The Economist Asia - 24.02.2018

8 Leaders The EconomistFebruary 24th 2018

1

T

HE new president of South

Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, has

a heck of a mess to clear up (see

page 42). Under Jacob Zuma,

who was forced to resign last

week, corruption thrived, the

law was mocked and investors

fled. Unemployment, including

those who have given up hope of finding work, is an alarming

36%. Public debt is soaring: the budget released on February

21st expects it to rise to 56% ofGDPby 2023, up from 26% in

2009 when Mr Zuma took over. Economic growth slumped

from an average of 5% in the five pre-Zuma years to 1.5% on his

watch, barely keeping up with the rise in population. Schools

are in chaos, public health is a disgrace and Cape Town is run-

ning out of water. Mr Ramaphosa needs to move fast to restore

the rule of law, revive investor confidence and fix public ser-

vices. He should start by hiring good people.

That would be a huge change. Mr Zuma chose his lieuten-

ants not fortheir honesty or competence but fortheir pliability

and loyalty. Spotless integrity was not required, even for those

charged with upholding the law. The country’s chief prosecu-

tor had been caught lying under oath; his deputy was struck

off the roll of lawyers for misleading a court. The head of an

anti-corruption police agency was appointed after a judge

ruled that he was dishonest. When picking bosses for state-

owned companies, Mr Zuma appears to have taken advice

from his friends, the Gupta brothers, who are accused by the

former Public Protector of “capturing” the state for their own

ends. Throughout Mr Zuma’s time in power, uselessministers

were allowed to doze through parliamentary sessions and pre-

side over collapsing departments—as long as they were loyal.

To get South Africa working again, crooked and inept back-

sides must be removed from powerful seats. But do it cautious-

ly, some are warning Mr Ramaphosa. His position is not whol-

ly secure, they whisper. He only narrowly defeated Mr Zuma’s

supporters within the ruling African National Congress

(ANC). Too swift a clean-up might be perceived as a purge of

his enemies. It could split the ANCand perhaps even spark vio-

lence in KwaZulu-Natal, Mr Zuma’s home province.

Personnel is policy

Poppycock. The risks of timidity far outweigh those of bold-

ness. Mr Ramaphosa cannot begin to reform South Africa

without honest and capable public servantsrunning the state

and its companies. If he leaves the worst people from the

Zuma era in place, they will continue to bilk and bungle—and

Mr Ramaphosa’s presidency will end in failure. Now, when

voters have such high hopes, is the time to act.

First, Mr Ramaphosa should put good people in charge of

the national finances and the criminal-justice system. Then he

should go through all the top-level jobs over which he or par-

liament has control, dumping the dross and hiring talent.

There are plenty of fine administrators in South Africa who

would be happy to work for Mr Ramaphosa (and there is no

reason why he should not hire foreigners for some jobs). So

even a vigorous clean-up need not be unduly disruptive. On

the contrary, it should re-energise a state whose honest em-

ployees have been crying out for better leadership.

Mr Ramaphosa should not be vindictive and, mindful of

the precedent, he should be seen to be fair. But if he appoints

good investigators and prosecutors and letsthem do their jobs

without interference, it is a fair bet that they will look into the

many allegations ofskulduggery against Mr Zuma’s pals. If

malefactors in high places are dealt with firmly and impartial-

ly, that will deter others and signal to investors that the rule of

law still applies in South Africa. Meanwhile, Mr Ramaphosa

will be able to start on the other tasks in his gigantic in-tray. 7

New president, new hope

How to fix South Africa

Cyril Ramaphosa can make big changes just by hiring honest, competent people

L

EAD has proved to be such a

useful, malleable metal that

it turns up everywhere, from

water pipes to window flashing

and printing type. It went into

car batteries, and into additives

that gave petrol more vroom. It

also helped make bright pig-

ments, used to paint walls, metalwork and toys.

Yet lead is also a poison, and its ubiquity makes it a perni-

cious one (see page 51). In the worst cases it causes comas, con-

vulsions and death. More often it acts insidiously. It is a men-

ace to toddlers, who are most likely to ingest contaminated

dust and paint chips. Their brains are especially vulnerable.

Only years after exposure are the results apparent in lowerIQs,

behavioural disorders and learning disabilities.

The dangers of lead have long been known. America

banned it from paint 40 years ago, and bythe late 1990s leaded

petrol had been phased out in almost all rich countries. But the

effects linger. Half a million American children are diagnosed

with lead poisoning. The situation is more alarming in the

poor world, where the use of lead-based paints is spreading.

Curbing lead poisoning more than pays for itself. There is little

excuse for poor countries to repeat the mistakes of rich ones.

The Romans did themselves no good by using lead for wa-

ter pipes and sometimes even as a food sweetener. In 1786 Ben-

Public health

As black as painted

Lead poisoning still does terrible damage to young minds