It is a time-honoured South African tradition ? as established as pap and boerewors. Appoint a commission of inquiry in order to seem to be doing something, and then hope the problem will go away. With any luck the probe trundles on long enough for everyone to forget what it was about in the first place.
But a commission of inquiry into a currency? As many have said, economics is the last subject that should be the focus of a judicial probe.
Our impression is that the appointment of the commission satisfies government’s penchant for conspiracy theories. It is easier to appoint such a probe than to address the fundamental reason for the rand’s decline ? a lack of confidence in South Africa, some of it based on ignorance and prejudice.
However, before passing judgement on the commission, neither we, nor commission head John Myburgh, yet know what he will be investigating. The terms of reference are due only next week, and they will be crucial in determining whether the probe is worthwhile.
If they are narrow, and focus solely on the allegations passed by South African Chamber of Business’s Kevin Wakeford to the office of the president, Myburgh will be confronted with a daunting forensic trail. If he manages to follow it, he will, if he is lucky, stumble across wealthy financiers who will not give a damn if they are named (with a view to shaming them).
Wakeford evidently believes there has been a Machiavellian and unpatriotic exploitation of the rand. We will, however, look downright naive if we scold someone for that. If there is unlawfulness or impropriety, it is for the police to investigate.
The advantage of a broader framework would be that the highly regarded Myburgh will be able to air in public a coherent set of explanations for the rand’s collapse. He will, for example, be allowed to examine the flow of corporate money out of the country ? both that involving South African companies listed abroad and foreign companies with local operations. Reserve Bank figures show an exponential increase in such outflows last year. So far it appears the government has been unwilling to probe these outflows too deeply, perhaps because the government allowed the companies to decamp in the first place.
A commission might not be the best forum for such matters to be resolved, but it is probably better than nothing. Since 1994 the government has done an extraordinary amount to secure the confidence of investors. Yet South Africa has been spitbraaied. The public deserves an explanation ? not a futile witch hunt. But let’s not hold our breath.
Red herring two
It would be churlish to dismiss the South African-brokered “retreat” for Palestinian and Israeli peace-seekers in Stellenbosch as meaningless. Conflict in the Middle East is the single greatest threat to world peace, and any effort to bring the warring parties together and promote dialogue must be applauded.
The South African initiative can also be seen as supporting the important shift in United States foreign policy since September 11. From almost unconditional backing for Israel, President George Bush seems to have grasped that the blood-drenched impasse in the occupied territories is potent fuel for world terrorism.
South Africa can be proud of its unique place in world affairs as a broker between rich and poor countries. But there is a vast and shameful contrast between the attention devoted to the Stellenbosch pow-wow, attended by no less than three South African Cabinet ministers, and our official paralysis on a foreign crisis far more closely related to our national interests ? Zimbabwe.
The concern is not just that the economic and political collapse of our neighbour, even civil war, could drown South Africa in refugees, undermine our largest African trading partner and blow away any remaining investor confidence in the region. Zimbabwe is developing into a full-blown fascist state that is the polar opposite of everything a democratic South Africa represents, and the greatest single obstacle to President Thabo Mbeki’s dreams of a resurgent Africa.
Parallels with European fascism in the 1930s are striking: racial persecution, indoctrination of youth, state and party-sponsored violence, murder, harassment and imprisonment of opposition, a systematic campaign of lies by state propaganda organs, and attacks on independent media. The latest outrage is a warning by Zimbabwe’s security chiefs that they will not recognise an opposition victory in presidential elections on March 9 and 10.
If South Africa refuses to intervene unilaterally, it must at least goad its partners in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) into a more militant posture. This may involve forming a bloc of democratic states, including Botswana and Mozambique, to offset Zimbabwe’s military and sentimental ties with Angola, Namibia and the Congo. The region is Robert Mugabe’s last bastion, and isolation by the region his greatest vulnerability. The first step should be a strong SADC warning that Zimbabwe faces expulsion from the regional body if the generals thwart the people’s choice in the election. An opportunity for some very blunt talking arrives next week when Mbeki travels to Blantyre for a meeting of SADC presidents. Mbeki needs to grasp it.