Appearances... Africa’s chronic illness
Apr 07, 2011
RECENTLY I was watching news and I gathered that South Africa had been aggressively lobbying to be part of BRIC. They succeeded, and as of April 2011, the acronym changes to BRICS. Before I go too far, I need to explain the acronym BRIC.
What lies beneath with Ilonka Naziwa
RECENTLY I was watching news and I gathered that South Africa had been aggressively lobbying to be part of BRIC. They succeeded, and as of April 2011, the acronym changes to BRICS. Before I go too far, I need to explain the acronym BRIC.
It stands for Brazil, Russia, India and China which together are the fastest growing emerging markets, with a total population of 2.8 billion. It is estimated that by 2030, the combined GDP of BRIC will be 50% of the total global GDP.
I am very proud that an African country has made it as a member of such a prestigious group. However, I cannot help feeling a little wary of it all.
See, my worry stems from Jim O’Neil who was being interviewed in that news clip that I was watching.
Jim O’Neil is the man who invented the acronym BRIC and defined its relevance to the global economy. In short, Jim was not ecstatic about South Africa joining BRIC(S) and initially, I was indignant at his reluctance to applaud the development and I was viewing it as another Africa-hating stance.
However, he undeniably had a good argument. He raised two major points; the first being that South Africa’s population of about 49 million could not even be closely compared to that of other BRIC nations, the smallest of which has a population of 142 million (Russia) where as the largest is at 1.3 billion (China).
His second issue was the GDP argument. All BRIC states had GDPs in the single-digit trillion dollar range, while South Africa’s is trailing at $285 billion (alright, I accept that is impressive for Ugandan standards).
The interviewer then asked O’Neil why; given the GDP and population facts, was South Africa trying so hard to be part of BRIC(S)? O’Neil’s response was blatantly non-academic, yet impressive.
He insinuated that South Africa was trying so hard to make the world forget about its tumultuous past and prove itself as a nation worth recognition.
His response had me thinking deeply and I agreed with the man.
Maybe South Africa is trying too hard to convince the world that it has healed and that all the bad has ended, yet it is apparent that the healing is probably just beginning.
Anyone who has visited the beautiful Rainbow state lately can attest to the delicate divide that still exists between black and white, and the rage that simmers just below the surface of the blacks/coloureds.
I am not one to judge, but I do agree with the principal that is apparent in O’Neil assessment; public validation should not be a goal.
I must point out that public validation is such an important thing for people, especially Africans. You will never get a Scandinavian worrying about public image before his needs. The Americans will endeavour to be recognised, but mostly for their achievements.
The need for validation does not take precedence over the need for accomplishment. Then there is the communist Asians; agreed they cover up a lot, but it is not for the need of public validation, it is more for the need to keep their house private and in order (at whatever cost). I can go on!
Ugandans are a classic example of the need for public validation. We want to drive fancy cars, hang out in swanky places, travel first class (while our kids are in business class), even before we have created a legacy for ourselves.
Maybe the more painfully, excruciating fact about Ugandans is that we are selfish. We pursue personal prestige and ignore the plight of the disadvantaged in our communities.
If we look closely, the people reaching out to our poor, sick and disadvantaged are predominantly foreigners.
The Bazungu are adopting our orphans, they are bringing hope to the people of the North, and they are nursing our poor HIV patients while the few Ugandans who could help with that, are amassing wealth and growing their ‘prestige’ factor.
Yes, I concur, validation is not a goal; nor should it be divorced from the reality; rather it is the beauty inherent in the whole picture!
RECENTLY I was watching news and I gathered that South Africa had been aggressively lobbying to be part of BRIC. They succeeded, and as of April 2011, the acronym changes to BRICS. Before I go too far, I need to explain the acronym BRIC.
It stands for Brazil, Russia, India and China which together are the fastest growing emerging markets, with a total population of 2.8 billion. It is estimated that by 2030, the combined GDP of BRIC will be 50% of the total global GDP.
I am very proud that an African country has made it as a member of such a prestigious group. However, I cannot help feeling a little wary of it all.
See, my worry stems from Jim O’Neil who was being interviewed in that news clip that I was watching.
Jim O’Neil is the man who invented the acronym BRIC and defined its relevance to the global economy. In short, Jim was not ecstatic about South Africa joining BRIC(S) and initially, I was indignant at his reluctance to applaud the development and I was viewing it as another Africa-hating stance.
However, he undeniably had a good argument. He raised two major points; the first being that South Africa’s population of about 49 million could not even be closely compared to that of other BRIC nations, the smallest of which has a population of 142 million (Russia) where as the largest is at 1.3 billion (China).
His second issue was the GDP argument. All BRIC states had GDPs in the single-digit trillion dollar range, while South Africa’s is trailing at $285 billion (alright, I accept that is impressive for Ugandan standards).
The interviewer then asked O’Neil why; given the GDP and population facts, was South Africa trying so hard to be part of BRIC(S)? O’Neil’s response was blatantly non-academic, yet impressive.
He insinuated that South Africa was trying so hard to make the world forget about its tumultuous past and prove itself as a nation worth recognition.
His response had me thinking deeply and I agreed with the man.
Maybe South Africa is trying too hard to convince the world that it has healed and that all the bad has ended, yet it is apparent that the healing is probably just beginning.
Anyone who has visited the beautiful Rainbow state lately can attest to the delicate divide that still exists between black and white, and the rage that simmers just below the surface of the blacks/coloureds.
I am not one to judge, but I do agree with the principal that is apparent in O’Neil assessment; public validation should not be a goal.
I must point out that public validation is such an important thing for people, especially Africans. You will never get a Scandinavian worrying about public image before his needs. The Americans will endeavour to be recognised, but mostly for their achievements.
The need for validation does not take precedence over the need for accomplishment. Then there is the communist Asians; agreed they cover up a lot, but it is not for the need of public validation, it is more for the need to keep their house private and in order (at whatever cost). I can go on!
Ugandans are a classic example of the need for public validation. We want to drive fancy cars, hang out in swanky places, travel first class (while our kids are in business class), even before we have created a legacy for ourselves.
Maybe the more painfully, excruciating fact about Ugandans is that we are selfish. We pursue personal prestige and ignore the plight of the disadvantaged in our communities.
If we look closely, the people reaching out to our poor, sick and disadvantaged are predominantly foreigners.
The Bazungu are adopting our orphans, they are bringing hope to the people of the North, and they are nursing our poor HIV patients while the few Ugandans who could help with that, are amassing wealth and growing their ‘prestige’ factor.
Yes, I concur, validation is not a goal; nor should it be divorced from the reality; rather it is the beauty inherent in the whole picture!