoted as saying that to see the earth from space ‘changes your relationship with humanity’ – a grandiose claim perhaps which he will no doubt explain further after, as reported, he emulates Branson and is himself launched into space sometime today.

All this sounds rather good until one considers other aspects like the huge costs of developing and operating this project together with what must surely be its huge carbon footprint at a time when how to limit the contribution of mankind to climate change and global warming is top of the world’s agenda.

So, inevitably, questions are being asked about whether such so-called sub-orbital space tourism can be justified. The immediate answer must surely be that for people with access to extreme wealth this is ultimately a matter for them because it is their own money. Furthermore, for those who believe in individual freedom of choice and personal responsibility and accountability it would be unacceptable in a free and democratic society for the state even to consider interfering with such freedom.

On the other hand, in the midst of lingering doubts there is another dimension to the issue. There are those who consider that in today’s interconnected world this sort of massive expenditure should be linked to social responsibility. For example, they believe that the crisis of climate change and extreme weather - instances of which have been the recent excessive heat in North America and the current disastrous flooding in Germany - are threatening our very existence, and that any extra resources should be concentrated on dealing with this vital problem.

At the same time, an estimated one billion people do not have clean water to drink and countless numbers go to sleep at night hungry – not to mention social injustice in the world, the lack of essential medical care for many, widespread poverty and the suffering from countless wars and other conflicts which, in some cases, could be alleviated with the availability of greater resources.

So, wasting vast amounts of money on what is ultimately- in their view - little more than an ego trip for those concerned ought to be broadly unacceptable to society as a whole.

Many argue, therefore, that, even though they believe in unfettered private enterprise as the driver of economic growth, it is at the very least weird for the richest people in the world to direct their enormous resources towards an endeavour with no discernible benefits to the overwhelming majority of people.

Space exploration is, of course, important. The moon landing by Neil Armstrong in 1969 was an achievement that fired the imagination of the whole world -- and how could we now live without the satellites which have transformed our lives by transmitting data back to earth and linking us all together through the Internet. But that is a matter for governments and it is claimed that ongoing space exploration will not be advanced by space tourism.

At the risk of being labelled a curmudgeon, I tend to agree that the allocation of vast resources to space tourism -- even if owned privately -- amounts to an ostentatious display and misuse of wealth. In the view of many, spending huge amounts on such a vanity project constitutes a skewed sense of priorities, and this is objectionable to those who believe that resources should be concentrated on the Earth’s problems first. That said, there are bound to be conflicting opinions on such an important issue -- and the debate will be worth having. Meanwhile, no one should surely be in any doubt that Richard Branson and his wealthy friends will press on regardless.

A good story to tell, but on one’s telling it

After researching the current unrest and horrifying violence in South Africa, I had intended in this third and smaller section of today’s column to reflect on the relative peace and good order overall in The Bahamas compared with the state of conflict in so many other parts of the world.

This is despite our high crime rate, corruption and, in some instances, poor governance together with the disruption attributable to COVID-19 that has damaged the economy and disrupted people’s lives.

Yesterday’s news of election fever and a surge in the country of a new strain of the coronavirus - reportedly more than some 230 new virus cases last week - has put me off track somewhat. But, while as an observer I hesitate to offer comment about any of the political parties, I had wanted to draw attention to some of the successes of the current FNM administration which, of course, has come in for much criticism from the Opposition and so many others. I have been prompted to do this after recently re-reading the Prime Minister’s lengthy 2021/2022 Budget Communication of 26 May.

To my eye, this sets out clearly and comprehensively his government’s impressive plans, achievements and priorities in the face of the unprecedented social and economic shocks of Hurricane Dorian, which was responsible for the largest single loss of life in the nation’s history, and the COVID-19 pandemic, which - it is now generally accepted - has been handled pretty well by a government that was under extreme pressure.

In politics, criticism is inevitable. But, even though Dr Minnis and his colleagues have received much adverse comment, it seems to me that in so many ways the FNM administration has a good story to tell and much of the detail is set out in the Budget Communication. But one problem for the sitting government is surely the average voter almost certainly will not have read it. So, perhaps this is the moment for the government’s public relations machine to go into overdrive.