By Abiodun KOMOLAFE
(Email: ijebujesa@yahoo.co.uk. Mobile: 08033614419 SMS only)
South Africa has pursued post-apartheid policies, the consequences of which we are seeing today. The country has a terrifying, soft underbelly which is now completely hopeless and uncompetitive in today’s evolution; and therefore, it has to misdirect its aggression against soft targets such as fellow Black Africans. This is to be expected; for, at any time in history, those misdirecting their frustration look for easy, low-hanging fruits. The terror is not directed at just Nigerians; it is against all Africans and the disadvantaged within the country.
If we want to be expansive, we can plead in mitigation that the root cause can be traced, partly, to the failure of the African National Congress (ANC) during the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA) negotiating process to repudiate the apartheid-era debts. This historical compromise has limited the scope of the state for more effective social intervention programmes through public investments, as well as a much-needed revamp of the curricula to help the disadvantaged and the dispossessed.
Structurally, South Africa is, of course, the leading economy in Africa. It has, for example, over 21,000 legally registered mining companies (we must ponder how many mining companies Nigeria has, legally registered). Mzansi also has the biggest stock exchange and manufacturing base on the continent. We cannot, in any rational way, compare Nigeria to South Africa; it is no contest. This is why, even with all the public disagreements, President Donald Trump sent a high-level delegation to South Africa just last week to negotiate critical trade and resource agreements.
Due to flawed economic policies and a blurring of ideological focus within the post-apartheid ANC, income disparity in South Africa has metastasized. This inequality fuels a wave of criminality that the ruling party, bound by tactical political convenience, seems unable to confront head-on. Yet, the Nigerian political establishment – having long condoned its own share of non-state infractions – is in no position to cast the first stone. The Nigerian state, too, has its own soft underbelly, which is focused on the electoral calculus.
An accommodation must be worked out now, particularly as Nigeria is finally posting an ambassador to Pretoria. Whatever accommodation is worked out, the intervention – no matter how misinterpreted by Senator Adams Oshiomhole – must not be completely ruled out. Oshiomhole’s call to nationalize South Africa’s assets in Nigeria was a strategic misstep, for reasons already well-documented. Instead, “Boycott” – the very tactic used, ironically, to dismantle the apartheid state – should have been canvassed. This would force a dialogue where Nigeria could bargain from a position of undeniable strength.
A satire on TikTok captures this brilliantly. The reel listed South African companies operating in Nigeria and then contrasted this with Nigerian-registered entities operating in the RSA. The comparison showed emphatically that Nigerians’ incursion into South Africa consists almost completely of religious organizations. This illustrates that there can be no trade war in South Africa to Nigeria’s detriment. It is the South Africans, with hundreds of millions in hard currency extracted annually from Nigeria, who have a very great deal to lose. The sooner the Nigerian government realizes the leverage it has, the better for the tens of thousands of Nigerians residing in that country.
The ANC must accept a lot of blame. In giving up nuclear weapons, The Rainbow Nation should have insisted on a quid pro quo; that is, the repudiation of the apartheid-era debts. For sure, that’s why the country currently can’t do much about the social inequality troubling the land.
South Africa versus Nigeria! Ghana versus Nigeria! What we have on our hands is classic Andre Gunder Frank: ‘The Development of Underdevelopment.’ May the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, grant us peace in Nigeria!
