The most difficult aspect of the June 7 Growth and Development Summit is that it necessitates … the holding of a summit.
This may sound odd. However, the problem with summits is that they tend to signal in the public mind — at least in the minds of those who write today’s television sound bites and tomorrow’s newspaper headlines — that a colourful jamboree addressed by political, trade union and business leaders can resolve a country’s most pressing problems and challenges at a stroke.
No matter that these challenges have developed over decades. No matter that people around the world have long been grappling with similar issues without finding a magic bullet. No matter that disagreements over how to resolve them are rooted in real and legitimate interests, some of which conflict and require engagement if compacts are to be found.
There is a serious danger that many are going to judge the summit against an impossibly exacting standard, rather than what is possible now.
This makes participants anxious. Each of the parties to the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) answers to a constituency, each faces the danger of having to answer to higher expectations than are feasible or — the obverse of the coin — pessimistic cynicism.
This can result in a summit outcome that comprises pages and pages of words designed to give an impression of progress, but saying little or nothing. That approach can bring only cynicism and pessimism.
A summit can only be as successful as the work preceding it is effective. It is in the build-up that the seeds of success, or failure, are sown. This is not to say that summits like the Growth and Development Summit do not have important functions.
They force the parties to concentrate their minds because of the looming, self-imposed deadline. The summit is a wonderful incentive to do what realistically can be done, because the cost of failure is high.
Each of the Nedlac constituencies might perhaps concede that the last few weeks in the run-up to June 7 would have been easier had they begun the serious interactive work at an earlier stage. The first such meetings took place only in May.
This is one reason it would be foolish to expect too much from the summit. It should not be seen to be the culmination of process of interaction — which in this case was abbreviated.
The summit can be no more than a step on a long, probably endless, road. It would not be surprising if the most important outcomes were to identify a programme of work for the future.
At the same time, these inbuilt limitations should not be used as a pretext to lower expectations beyond what the public can reasonably expect.
Which takes us to a second worthwhile purpose of the summit. It can signal to parties’ constituencies that something useful is being done; that some progress is being made — provided it is preceded by serious work by the participants.
Progress can be achieved if each party recognises the limits of what the others can offer.
It will not help if a “successful” outcome is predicated on, say, rewriting the laws of economics. For example, businesses cannot be expected to invest pervasively in, say, public infrastructure development, irrespective of the returns.
It will not help if success depends on trade unions being willing to sacrifice their members’ economic interests, as certain economists have suggested they should. And the work of the government extends beyond the imperatives of this summit. Its commitments have to fit into the wider prioritisation of national resources.
However, a successful summit will depend on participants coming up with creative new ideas, making counter-intuitive decisions and being willing to take the idea of “enlightened self-interest” to new levels.
Having built these hedges around the summit, will it “succeed”? As Chairman Mao said when asked about the effects of the French Revolution, it is too early to tell.
Among the practical new initiatives is a vastly expanded programme to provide work opportunities for the unemployed — in effect a massive expansion of the welfare safety net, which also equips them better for the formal jobs market. A second initiative involves significantly expanded training opportunities to enhance the economy’s skills base.
There may be a few more short-term plans and, as already mentioned, a programme of post-summit work for the participants should be put in place to ensure the summit is a step in a longer process. The detailed design of the two large projects will inevitably have to fall into this set of outcomes.
One reason that it is too early to tell whether this represents “success” is that the words are easy to say. Their value — and, yes, they contain the potential for significant value — will depend on how effectively they are carried though.
Alan Fine is AngloGold’s public affairs manager