Society does not always elect the "best" leaders

The arguments about communism, socialism and capitalism are old and have become somewhat uninteresting. Extremes in life are often harmful. The way communism was practiced in the former Soviet Union did not benefit most of USSR's people. Derugulation and a strong push for capitalism in the West led to many financial bubbles, recently the 08/09 Financial Crisis. Many books are written about both sunjects. An interesting book titled Too Big To Fail by Andrew Ross Sorkin, made me wonder whether the two extreme systems, communism and capitalsim, aren't just the same. In communism the state rules; in capitalism this is the company that takes over the entire market. In both cases they set prices, policies,control the public and set up leaders. Economically none are viable. Communism takes away the incentive to innovate, unless altruism is the true source of innovation and productivity. However, it does create the idea that all men should share wealth. Capitalism creates massive inequalities: Those who are able to obtain capital are able to outbid, outbuy and out-muscle any competitor. They suck up society's savings and create a dependance on their products (ex. oil companies, pharmaceutical products, financial services, banks etc.).

There are not right options. Society needs to dictate the terms of a governing body, whether it is self-governance, or appointing representatives. Young societies struggle to make these decisions. The public's representatives do not always have the country's best interests at heart and are themselves unsure about untried policies. A country like South Africa is frought with many such difficulties. Still in its infancy stages of democracy the leadership struggles to form an identity that breaks with its past. The ANC had communist ties to USSR during Apartheid. This can be seen through the party's rethoric about equitable distribution. The party attempts to apply concepts to a society that is unique in history and composition. Many of its policies have failed. Economic growth is low for an emerging market economy as structural issues become binding constraints to its potential. Money pours into education, but students don't benefit from it (as was recently highlighted by the Limpopo books scandal). Government officials embelish money on lavish homes and watch on as their previous neighbours struggle to scrape enough money to make ends meet. This comes as no suprise. People who had basically nothing now have almost unlimited access to large amounts of money. Obviously if your morals are left unchecked you will find ways to make the state pay for you.

South Africa is not unique when it comes to corrupt and confused leaders. We observe government appointees embelish money on pointless purchases. The frustrating part is that people know this. Yet, they remain resolute and continue to vote parties who do not care for the people. It took India many years before its public learned how to vote.

Alternative parties emerge as a consequence of bad politics. However, it might take another thirty years before South Africa's public votes into power a party that truly represents the ideas of the public's will. For South Africa, people will have to see past race and focus on ideas and people who are passionate to make changes that benefit the people.