South Africa: A fading rainbow?

Democracy is not an easy thing to do. It is not something that can be implemented over night nor does the ability to vote mean that things will immediately turn out for the better. For democracy to work, institutions need to be in place and civil society must work together to grow something organically.

Notions of idealism have often ignored the fundamentals of rationalism and pragmatism. In effect, just because something may seem right, it doesn’t mean it is going to work. To a large extent, this forms the building blocks of modern Conservatism and many of the views of the 18^th century politician Edmund Burke. Societies don’t become something overnight, they evolve through history and culture. The lessons of revolution and visionary leaders have often led to mass murder and the brutality of totalitarian regimes.

The problem with democracy is that when it is in place, citizens expect results immediately. Yet, when things don’t, old habits often die hard. One only has to look at Russia. Western critics of the current Russian leadership may have some salient points regarding Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian style, yet let us remember that democracy as we know it has never existed there at all. Before Stalin and Lenin, Russia was ruled by hereditary Tsars. Authoritarianism and the security blanket of socialism are the systems that Russians know; it may be some time before the framework of democracy beds-in.

(NY Times)

The same can be said of South Africa. The pressure for the country to flourish remains intense, almost on the verge of burdensome. The peaceful legacy of Nelson Mandela’s leadership was a platform for countries overcoming long legacies of discrimination to aspire to, any step backward is deemed a desecration of Mandela’s legacy.

The current crisis involving the South Africa questions not only the stability of the economy, but the essence of its democracy. The shooting and subsequent killings of protesting miners at a platinum mine near Rustenburg asks not only questions of the police, but questions about politics and society.

Since 16 August, South Africa’s platinum mines have become inoperable. Mass demonstrations by several unions have prevented workers returning to the pits and have put future operations in doubt. The protests have continued to gain momentum and not just in Rustenburg, miners from across the country have joined in wild-cat strikes. The return of the banished former ANC Youth Leader Julius Malema has only stoked the fire further.

Malema is no stranger to controversy. A fierce critic of South Africa’s current leadership, Malema has openly stated his admiration and friendship of Zimbabwe’s ageing tyrant Robert Mugabe, discredited the Government of Botswana and called for the South African mining sector to be renationalised. The 31-year-old raised headlines initially for singing the infamous ‘Shoot the Boer’ at ANC rallies, Boer being the white farmers who settled in South Africa in the 17^th and 18^th century, now a looser term for white South Africans. In April 2012, Malema was finally banned for calling President Zuma a dictator. Yet, it does not appear to have curtailed his opinions. Malema this week was talking to the South African army, in what has been perceived as a threat to national security.

Malema's speeches draw in the masses (Guardian)

Whilst Malema’s rhetoric can be deemed as absurd and opportunistic, to what extent does it echo with many of the workers in South Africa’s mining community? Since the end of Apartheid, are they materially better off? Life expectancy has dropped to 52 years old, over a tenth of the population is living with HIV, on top of poor educational standards, crime remains an inherent problem with high murder and violent crime rates. Figures also put the unemployment rate at 25%, though many believe it to be around 40%. Has freedom from Apartheid brought opportunity? For the masses living in black townships, how many would argue that much has changed?

Whilst many poor black South Africans have suffered, the political elite have prospered. 100 years since the ANC was born, to what extent does it really represent its constituents? Why has it introduced a secrecy law that critics believe to be akin to Apartheid-era politics. Why were the miners in Rustenburg arrested under an obscure Apartheid law?

South Africa has struggled like any country whilst it attempted to re-emerge from its bleak past. South Africa is held up as a beacon because what was enshrined in its constitution made it the world’s most equal society. Yet the strikes and gaps in wealth tell another story. A new black elite has managed to develop from the seeds of freedom. From what should have been an opportunity for liberation and new beginnings has led to greed, corruption and a failure of the masses. Whilst the miners may return to work this week, what remains is a seriously inequal society and the fault lines that will only become wider.

Why 'Londongrad' Has Become So Attractive

London will be expecting throngs of visitors this summer. Not only did it mark Queen Elizabeth's diamond jubilee, but it is also preparing itself for the biggest event on the sporting calendar, the Olympic Games.

Preparation has taken almost seven years, and almost £10 billion ($4.5 billion) has been spent, not only to build new stadiums but also to improve infrastructure and regenerate previously neglected parts of the city. With only nine days to go until the games officially begin, the finishing touches are being added as London awaits the arrival of hundreds of thousands of tourists and, of course, the world's elite.

Yet over recent months, Britain has been getting more than it expected. As the European financial markets have teetered on the brink of collapse over the past 18 months, London has become a financial safe haven for many Europeans. Britain's decision not to join the euro has made the British pound one of the world's most stable currencies.

As European politicians and financiers have struggled to find a long-term solution to the crisis, businesses and depositors have slowly been moving their investments to London. For instance, in 2011 Italian investors spent £408 million ($185 million) in London real estate alone, an increase of more than 120 percent from the previous year.

London is becoming a safe haven not only for financial markets but for a generation of young Europeans looking for work. In April, Spain, the latest country to become embroiled in the financial crisis, announced figures that youth employment exceeded 50 percent Even wealthy French may be tempted to cross the Channel if Socialist President Francois Hollande raises taxes.

Yet only a few years ago, the city was associated with the wealth of Russian political dissidents. Russian billionaires bought up mansions and real estate in some of the city's most sought-after districts. Twenty years after the end of the Cold War, estimates count almost 400,000 Russian expats calling London home. So many, in fact, that the city was jokingly christened Moscow-on-Thames. British newspapers readily run stories regarding the size of Russian billionaires and their yachts.

Famous British institutions have been bought up by wealthy Russians. The Independent and London Evening Standard newspapers were bought by financier Alexander Lebedev, and Chelsea football club was bought in 2003 by Roman Abramovich. Late last year, Abramovich was taken to court in London by another Russian billionaire businessman, Boris Berezovsky, over allegations of breach of trust. And last week, Michael Cherney brought a lawsuit against rival oligarch Oleg Deripaska. The city could easily be the set of a Russian soap opera.

So is this a downward trend and an expectation of things to come? Should Londoners expect fewer influential Russians around Mayfair and Knightsbridge and more Greeks and Italians?

The answer is probably no. Despite this new influx, economists believe the movement of cash from southern Europe is most likely to be a short-term trend. Investment from Moscow and beyond is here for the distance, and it is moving beyond the auction and art houses.

The news that President Vladimir Putin is sending Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev to the opening of the Olympics perhaps is an indicator of things to come. Relations between the Kremlin and Downing Street have been frosty since the 2006 killing of Alexander Litvinenko, which many believe was committed by Federal Security Service agents on British soil. British Prime Minister David Cameron talked about rebuilding the relationship during his visit to Russia last year, but the re-election of Putin is unlikely to see relations thaw any time soon.

U.S. economists Nouriel Roubini and Ian Bremmer's damning analysis of the Russian economy can only suggest that London may be seeing more Russian emigration and capital flows. Endemic corruption and poor social care make the possibilities of a future in Russia unlikely for many. According to a June VTsIOM survey, 20 percent of Russians are considering emigrating, their likely destinations being the United States, Canada and the European Union.

Yet it is not only a brain drain. Figures from Russia's Central Bank show that capital flight is expected to exceed $80 billion in 2012. These figures apparently accelerated on the news of Putin's re-election.

So why do so many Russians choose London? Despite the fact that Britain's economy is also suffering from the global slowdown, London has managed to retain its AAA rating from international credit agencies. In addition, economic and tax factors are favorable, and immigration laws are slightly looser than they are in other Western financial centers.

What's more, high-net-worth Russians are increasingly branching out beyond London's city limits. The leafy and affluent areas of Surrey and Berkshire, with their mansions, huge gardens and private schools, are now seen as just as attractive as Belgravia and Sloane Square. "Londongrad" is quickly expanding, and Britain will happily take its tax revenue.

During the upcoming Olympic Games, when Yelena Isinbayeva competes for gold in the pole vault, she may be in a foreign city, but she may well have the home-crowd advantage.

This article first appeared in the Moscow Times.

South Ossetia: An election for?

One would not think that a country with a population of around 70,000 people would cause much of an international fuss. Yet, South Ossetia, a Russian-occupied Georgian enclave held its third Presidential election within five months yesterday, with ex-KGB chief Leonid Tibilov declared as the winner after taking 54 per cent of the poll in a run-off.

Situated in the historically troubled Northern Caucasus, South Ossetia has long declared a battle of independence to unify itself with its northern neighbour, North Ossetia. Yet the events of history have seen the Ossetian people stranded in one of the regions ‘frozen conflicts’.

It is worth knowing that Ossetians speak their own language and were one of the many different ethnic groups that made up the former Soviet Union. Despite the great cultural and political links between Georgia and South Ossetia, the calls for reunification have always been strong. The South Ossetian Popular Front declared independence in 1990 resulting in a minor conflict lasting until 1992. More recently, the 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia, which overshadowed the Beijing Olympics, saw the futures of Abkhazia and South Ossetia again come into question.

The political deadlock since 2008 has caused difficulties both regionally and globally. Georgia, an ally of the West and a ‘promised’ future member of NATO believes that the elections will lead to puppet regimes of Russia, as well as denying suffrage to Georgians expelled from the region. Whereas Russia, particularly President-elect Vladimir Putin, believes it is in his country’s interest to look after its so-called ‘near abroad’.

The first poll in November was annulled after Russia’s preferred candidate lost unexpectedly to an anti-corruption campaigner. Since 2008, Russia has kept troops in the region, whilst pumping in hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. It is one of only five nations to have recognised South Ossetia as independent along with: Nicaragua, Venezuela, Nauru and Tuvalu.

The election does raise many questions; most profoundly about how do countries get independence and the goals of Russian foreign policy. These countries were all formerly members of the USSR and since the break up, many have become independent and more worryingly to Moscow, have looked to the EU and NATO for support. Chechnya and Dagestan have both fought bitter insurgencies against Russian troops since the early 1990s; it is only through the Kremlin’s recognition of strongmen in charge, normally in return for aid and weapons, plus a blind eye to the abuse of democracy that it has been able to retain its sphere of influence. Belarus’s Alexander Lukashenko, Ukraine’s Viktor Yanukovych and Chechnya’s Ramzan Kadyrov all curry favour and influence with Putin and Medvedev. It is a question of whether Russia acts as neutral peacemakers or conniving troublemakers in the region.

For South Ossetians, how much will their lives change? As liberating as it was for the likes of Poland or Lithuania? Or marginalised like Kosovo or Moldova? Independence is not only a struggle for democracy, but also recognition. South Ossetia may become independent and then unified or possibly rejoin Russia, but what then does that mean for its people?   

Russian elections: Putin in power.

It was the British Foreign Secretary William Hague who said that the democratic uprisings of 2011 are the most defining international events of the twenty-first century. All across North Africa and the Middle East, citizens, who had been shackled for generations by authoritarian rulers, protested in the streets to win the right to be free participants in a democratic nation. Absolute rulers in Egypt and Tunisia have been overthrown peacefully, Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s rule ended ignominiously after 42 years, whilst in Syria, Bashir al-Assad has resorted to turning on his own people. The great emancipator, Abraham Lincoln, once said of Russia that its people were deserving of a despot because they did not love liberty. Yet after dubious election results and a forthcoming Presidential campaign in 2012, the Russian people are looking to join a new struggle to prevent the current Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, taking Presidential power for a third time. Two decades after the breakup of the USSR and the difficult transition to democracy what lies ahead for the Great Bear?

The elections in the State Duma (the lower house) last week can only be declared as a farce. An institution re-established by Tsar Nicholas II as a way of appeasing revolutionaries back in 1906 saw Putin’s United Russia party re-elected with 49.5% of the vote, down from 64.3%. The Opposition say between 20-25% of the vote was faked and if counted accurately the United Russia party would have polled just under 30%, a claim denied vehemently by election officials. Reports claim wide instances of ballot rigging including officials filling out ballots and parents of schoolchildren forced to vote in fear of cuts to school funding. Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has called for the results to be annulled, whilst many angry voters have taken their displeasure to the streets. Last weekend saw anti-Putin demonstrations in over 80 cities across Russia; they believe if they cannot stop him now then he is sure to be elected for another two terms (12 years), a costly mistake for the country. There were pro-Putin rallies accompanying the counterparts; however reports suggest that many of the demonstrators had been bussed in from cities, unaware of what they had been sent to.

President Medvedev’s decision to stand down after one term did not surprise anyone but it did ask questions of where Russia wanted to go. Critics claim that Putin was the man making all the decisions, yet there seemed to be a greater avenue of reform, along with the usual skulduggery associated in Russian politics. Diplomatic relations with the US were famously reset when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, key reforms began in the military and new measures were put in place to attract international investors. On the contrary, we saw the 2008 conflict against Georgia, energy wars with Ukraine and diminishing press and social freedoms. The difficulty for Russia is that it has struggled to secure a place in the world after the Soviet Union broke up. Many former satellite states like Lithuania and Estonia have rushed to join the EU and others would prefer protection from NATO rather than the Kremlin. With a decreasing population and waning influence in the world, Putin’s perception is that Russia must be united under a strong leader. Officials and oligarchs are happy to accept this as long as they retain their share of the spoils. Even Nicholas II moved to restrict the powers of the Duma.

For ordinary Russians, none of these situations are conducive. Political stagnation, corruption and the high cost of living has seen a poll show that around 20% of Russians consider emigrating. Despite a growing economy, many of the most talented scientists and graduates are moving to the US, Canada and the EU, Russia is suffering a brain drain, the prospects of Putin only exacerbate this situation.

Putin claimed the US was behind the protests and spent hundreds of millions of dollars to organise the unrest. Yet, outside interference and suspicion does not work on a growing technological and mobilising middle class. They want reforms and they don’t want Vladimir Putin to take any part of it. The concerning aspect of it all as the former chess grandmaster and pro-democracy activist Garry Kasparov says, if the peaceful protests fail then it may lead to bloodshed.