Daily Archives: March 31, 2021

If you think ANC Secretary-General Ace Magashule is going to step aside in 30 days, as set out in the March 29 statement of the partys national executive committee, think again. Today is 105 days since the Integrity Commission report found that the NEC should direct him to step aside after being charged with fraud and corruption 135 days ago.

Since then he has filibustered, huffed and puffed his way through three NEC meetings without stepping aside from his role despite a host of conference and other resolutions by the party that any member criminally charged should do so to protect the movements waning integrity. He will continue to do so after 30 days, which is an arbitrary deadline designed by President Cyril Ramaphosa to kick the can down the road. That number of days is not in the 14-page step-aside guidelines written by a team led by former president Kgalema Motlanthe. Nor is it in the partys step-aside resolution passed at its 54th elective conference at Nasrec. Thereafter, the party can either discipline him for refusing to step aside or find another loophole or process.

My money is not on Ace going quietly into the night but raging against the dying of his political light. Instead, there will be heightened populism. When Wits students protested earlier in March, Magashule joined their march to the Constitutional Court. It was a breathtaking act of a strongman populist when you consider the sums. Magashule is facing corruption and fraud charges with his co-accused in the Free State related to the misspending of R233-million on a still incomplete project to change dangerous asbestos roofs on township houses.

That money could have funded 17,355 students with aid at the university, we calculated (see graphic). Its the price of populism and the opportunity cost of corruption. While Higher Education Minister Blade Nzimande may call student protests an annual soap opera, it is worth bearing in mind that if the ANC government had not squandered more than R1-trillion in time, money and opportunity on State Capture, we could have funded a proper tertiary plan for the 67% of young people who are not in education, employment or further training.

If you do that calculation with every R1-million squandered, you plot the path to state failure we are now on due to the grand corruption gnawing at South Africa. And if such instrumentalist accounting does not prove the point, then a more prosaic explanation is that the constant factionalism distracts the countrys leaders from the important matters of state functionality. The vaccine strategy is a mess because there was no planning to buy stocks early or predict that inoculation would be the next required step. One of the reasons for this is that leaders are engaged in faction fighting or feathering their nests, as the Digital Vibes scandal shows.

While the ANC NEC met for the past two days, large parts of Johannesburgs economic capital was without power not because of load shedding, but because the infrastructure is buckling after years of neglect. Factionalism does not only cripple national government but all provinces and most municipalities, too. One of the City Power branches put out this statement as the NEC met on Monday, 29 March: Power is off over a widespread area which includes most of the South as well as the northern suburbs. Earlier in March, 30% of the citys reservoirs ran so low that Johannesburg Water had to plan to get water tankers out to the streets. The biggest city in the country is a fast-approaching state failure. In the rural areas, the state has already failed. And as Estelle Ellis has tracked here and here, the Eastern Cape is already a provincial failed state.

As citizens, we tend to treat the ANCs factionalism as spectacle, a political game of lights and shadows, like a boxing match of Ace vs Cyril. It is much more than the games of the next 30 days and much more dangerous to our beloved countrys future than that. DM

See original here:

The state fails and factional populism rises as the ANC bickers - Daily Maverick

Sadiq Khan is an enigma. The mayor of London has presided over surging knife crime and the bankruptcy of the citys transport network. The capitals shortage of affordable property shames his egalitarian brand. And yet he is set to be re-elected in May by a landslide.

Why? Perhaps, in part, because Khan has perfected the art of woke populism. At first glance his behaviour is crass and cack-handed. He has vowed to stand with BLM protesters, despite their laying siege to police stations. In solidarity with monument-felling hooligans, he has set up a new anti-racist statue commission.

But theres a more subtle power to Khan. In his latest promotional video, he plants cherry blossom trees and promises every young Londoner a mentor. He has an eye for a photo-op to rival Nigel Farage. Campaign launch photos show him sipping a latte in a hipster cafe, the London populists answer to pouring a pint in a pub.

Khans populism caters to the prejudices of middle-class Londoners. He makes snide comments about luxury penthouses. He wallows in being the son of a bus driver as if it were an obstacle to overcome rather than a source of pride. He talks up Tory divisiveness to distract from the capitals Remainer tribalism.

But the real genius of Mr Khan is how he has mastered the skill of fading into the background, like the political equivalent of exposed brick. When it comes to fashionable causes, he is part of the furniture. But when moments arise that call for real leadership such as the polices handling of the Sarah Everard vigil he disappears. Nobody apart from Khans critics notice or care that he constantly pulls this trick. In the woke era, politics is about virtue rather than action.

This is ominous. Not just because London risks becoming a one-party state. If politicians twig that they can be re-elected with vast majorities based on their cultural brand rather than their record, new class divides could bed into our politics no sooner than the old ones have fallen away.

Link:

Sadiq Khan has mastered the art of woke populism - Telegraph.co.uk

The leader of the UK Labour Party, Keir Starmer, is approaching the end of his first year in the job. Maggie Scammell, a Senior Visiting Fellow in the Media and Communications Department at LSE writes about Starmers communication style and its implications for both him and his party, and whathe could learn from former Labour leader and prime minister Tony Blair.

What kind of leader is Keir Starmer? Is he capable of restoring Labours electoral credibility and, against all odds, maybe offering a genuine chance of victory?

A year into his leadership, he has mixed reviews. Depending on your point of view, he has made a highly encouraging start, at times topping Prime Minister Boris Johnson in the polls and scoring the highest net satisfaction rating for an Opposition leader since Tony Blair in the 1990s. Alternatively, for his critics, he is a Blairite throwback, divisive and antagonistic towards left-wing activists. Beyond that, and more troubling for Starmer, is the grumbling groundswell that he is just not up to the task: hes not sharp enough in his criticisms of the government, hes nowhere near creating a clear Labour identity, and he looks bland against the charisma of Boris.

So how should we assess Starmer so far? Intriguingly, the Blair comparisons, whether fearful (from the left) or admiring (from the right) provide clues because they direct us not just to his personality as a leader but also to questions of basic electoral and communication strategy.

What kind of leader is he?

We know what hes not like. Hes vastly different in style from the previous Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. He does not draw from the well of left-wing populism. On the contrary, he seems more concerned with the populism of the right, especially the aspects that appeal to former Labour voters in the Red Wall: the voters who were pro-Brexit, anti-immigration and socially conservative. These are the kind of voters who chose Make Britain Great Again as an attractive campaign slogan, according to Deborah Mattinsons focus group analysis in Beyond the Red Wall. Doubtless, that kind of research underlay the recent tactical shift towards Union Jack-waving to bolster Labours patriotic credentials.

However, in style and temperament Starmer seems scarcely the man for right-wing populism; or indeed for populism of any kind. He has excelled instead at lawyer-like interrogations during Prime Ministers Questions. However, outside this comfort zone, he is less impressive. Straight to camera or in TV interviews Starmer too often appears anxious, eye-brows arched, ill-at-ease. As the adage goes, lawyers make bad witnesses; second-guessing every question for concealed threats, and as a consequence look shifty and evasive. The authenticity of populist leaders may be an entirely staged act and possibly Keir hates the fake sincerity but at least it is performed with evident relish. All too often in public Starmer appears uncomfortable in his own skin. Perhaps he is embarrassed to be so obviously a middle-class metropolitan at the head of historically working-class Labour. Privilege in of itself is clearly no impediment to populist appeal, nor was it to Tony Blair who pioneered the personalisation of British politics. But and maybe precisely because Starmer was not born into privilege, he seems sensitive to class judgments. He cannot claim now to be one of us to a class he has left behind; but nor does he possess the in-born confidence of the privileged that class no longer matters.

In short, Starmer is not a neat fit in our era of personalised politics. We know bits about his background: he was a human rights lawyer, his father was a tool-maker, mother a nurse who suffered from Stills disease, that he has two children, and likes music and football. However, even after a year in office, we still dont have a grip on what hes like. That point came across perfectly in a zoom Q&A event with the youth organisation My Life My Say last summer. The first question came from Munya Chawawa, who, albeit politely, asked Starmer: Who are you?

Starmer ran away from the opportunity. Given a chance to engage at a personal level, he instead offered a hurried list jobs performed by wife and parents, a passing mention of his kids, music and football before launching into typical political spiel about a passion for justice. The who are you question matters. Leaders are important in modern politics, apparently increasingly so, and voters judge across criteria that include assessments of personality and like-ability. Starmers understandable desire to protect his private life ironically may convert personal sincerity into the public appearance of inauthenticity. It matters therefore that he finds a leadership style that suits his personality; if obviously not the macho style of right-wing populists, nor the cool rule demeanour of the likes of Barack Obama, Bill Clinton or the young Tony Blair, then maybe the calm and collected authority exemplified by popular women leaders might be a better fit think peak Angel Merkel, Nicola Sturgeon, Jacinda Adern. None of these women shout the odds, but all are direct and empathetic and manage to inspire confidence.

Comparisons with Blair

Both the Left and the Right have likened Starmer to Blair, and each, from opposing standpoints, are alarmed by the comparison. The watershed moment came with the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn from the Labour Party following the report into the partys response to anti-Semitism. While Left activists mobilised to overthrow Starmer, Conservatives began to regard him as a force to be reckoned with. In November, Spectator editor Fraser Nelson told a BBC Question Time audience that the Tories needed to beware: Starmer is beginning to look like a young Tony Blair, taking on his militant wing here, showing the country his party has changed and is ready for re-election. Former Conservative Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt made the same point on the Andrew Marr Show (31 January, 2021): I think hes [Sir Keir] a very serious threat, a much bigger threat than weve had for many years, indeed since Tony Blair, I would definitely say that, yes.

However, Starmers starting position is so much worse than Blairs. When the latter became leader, Labour needed only a small swing for electoral victory and had the reassurance of solid Labour heartlands in Scotland and the north of England that have crumbled so spectacularly over the last three elections. Moreover, Blair was chosen by his party precisely because he had already proven himself as a front man, comfortable with the media and adept at soundbites. Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime an iconic Labour slogan was famously Blairs even before he took the helm.

More importantly, Blair assembled a strong leadership team and created a clear modernising project for both his party, and the country. Labour communicated through multiple layers. It allied itself to influencers in the media and the academy: Tony Giddens with his Third Way, think tanks such as Demos, proponents of reforming stakeholder capitalism and it launched Prospect magazine to champion the ideas of the soft progressive left. Equally, Blairs leadership was determined to broker a new deal both with business (and Gordon Browns prawn cocktail offensive) and with the Conservative tabloids that had so attacked Neil Kinnock. Ultimately, Labour created its own and distinctive brand, New Labour, with Blair as its young, smart and personable front man.

What Keir can learn from Blair

Political marketing fell from grace in the Labour Party along with Tony Blair, its master. The neo-liberal economics and above all the invasion of Iraq tainted the legacy of anything Blair-like in the eyes of so many Labour activists. But Blairs failures were less the marketing, more the politics. Ultimately his reputation foundered, not on marketing logic, but its absence; his support for George W Bush and his invasion came from conviction. Blair believed it was the right thing to do. When clever and agile politicians elevate faith over reasoned calculation, you wonder if theyve lost the plot.

Moreover since Blair, the successes of populists have seemed to undermine the basic tenets of modern political marketing, returning us to older model of propaganda: simple slogans, big lies, demonisation of enemies, exploitation of prejudice and all draped in heroic (tribal) national symbols. A typical reaction of the hard-left is to respond in kind be louder, be more aggressive, sound the trumpets for a fight. But, this is precisely where Keir could learn from Tony, because the early years of Blairs leadership provided a model of political marketing and its essential elements are as relevant today as they were then.

The most basic of these is an external orientation, looking outwards to the electorate and overcoming divisive internal disputes. Principle versus electability, the long-running party argument of the Neil Kinnock years, was a false choice, Blair told the Labour conference in his first speech as leader: We have tortured ourselves with this foolishness for too long. The party clearly needed to develop strong well-thought policies that addressed public concerns, but it realised this was a necessary but insufficient condition of success. The policies needed to be marketed: they had to be seen as a coherent package, distinct from the Conservatives and old Labour; and whose benefits for the lives of voters were obvious and easily communicated. In short, they needed to create a distinct identity and build it around personalities and policies that symbolised the brand: education, new technology and social liberalism.

Spin became the hallmark of New Labour and eventually a key reason for distrust. It was easy to see why Blairs successors wanted to move away from top-down marketing and aggressive news management. However, Starmers Labour should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The logic underlying the spin was a beady-eyed analysis of the hostile media environment and how best to maximise its opportunities and minimise its dangers. The communications landscape has transformed since the mid-1990s, with the relative decline of the tabloids and the explosion of social media. What worked for New Labour is not appropriate now. Top-down marketing controlled with military discipline from campaign war rooms has given way to more open hybrid styles of communication; still shaping the mainstream media narrative while capitalising on supporters ingenuity in social media. However, since Blair, it has been near-impossible to discern any kind of coherent and comprehensive Labour communication strategy. Even the apparent social media success of the 2017 general election soon looked like a one-off, as Corbyn all but absented himself from the media stage and Labour imploded over Brexit and anti-Semitism.

What now for Keir?

Corbyns legacy could hardly be worse for Starmer. In 2019 Labour recorded its worst share of seats (202) and votes (32.1%) since 1935. Labour dropped nearly 8 points in the popular vote, after its surprisingly strong showing in 2017. It lost seats sometimes for the first time ever in the famous Red Wall band of Brexit-supporting constituencies across the Midlands, Yorkshire and North East. Its muddled Brexit stance also cost Remain-supporting voters. Scotland, the other erstwhile bastion of support, returned a solitary Labour MP. After the passivity of Corbyn, in-fighting of his inner circle, and general division in the party, almost any competent leader would provide a boost. Starmer certainly did that. From a low point of about 11% approval for Corbyn in YouGov polls in March, Starmer climbed to 48% by August and for the rest of the autumn led Boris Johnson in leadership ratings. He presided over a 4.65 point swing to Labour in the same period, recapturing most of the ground lost under Corbyn. Labours average deficit to the Conservatives reduced from 19.9 in April 2020 to just 2.37 by September.

However, the Tories vaccine bounce seems to have knocked Starmer back on his heels his personal approval ratings have dropped while the Conservatives have built a 10-point lead in the run up to the May local elections. It is early days and the governments popularity will likely fall as it tries to claw back debt after big-spending pandemic budgets. It is not disaster yet for Starmer. Is Keir Starmer really doing so badly, a February YouGov report asked? It concluded that he still had real strengths: he is generally more popular than his party, he scored particularly well with Liberal Democrat voters (68% of the sample viewed him favourably) and he has outperformed Boris Johnson on some key attributes, such as competence. Yet, behind these reasonable numbers, deeper analysis continues to show voters uncertainty about him; they do not have a clear idea of what he offers as a leader, nor that he has plan for Britains future.

In Starmers own words, Labour has a mountain to climb. However, for all the public approval of the vaccine rollout and the initial applause for Rishi Sunaks budget, there remains plenty of space for Labour to carve a distinctive and attractive proposition. COVID-19 and its aftermath could prove a springboard to a build back better agenda, that is truly radical, that attacks the roots of poverty and inequality and is committed to a green recovery. Even while the Conservatives use green and levelling-up slogans, their actions are far from convincing, if not contradictory, on these issues. Starmer, meanwhile, has moved cautiously, almost timidly. No doubt he is building up his policy options and does not want to reveal his hand too early. However, at least some indication of a bolder, clearer direction of travel would help his cause. Starmers leadership slogan, Under New Management, was a start and actually an accurate description of his style. But if you expand that metaphor you quickly see its inadequacy. The erstwhile diners will want to be excited by the new menus and lured by many favourable reviews before they return en masse to the restaurant.

This article represents the views of the author and not the position of the Media@LSE blog, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. To learn more about the LSE Department of Media and Communications research, please sign up to our Media@LSE newsletter here.

Read more:

Keir Starmer, one year on: a communication gap? - EUROPP - European Politics and Policy

(FINANCIAL TIMES) A decade ago, if analysts wanted to put a price on a pharmaceutical stock, they usually did so by looking at the company's balance sheet, studying its cash flow, calculating its debt burdenand scrutinising its patents and drugs pipeline.

Today, things are rather different. For weeks, newspapers in Europe have been filled with tales of the "vaccination wars" between Britain and the European Union over the distribution ofthe BioNTech-Pfizer jab and the safe use of the Oxford-AstraZeneca one.

Politicians on both sides are now scrambling to stop this lose-lose fight. Let's hope they succeed.

But even if they do, the saga illustrates a bigger point: Anyone running a pharma company these days, or investing in one, not only needs to think about patent risk and debt payments but must take notice of political risk too.

To put it another way, it is not just the balance sheet that matters to pharma groups now - it is also questions such as "Will there be a trade war?", "How can we measure populism?" and "Is politics in the region looking stable?".

Political risk packs a punch that pharma executives, engaged in what they assumed was an effort beneficial to the whole world, did not expect to see in the West.

Is this simply a function of the Covid-19 shock? Perhaps. During the past year, Western governments have bailed out their national economies to an extraordinary degree, which inevitably means that the nature of the political system and culture impinges more than before.

The coronavirus pandemic has also forced us to think about the ties that do (or do not) unite and define communities.

However, it might be dangerous to think - or hope - that these political risks will disappear when the pandemic ends. The year-long crisis has left most of us yearning for a sense of "normality" when Covid-19 recedes, and it is temptingly easy to assume that any such state will also deliver a sense of political calm.

But that assumption might be wrong.

Citi's former political analyst Tina Fordham, now a partner at the advisory firm Avonhurst, points out that when the 2008 financial crisis ended, it did not lead to political peace. Nor did the ensuing - remarkable - economic recovery in the United States.

On the contrary, the past decade delivered rising populism, in spite of economic growth, which eventually led to events such as the Brexit vote and the election ofMr Donald Trump.

Countries with a combination of high vaccine hesitancy and a polarised political landscape seem more prone to upheaval.

Ms Fordham thinks we might see a similar pattern play out in the post-Covid-19 world. After all,as she argues in a thought-provoking new report called Vax Populi (a play on the Latin vox populi, or "voice of the crowd"), there are reasons to expect more political upheaval.

The pandemic has cruelly exacerbated the gap between winners and losers. And while some countries are trying to address this - the US, say, with a US$1.9 trillion (S$2.6 trillion) stimulus package - it will be tough to do so in the post-pandemic world because government resources will be constrained.

In any case, Covid-19 has revealed striking variations inthe degree of government efficacy and social trust, and countries where these are lacking could be prone to populism.

Ms Fordham reckons that China and Germany, for example, are likely to rebound fast from the pandemic, with relative political calm, because they have functioning systems of government, if variable rates of success in curbing the pandemic and administering vaccines. She rates Britain's chances too, which might come as a surprise to many British people, but Ms Fordham cites the successful vaccination programme as a factor that has reinforced social cohesion.

But countries like France and the US seem more prone to upheaval, or "vax populi risk", she argues, due to a combination of high vaccine hesitancy, high number of Covid-19 deaths and a polarised political landscape. Emerging market countries such as Turkey look considerably worse.

Any resulting domestic populism means that "vaccine nationalism, misinformation and trade-related tensions will increase" too, says Ms Fordham's report. So much for hopes of a summer peace.

Ms Fordham is not the only one making gloomy predictions. The insurance company Aon and consultancy EY have also recently warned clients about the risks of political volatility in a post-pandemic world.

Financiers are furtively discussing the chance of a looming populist onslaught; hedge fund Bridgewater this month published a study of past wealth taxes, noting that these can arise when populism coincides with sudden societal shocks, such as war.

Of course, the counterpoint to these warnings is that many also expect an economic rebound in the post-pandemic world.

Indeed, the hope among investors is that we will see a new "Roaring 20s", the type of party-like atmosphere that erupted in the aftermath of the 1918-1920 flu pandemic.

If so, that might reduce the likelihood of political volatility -or it will if the fruits of anyrebound are distributed in a way that seems fair.

But "if" is the key word here. As the vaccine fight in Europe shows, concepts of what is "fair" vary wildly right now, both between countries and inside them.

Hence the challenge of determining how political risks will play out in this new pandemic and post-pandemic landscape. Just ask AstraZeneca.

Read more:

Covid-19 jabs are at the sharp end of political risk - The Straits Times

Jal Jeevan Mission will improve health outcomes, increase productivity, particularly for women who often travel long distances to get potable water and inevitably contribute to economic growth and prosperity.

One of the most interesting numbers tucked away in the Union Budget documents this year was the financial allocation for the Jal Jeevan Mission, a massive Rs 50,000 crore for 2021-22. It is an almost five times increase from the revised budget estimates of 2020-21 (Rs 11,000 crore) and the actual spend in 2019-20 (Rs 10,000 crore). The Mission, to provide a functional tap water connection to every Indian household by 2024, is the most ambitious social sector programme of Narendra Modis second term. When completed, it is likely to be as transformational as the Swachh Bharat Mission of Modi-1.For most commentators on the economy, Indias transformation is largely viewed through the lens of economic growth. Indeed, economic growth is necessary because ultimately, only that can lead to a sustained rise in the incomes of all Indians, the fundamental requirement for prosperity. The task of achieving sustained high growth is hard, made harder by the current sluggish state of the global economy and the spectre of imminent, rapid technological change. But such is the nature of governance in India, that there needs to be equal focus on generating growth, however challenging, while also taking care of the most basic needs of a large section of the population.Indias political economy has not always supported the kind of pro-market policies which are required for high growth. But its inherent populism ought to have solved the challenge of meeting universal basic needs. It did not because populism did not focus on efficient, sustained delivery. The Modi government has been trying in earnest to change track: a series of pro-growth reforms have been implemented; and there have been determined attempts to eschew populism and enhance state capacity (with the use of technology) to deliver basic goods and services to the poor.The Swachh Bharat Missions chief task was basic: constructing functional toilets for all Indians. But its impact is more than basic. It is not simply a sanitation programme. It is a health and nutrition programme (absence of toilets breeds disease and malnutrition). It is also a productivity enhancing programme because only a healthy population can become productive economic agents. In the end, it contributes to economic growth.The Jal Jeevan Mission is equally important. Of course, India ought to have provided clean drinking water to its people many decades ago. This Mission will soon correct that anomaly. Just like Swachh Bharat was not just a sanitation programme, Jal Jeevan is not just a clean drinking water campaign. Again, it will improve health outcomes, increase productivity, particularly for women who often travel long distances to get potable water and inevitably contribute to economic growth and prosperity. Change is already visible in many places where implementation is complete.The most reassuring aspect of the Jal Jeevan Mission, which points to its sustainability, is revealed in its Vision Statement which states as its aim that every rural household has drinking water supply in adequate quantity of prescribed quality on regular and long-term basis at affordable service delivery charges leading to improvement in living standards of rural communities. There is clear emphasis on quality (obvious), on quantity (important, because even in urban areas, water supply is intermittent) and finally on delivery charges. This is not a freebie programme. It will charge a fee from users though it will be kept at an affordable level.The last point is of great importance to the bigger task of managing Indias water resources. A major reason for misuse, whether in agriculture, industry or households, is the improper pricing (or indeed no pricing) of water. It is only when people pay a price for a resource will they have the incentive to conserve it and use judiciously. In fact, government, industry and civil society need to form a constructive partnership to promote the optimal use of water, a precious resource.One of the other positive outcomes of the focus on Swachh Bharat and Jal Jeevan is the coming to the fore of the Government of Indias Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, which has been peripheral to most previous governments, often an adjunct to the Ministry of Rural Development. Now, it is set to be responsible for two of the most consequential schemes of the Modi government. Of course, the careful handpicking of bureaucrats to drive the two missions has been key. Parameswaran Iyer was called back from the World Bank, where he had gained considerable expertise on sanitation, and appointed as Secretary of the Department to run Swachh Bharat. For Jal Jeevan Mission, the man in the drivers seat is Additional Secretary and Mission Director, Bharat Lal, an Indian Forest Service officer from Gujarat, who had done excellent work on water issues when in the state government.The success of Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation should motivate other ministries and departments, which are viewed as peripheral or unglamorous. India is awaiting many transformations. In that lies an opportunity for every ministry, department and official of the Government of India.Dhiraj Nayyar is Chief Economist, Vedanta.

Read more here:

The other transformation - The Sunday Guardian Live - The Sunday Guardian