As the country and the world grapple with the global pandemic of the Corona Virus, there are two things that are certain; the first is that this pandemic will change the very fabric of society, in that it will change and accelerate the impetus of the fourth Industrial Revolution and through the global lockdown it has made us appreciate our interconnectedness as a people and global community. The second certainty is that post COVID 19 society will require an inordinate amount of creativity, discipline and commitment in order to mitigate the very real detrimental economic effects that will be ushered by the COVID19 global epidemic. We as a country may borrow lessons from our Chinese counterparts in order to prepare us for the economic road ahead, the paradox being that many have imputed blame for this crisis on the very country we look to draw lessons from to mitigate its effects.
To do this we must look back at the history if China and its commitment to “playing the long game”. An astute understanding of the intrinsic value in one understanding one’s full potentiality. We must use this time as a country not only for intimate personal reflection but to develop our “long game”. We must “Hide and Bide”.
“Hide and bide.” This was the unofficial policy of Deng Xiaoping during the crucial reform years when the foundations were laid to the modern People’s Republic of China. By 1990, twelve years after the commencement of Deng’s opening reforms in the late seventies, this policy and the reforms had still not paid off. That year, according to official statistics, China had only contributed one point six percent of the global GDP.
By 2017, “hide and bide” had proven successful. Only forty years after the opening reforms, championed by Deng, could China achieve the place of the second-largest economy globally; achieving a nearly fifteen percent contribution to the global economy before the COVID19 epidemic. Unlike most countries benefitting from the commodity boom in the early nighties, China was able to implement policies that would directly affect the lives of millions of its people. By the National Congress of the Communist Party of China held in 2017, President Xi Jinping could report that fifty million people had been lifted out of poverty in the five year period 2012-2017.
Yet the New China, established with the proclamation of the People’s Republic in 1949, had to first endure a terrible period before the ascent of the collective leadership of Paramount Leader Deng. A blotch on the history books of which not many Chinese speak today was the horrifying phase of the cultural revolution. As Madiba would be criticised in some quarters today, so too Chairman Mao was criticised by some for instigating and approving of the cultural revolution.
Deng himself was a victim during this period, where a systematic attack was launched on those perceived to be against the ‘peasants’ socialist revolution’. Academics, thinkers, artists and especially those who had played an integral part in bringing about discipline and thinking in the Party, in particular, came under attack. Comrades were made out to be that which they were not. This period would probably be described as the saddest and lowest part of the history of New China.
The cultural revolution was launched seventeen years after the establishment of the PRC. It could have lasted for approximately a decade and ended more or less before the death of Chairman Mao and the rise of Deng Xiaoping. Many scholars suggest that Chairman Mao had been under pressure given the failures in bringing about economic change within the country and the Great Leap Forward, in particular, served as an example of not yielding the desired results that it should have. Chairman Mao, in turn, felt that Deng and Li Shaoqi, his closest confidants, were failing him. It is for this reason that he turned to the leaders of the rebellion.
South Africa is twenty-six years into its liberation, having recently celebrated Freedom Day on Monday. It would not be incorrect to suggest that it too has undergone its own cultural revolution with some suggesting a systematic attack on academia, thinkers and those who wish for discipline and more thinking within the ruling party and the body politic in general. Some scholars have even suggested that this onslaught started way before the seventeen year mark, after 1994, and we may even suggest that it culminated in the response to the #FeesMustFall phenomenon; the attack on those promoting decolonised thinking within our institutions of higher education.
Yet the opening reforms only came thirty years after China’s independence and as a result we may propose that the next five years will be critical for South Africa and the ANC. As we reach the thirty year mark by 2024, we must have a collective of leadership in place that would take us out of the morass we currently find ourselves in; as Deng’s collective leadership led China out of their cultural morass. By 2024, South Africa must be able to start introducing vast and open reforms so that by 2064, we too are a global player economically but more importantly that like China we are able to reap the benefits of lifting our people out of poverty.
But there are two fundamental differences in this comparative timeline. Firstly, Deng, at 74 years old, only assumed the collective leadership because of the vacuum in the leadership of the Party. During his time as Paramount Leader, he made sure to settle the question of leadership which had raged through the party between the time of Chairman Mao’s death and his ascent as Paramount Leader; a period of two years.
South Africa, and the ANC in particular, needs to settle its leadership crisis. South Africa must invest heavily in creating (deliberately) the next layer of leadership. It must invest in building capacity of the youth structures of the Mass Democratic Movement (MDM) such as SASCO, ANCYL and COSAS. Even more so, unlike China in the late seventies, South Africa has a young population and therefore what is needed is generational takeover by young to middle-aged people within the ANC.
The second fundamental difference is that unlike China in the seventies and eighties, we live in a rigorously globalised world. China could somewhat literally “hide and bide” while building itself up going relatively unnoticed. Today, with the institutionalisation of globalisation, mere speculation can not only cause a swift sway of vast amounts of capital but can actually cause a crash in the global economy. As President Xi would highlight, “we live in a new era”.
As a result, South Africa needs not only young leaders but it needs young, bright leaders. Only those possessing the necessary analytical and practical tools to mitigate this ever-changing global era will be able to steer the South African ship into prosperous and peaceful waters. China, with its opening and reforms in the late seventies, continues to this day to place much emphasis on human capital through investment into education, skills training and health. Yet there is no worst enemy too strong human capital than poverty.
Chairman Mao will continue to be revered by those who know all of Chinese history, just like Nelson Mandela would be honoured in South Africa by all who appreciate the role he and his collective played. While we may be going through our own lowest moment as a country, we must use the next few years to lay the foundations of radical reforms that will yield a future for a poverty-free and prosperous South Africa. Yet for this to happen, we need young bright people to stop playing hide and bide. This is our generation’s revolutionary task.
This article was co-written by Buyile Matiwane SASCO Deputy President, Qamani Sinefu former NMU SRC Deputy President and Zipho Tshangana. They write in their personal capacity.