National development: Planning over populism, ideas over ideology

27 July 2023

Whilst reading President Cyril Ramaphosa’s recent weekly article to the nation, bemoaning the country’s collapsing public infrastructure and its negative impact on service delivery, a few things came to mind as I reflected on the President’s very sobering words. Firstly, why are we failing to utilise industry bodies within the infrastructure and built environment space to improve government’s maintenance and delivery of public infrastructure? These are industry bodies such as Consulting Engineers South Africa (CESA), Council for the Built Environment (CBE), South African Quality Institute (SAQI), South African Institution of Civil Engineering (SAICE), South African Council for the Property Valuers Profession (SACPVP), Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA), Green Building Council South Africa (GBCSA), South African Council for the Architectural Profession (SACAP), Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB), South African Council for Project and Construction Management Professionals (SACPCMP), which have the technical skills and know-how to not only compliment, but improve government’s infrastructure delivery and maintenance outcomes.

What of sitting down with organisations such as the Southern African Venture Capital and Private Equity Association (SAVCA) along with various development finance institutions to bring bankable, shovel-ready projects to the table that can be financed through innovative financing products and mechanisms, as part of building transformative public-private partnerships that have a developmental thrust? I was reminded of a conversation that I had a couple of weeks ago with a friend of mine from my varsity days, who is the CEO of one of these built environment and infrastructure development industry bodies and they were expressing to me how sad it is for them that government is not galvanising the technical and project management skills within some of these bodies as part of its drive to improve infrastructure project delivery and maintenance.

I was also reminded of a book I read not too long ago, titled From Third World to First-The Singapore Story:1965-2000, a book which summarises Singapore’s transmogrification from an inconsequential, underdeveloped Third World country to currently being so developed and industrialised that it ranks fourth amongst the world’s most competitive economies, it is a manufacturing hub with a booming services sector, it is ranked second after Switzerland on the list of least risky countries to invest in, it is the most digitally competitive economy in Asia and boasts the best global smart city. In short, Singapore is a strong, dynamic, resilient economy that South Africa can learn from, as we seek to resolve some of our stubborn developmental challenges and move from developing to developed world status ourselves.

From the book, I got to interact with the thinking of Lee Kuan Yew, who is accredited with taking his country Singapore, the smallest in South East Asia and with a limited supply of natural resources (unlike South Africa) from being highly underdeveloped to being developed and who led them through a tremendous growth spurt economically, diversifying their economy to the extent that Singapore developed to the powerhouse that it is today economically.

Firstly, I was intrigued by Lee Kuan Yew’s emphasis on the importance of long-term planning over populism in pursuit of national development and ideas as well as innovation over being dogmatic and an ideologue. Interestingly enough, he was not a big fan of a copy and paste approach to national development, as much as he believed that one could learn from those who have succeeded, as in his view each nation has to build its own institutions in pursuing a developmental path, in line with the cultural ethos of its people, as opposed to merely importing or having western norms imposed on it.

In fact, in his view, the Americans and the West were just as bad as the Communists in trying to shove their way of doing things down the throats of the developing world, like an article of faith. In his own words, “after the end of the Cold War, the U.S. became as evangelical as the communists. It is an article of faith. I mean, democracy, human rights, free flows of capital -- it does not brook a counter-argument. They believe this is right, and therefore let's do it. I think there's a certain overwhelming belief that what's worked for America will work worldwide and that this way the world will be a better place.”

As a party man himself, having been the Secretary-General of the governing People's Action Party in Singapore between 1954 and 1992 and leader of his country from 1959 to 1990, he was of the view that in pursuit of national development aspirations for your country, you have to fight off the ideologues, the fanatics within your party and he used Deng Xiaoping in China as an example of someone who did this. Pragmatism over proselytising was his preference, as Deng Xiaoping himself preached in turning China around.

Whilst he highlighted the importance of building institutions in pursuit of national development, in his view, local customs and culture must be incorporated into building these institutions, in order to be successful. In fact, interestingly enough for me, there’s a point where he talks about the importance of decisive, strong, visionary leadership, almost insinuating that even the imposition of democracy and its western norms in a developing country, can actually be counter-developmental.

In fact, one of the biggest Western criticisms of his decades of leading Singapore towards the promised land of economy prosperity, is that he was autocratic. Here’s what Lee Kuan Yew himself had to say on the matter, “When you have a popular democracy, to win voices you have to give more and more. And to beat your opponent in the next election, you have to promise to give more away. So, it is a never-ending process of auctions—and the cost, the debt being paid for by the next generation.

Presidents do not get re-elected if they give a hard dose of medicine to their people. So, there is a tendency to procrastinate, to postpone unpopular policies in order to win elections. So, problems such as budget deficits, debt, and high unemployment have been carried forward from one administration to the next.” As if to say that there’s a point where democracy itself may be a bottleneck, an impediment to national development and a true statesman (as opposed to a mere leader) ought to rise above these popular democracy tendencies in pursuance of development for their nation. Hmmm, but that is a subject for another day.

He loathed communism as something which history has shown does not work, and preferred market economy fundamentals and encouraging competitiveness as a basis for developing a country’s economy and he referenced many of his contemporaries who had gone on a Marxist-Leninist journey of trying to build their countries at around the same time as him, one of whom was Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, of whom he had this to say, “Oh, yes, Julius Nyerere was a good Christian. He wanted to do good to his people. He was a great Christian; he could quote you chunks of the Bible.

He was a preacher also. He was a devout Catholic. But he didn't understand the economics of growth, or just simple economics. He thought if you gather people together -- I think it's called "ujamaa," or some form of communalised agriculture. So he had them all in villages, and they would work their farms. And then they were living together, and the children would go to school, and you can provide health services and so on.

These are noble objectives. But walking back and forth to your farm, there's nobody to look after them and so on, and then you have cooperatives that buy the products at uncompetitive prices, so the whole thing malfunctions. It was a terrible waste.” For Lee Kuan Yew, a mixed economy model with market fundamentals, but with the state driving and directing the economy was preferable, not this either/or polarised thinking about economic development that many fall prey to.

Interestingly enough for us in South Africa with National Health Insurance being such a topical issue, he talks about having being in England as a student in the 1940s and how they passed the National Health Service Act, giving free healthcare to the population. It almost went broke and they eventually ended up having to put some kind of prescription charge.

In his view, such kind of a national health scheme is ineffective and inefficient and he says the English have kept it because it is now part of the national psyche and too popular, but it is inefficient, as can be evidenced by the long queues for basic medical services. From his perspective, the state has to subsidise health, it must subsidise education and housing as these are basics that need to be guaranteed if you want people to perform effectively in order to successfully build a nation.

So, he says subsidise certain basic services, but don’t offer them for free, as that automatically leads to waste (buffet syndrome as he calls it, people utilise more than they need) and people don’t truly value anything that they have not put in something for, as money is a symbol of value in the modern world. South Africa, with all its basic developmental challenges such as failure to adequately deliver and maintain public infrastructure, leading to manifold service delivery hiccups and backlogs, can learn a thing or two from the thinking of Lee Kuan Yew methinks.

Mugabe Ratshikuni works for the Gauteng provincial government; he is an activist with a passion for social justice and transformation. He writes here in his personal capacity.