To fix South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa should be bold

THE new president of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, has a heck of a mess to clear up (see article). Under Jacob Zuma, who was forced to resign last week, corruption thrived, the law was mocked and investors fled. Unemployment, including those who have given up hope of finding work, is an alarming 36%. Public debt is soaring: the budget released on February 21st expects it to rise to 56% of GDP by 2023, up from 26% in 2009 when Mr Zuma took over. Economic growth slumped from an average of 5% in the five pre-Zuma years to 1.5% on his watch, barely keeping up with the rise in population. Schools are in chaos, public health is a disgrace and Cape Town is running out of water. Mr Ramaphosa needs to move fast to restore the rule of law, revive investor confidence and fix public services. He should start by hiring good people.

That would be a huge change. Mr Zuma chose his lieutenants not for their honesty or competence but for their pliability and loyalty. Spotless integrity was not required, even for those charged with upholding the law. The country’s chief prosecutor had been caught lying under oath; his deputy was struck off the roll of lawyers for misleading a court. The head of an anti-corruption police agency was appointed after a judge ruled that he was dishonest. When picking bosses for state-owned companies, Mr Zuma appears to have taken advice from his friends, the Gupta brothers, who are accused by the former Public Protector of “capturing” the state for their own ends. Throughout Mr Zuma’s time in power, useless ministers were allowed to doze through parliamentary sessions and preside over collapsing departments—as long as they were loyal.

To get South Africa working again, crooked and inept backsides must be removed from powerful seats. But do it cautiously, some are warning Mr Ramaphosa. His position is not wholly secure, they whisper. He only narrowly defeated Mr Zuma’s supporters within the ruling African National Congress (ANC). Too swift a clean-up might be perceived as a purge of his enemies. It could split the ANC and perhaps even spark violence in KwaZulu-Natal, Mr Zuma’s home province.

Personnel is policy

Poppycock. The risks of timidity far outweigh those of boldness. Mr Ramaphosa cannot begin to reform South Africa without honest and capable public servants running the state and its companies. If he leaves the worst people from the Zuma era in place, they will continue to bilk and bungle—and Mr Ramaphosa’s presidency will end in failure. Now, when voters have such high hopes, is the time to act.

First, Mr Ramaphosa should put good people in charge of the national finances and the criminal-justice system. Then he should go through all the top-level jobs over which he or parliament has control, dumping the dross and hiring talent. There are plenty of fine administrators in South Africa who would be happy to work for Mr Ramaphosa (and there is no reason why he should not hire foreigners for some jobs). So even a vigorous clean-up need not be unduly disruptive. On the contrary, it should re-energise a state whose honest employees have been crying out for better leadership.

Mr Ramaphosa should not be vindictive and, mindful of the precedent, he should be seen to be fair. But if he appoints good investigators and prosecutors and lets them do their jobs without interference, it is a fair bet that they will look into the many allegations of skulduggery against Mr Zuma’s pals. If malefactors in high places are dealt with firmly and impartially, that will deter others and signal to investors that the rule of law still applies in South Africa. Meanwhile, Mr Ramaphosa will be able to start on the other tasks in his gigantic in-tray.