This is a paid article which your subscription is allowing you to read.

It is well understood that South Africa’s economic and political problems arise from a negative cycle. The cycle starts with low levels of investor confidence, which translate into low levels of fixed investment, which translate into low levels of economic growth, and from there into low levels of employment and stagnant living standards.

Turning the country around requires reversing that cycle. Central to that are reforms that, at a philosophical level, make it easier for private capital, enterprise, skills, and entrepreneurship to lift the rate of growth.

But what South Africa is getting in practice is a confused set of internally contradictory ideas that seldom reflect that philosophy plainly.

Take education as an example.

In education, parents’ and communities’ needs must be put in a position to take more responsibility and exercise more control over the schools their children attend. The reason is simple: parents make better decisions about their children than politicians or bureaucrats ever will. The model by which to do this is that of charter schools, where the state offers schools to private firms with the requisite expertise, which run those schools to standards set by regulators. Ideally, the state education budget is recast into vouchers that parents can use to buy such education for their children – as this is what really puts parents in charge of schools.

The urgency cannot be overstated. Fewer than one in ten children will pass maths in high school with a good mark, locking them out of any possible avenue into the middle class. South Africa spends a similar amount per pupil on education relative to its global peers, who perform much better in global education rankings. The trouble is not a shortage of resources but the inept way in which they are spent.

Regrettably, both the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the African National Congress (ANC) in government are proposing exactly the opposite. Instead of expanding parental and community control of schools, they are trying to undermine such control in favour of greater direction by politicians and bureaucrats.

Take, for example, the idea recently put to Parliament by the DA-led education ministry that top government schools no longer use a pupil's previous academic results or report cards as a benchmark for entry, nor their history of leadership roles, sports participation, cultural achievements, or the salary details of the parents.

Worse, the minister’s spokesperson, Lukhanyo Vangqa, went so far as to say, "If they [these criteria] are used to rank learners or to prefer certain learners over others in ordinary public-school admissions, that would raise serious legal and fairness concerns."

Infrastructure and logistics show the same confusion. Ineptly managed railways and ports are stunting South Africa’s industrial and manufacturing expansion potential. Investors have privately said there is no prospect of committing to long-term export-based industrial, mining, or agricultural initiatives in South Africa, as there is no surplus efficiency on the railways or the ports to carry the products that might be produced.

The ports and railways should instead be put out to private tender in their entirety – to be run by the best global operators to standards determined by lawmakers. But that is not happening, as the state is trying to retain a stake in the infrastructure, meaning that what reform there is, remains bitty and piecemeal. This will not change until the entire philosophy around reform changes.

The starkest exposition of that has been in agriculture with foot and mouth disease. The state, in this case under the direction of the DA, has worked hard to obstruct, undermine, and sabotage expert private actors from procuring and administering vaccines. It has even fought such efforts in the courts. Even after losing in court, the sabotage continues. Private actors should be able to procure and administer any vaccines approved by regulators.

The costs to the economy are immense. The milk industry has been laid low. Pig farmers are in real trouble. Under pressure, the government trots out industry associations to praise the state’s efforts – but these are often regulated bodies that depend on the good graces of the state to conduct business. You will not find actual farmers endorsing the state’s approach.

The problem does not exist just on the ANC side of the government but on both sides. It does not help to implement reforms partially, as both parties act inconsistently, because a real national growth recovery capable of taking the whole country into the middle class requires the entire suite of reforms to be executed across the economy.

On empowerment policy, the same degree of contradiction plays out. The trouble with empowerment policy as practised is that it taxes private capital for the privilege of investing in South Africa, thereby reducing the competitiveness of the South African economy – often to an extent that overrides industry margins. The DA has made sound proposals to overcome this, but the ANC government is officially set against these, leading to a stalemate.

On energy policy, the same contradictions abound. South Africa has an easy means to remove the energy cap from the growth rate: allow private operators to refit the defunct coal fleet and then invite bids to build a vast new gas and nuclear fleet. This does not require taxpayer money, as competitive take-off agreements can be negotiated. But both parties have become entangled in either the empowerment racket, the green racket, or both, meaning their positions are contradictory and the requisite investment is therefore not happening. Until that changes, the investment rate cannot be expected to lift because there are not enough new megawatts on the horizon to pass any due diligence test.

In foreign policy, South Africa does not have a critical investment deal with the United States because the leaders of both the ANC and the DA regard the Trump administration with contempt – and have made that plain. Yet, whatever their personal convictions, these should be allowed to be overridden by the fact that considerable private investment and commerce could be moving across the Atlantic if the philosophy behind reform were correct.

The same is true regarding China. The Chinese have made the most generous gesture towards South Africa in removing tariffs on exported goods. But without the requisite logistics, energy, and empowerment reforms, South Africa will not accrue the potential benefit, as the new factories and mines required won’t be built. Meanwhile, the DA maintains an aversion in principle to engaging with China – despite the fact that if you are to govern South Africa, such engagement is critical to success and the economy.

What happens if the two parties cannot get behind a coherent set of reforms? The answer is the further evolution of what is already well underway, an enclave future. In essence, it is a future in which private actors do what they can where they can on their own because the state could never place private actors in a position to act for the benefit of the whole country.