There is nothing inherently controversial about asking a government to prioritise the needs and aspirations of its citizens. Perhaps up for debate is the required path, but the principle remains the same.
The social contract of a nation is primarily with citizens, who are meant to uphold the values therein. Similarly, the idea that efforts to put the needs of South Africans first do not require undermining the dignity or human rights of non-citizens should not be controversial. In 2015, I lived in Ethiopia for a few months.
I was struck by several things that characterised the deep sense of national identity the country has cultivated; and its impact on immigrants. For one, though the capital city, Addis Ababa, is home to the AU and innumerable international missions and organisations, I sensed hostility by locals towards foreigners.
This was my first experience of xenophobia and Afrophobia. Unexpected and unpleasant, it was partly the result of an ethno-nationalism based on a proud history of being the one African country that successfully fought off colonial settlement, prompting a sense of exceptionalism in the postcolonial African context.
Second, large multinational food and retail stores were essentially non-existent. I would later learn that this was the result of a regulation that allowed foreign ownership of businesses, but only if majority shareholding was Ethiopian. Despite the inconveniences of not having a wide selection of food and other goods, I was impressed by the outcome – a vibrant local formal economy and a highly competitive informal economy. While regulations did not keep foreigners out of economic activity, they did offer locals a competitive edge. Interestingly, the informal economy was hyper competitive.
I had never seen so many stalls and vendors compete to sell exactly the same goods on the same street. A state-led effort to manufacture and grow local products and systematically import others meant that there was no shortage of access to similar goods for resellers to punt competitively to local consumers. In recent times these regulations have eased, but the principle of prioritising state and locally dominated markets continues.
I could see the benefits of strategies to empower locals, even while concerned by the anti-foreign sentiment it fostered. Thailand, another place I visited not so long ago, has a similar focus on prioritising the economic participation of its citizens. But, unlike Ethiopia, it has managed to embrace foreign investment and participation in the economy.
Even with an intentional local bias, the Thai government views foreign economic actors as allies in the growth of its economy. In the early 2000s, King Bhumilbol Adulyadej, motivated by a determination to ensure that no Thai person was ever unable to access food, developed a “Kitchen of the World” economic policy in Thailand.
This policy aimed to empower locals to become the primary producers of food, reduce the cost of local food, and develop a robust food processing value chain that would create jobs from villages to the urban centres of the country. The strategy included exporting high quality food at competitive rates to the rest of the world. I marvelled at the rich food culture in Thailand.
Street food is a quality and affordable option for locals and tourists alike, and grocery stores have many ready-to-eat options produced locally in Thailand from farm to table. The key to the success of the “Kitchen of the World” policy was the “One Tambon (village); One Product” programme, in which the state supported villages in becoming expert producers of one key product required in the national food economic plan.
I consider this a stroke of genius, which made the local market complementary rather than competitive while actively empowering Thai nationals. SA can learn from these examples. Putting citizens first should be about the institution of policies and programmes that focus on the empowerment of locals as opposed to the over-regulation of foreigners.
Sure, we must fix immigration, ensure ease of documentation processing for foreigners and regulate foreign economic participation. Yet, in the absence of plans to empower locals, expand economic opportunities and foster state-led investment in local participation, we could keep foreigners out of the economy but still be left with many locally marginalised groups.
The final caution in the Ethiopian story reveals this: coupling local prioritisation with ethno-nationalism can have unintended consequences. While the number of foreign nationals active in the economy may be reduced, once there are no foreign threats, the culture of ethno-nationalism can lead, as we have seen in the region of Tigray, to locals turning on each other in the name of ethnic and national protectionism.
Putting South Africans first can be achieved through channelling efforts towards the empowerment of local people rather than expending efforts that foster a culture of etho-nationalist antagonism.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.