We must ‘festina lente’ on South Africa (II)
I do not usually write on the same subject back-to-back in this column, but I believe the issues surrounding the xenophobic violence against Ghanaians and other African nationals in South Africa require deeper reflection on the way forward.
It appears some South Africans are beginning to wake up to the impact of these incidents on their country’s image, including travel advisories being issued by various countries.
In the wake of Ghana evacuating over 300 of its citizens from South Africa due to the violence, I was faintly amused by ridiculous claims by some prominent South Africans that we overreacted.
Like many Ghanaians, I insist the government’s action was indeed appropriate and proportionate.
Clearly, they were stung by this decision and its implications, which means we made a good call.
Realities
Last week, my primary focus was on the history and politics around this issue, also touching briefly on the calls for a boycott of South African brands in this country.
However, a detailed analysis of the situation reveals that these calls, though understandable from an emotional perspective, need to acknowledge a complex, rather tangled web of issues that situate a boycott as a rather simplistic approach.
A boycott, in my view, would simply create self-inflicted economic wounds that are not in our national interest.
There are well over 100 businesses established in Ghana with South African roots, represented actively by bodies like the South African Chamber of Commerce.
Many of these enterprises are publicly traded on the Ghana Stock Exchange (GSE) or operate as joint ventures, meaning Ghanaian pension funds, institutional investors and everyday citizens own significant shares in them.
From the employment perspective, the workforce of these businesses, from the boardroom through management to the frontline staff, has a huge Ghanaian presence.
Beyond their staff, several of them engage contractors and have viable relationships with local suppliers.
These workers also have dependents who rely on them for sustenance. These workers pay taxes to our exchequer, as do the companies, operating under Ghanaian law and subjected to domestic regulatory oversight.
Domino effect
To attack these companies in a hissy fit of seeking to make a bold political statement and institute a boycott against their brand or call for disruptions or closures is to directly hit Ghanaian workers, suppliers, shareholders and communities that have a relationship with these businesses in a delicate economic ecosystem.
In a country with youth employment challenges that have the potential of becoming a national security issue, and where politicians do not have much of a solution for the teeming youths we churn out of our educational institutions, the last thing we should want is to worsen the issue by effectively damaging the livelihoods of thousands of local third-party vendors, distributors, contractors and Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) that rely on these larger corporations.
All for what? To make a statement?
It is also important to recognise that many of these businesses provide critical infrastructure, retail goods, logistical services and financial technology platforms that power daily commerce and help make our lives more comfortable.
Broader risks
In today’s global space, inward investment is a huge factor powering many economies and many countries go out of their way to ensure that the regulatory, legal, financial and other spaces are conducive to attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI).
What this ultimately means is that tremors within the local landscape that could threaten business viability would make a would-be investor rather jittery about coming.
At a time when Ghana requires capital inflows for economic growth and has been working hard to build investor confidence, we can hardly afford to fuel any threats to this critical area. This is not just about South African companies.
Any other foreign business here would be wary of this unfriendliness and hostility and probably start scaling down their presence here.
It is also worthy of note that, as a champion of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFT), allowing targeted actions against foreign-linked businesses at home sets a dangerous precedent that risks retaliatory measures against Ghanaian entrepreneurs and companies expanding across Africa.
Further, the funding of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives, including domestic healthcare facilities, education scholarships and youth skills-development programs, poses a real and material risk to Ghanaian individuals and communities.
Strategic response
I believe the anger over the ugly xenophobia in South Africa is entirely understandable. However, a strategic response is a more appropriate way to channel that anger.
These include bilateral diplomatic channels, enforcement of international law frameworks and advocacy via regional bodies such as ECOWAS and the African Union (AU).
Already, President Ramaphosa has vowed a crackdown on groups behind the xenophobic attacks, whilst President Mahama, speaking at Chatham House in London recently, reiterated that Ghana’s diplomatic relations with South Africa remain despite these attacks that forced the evacuation of some Ghanaian nationals from South Africa. This is encouraging.
But this advocacy and engagement must not be at the governmental level alone. Bodies such as the South African Chamber of Commerce (Ghana), the Ghana National Chamber of Commerce (GNCC), the Ghana Employers’ Association (GEA) and the Association of Ghana Industries (AGI), all have important roles to play in engaging government ministries, diplomatic missions and media houses to champion the rule of law, protect commercial assets and reinforce Ghana’s standing as a secure, investor-friendly hub.
Further, opinion leaders, civil society organisations and media houses hold immense responsibility in steering the national narrative away from self-harming reactionary escalation and toward strategic self-preservation.
They have a mandate to remind audiences that these businesses employ Ghanaians, support Ghanaian families and anchor Ghanaian communities, and that international grievances must be resolved via state diplomacy and continental trade bodies, not through civil disruption.
Redirecting geopolitical frustrations toward local business assets is a misalignment of cause and consequence.
The question is not whether the public's outrage is justified, but whether the proposed response builds up or tears down Ghana's own economic house.
The collective responsibility of all these stakeholders must, therefore, be a defence of the Ghanaian workforce, the domestic investment climate and the long-term economic stability of our beloved republic.
That ultimately translates into a peaceful, rule-of-law-abiding hub for pan-African trade and global investment.
On this matter, the Latin phrase ‘Festina lente’ (hasten slowly) rings true at all levels.
Rodney Nkrumah-Boateng.
E-mail:
