Hi 23C° Low 6C° | 
GabiVille
5 hours, 32 minutes ago
Pendock Uncorked
1 day, 4 hours ago
The Wheel Deal
2 days ago
The Wanderer
1 week, 2 days agoView all Times LIVE Blogs
IT took days and thousands of Internet rumours for the authorities to come to their senses and issue a detailed formal statement on the health of former president, Nelson Mandela.
At noon on Friday, the deputy president, Kgalema Motlanthe ended speculation that Mandela was at death’s door with these words:
“Madiba is well. He is receiving the best treatment from top doctors. There is no need for us to panic. There is no reason for us to fear for Madiba’s health.”
Motlanthe was speaking at Johannesburg’s Milpark hospital, until then off-limits to journalists.
Motlanthe, it must be said, prefaced his remarks by thanking the media for expressing the fears and concerns of the nation over Mandela’s health.
He seemed bemused by the extent of the attention given to Mandela, comparing it to an incident eight years ago when Mandela had been admitted to hospital with barely any interest shown.
Two important changes have taken place since then. The first is that Mandela has aged by eight years and, at 92, is much frailer than he was back in 2002.
The second is the advent of social media and the rise of public reporting on events.
Government would do well to ask itself what it is doing to adapt to this new media environment.
It is now possible for anyone with a cellphone to publish news and information to a national audience of what might be described as “key-influencers” via social networks such as Twitter and Facebook.
These mediums have brought greater freedom, variety and penetration to news, but they come at a price.
They are very good at allowing the events witnessed by users to reach a larger audience, but not accurate sources of hard news which is at some remove.
They do not employ the sorts of accuracy and fairness checks that newspapers such as this insist on prior to publication.
Most of the time these wild reports are treated for what they are: The sometimes witty thumbings of the uninformed.
But when they tap into a national anxiety such as that over the health of President Nelson Mandela, the dumbest thumb becomes a powerful sources of rumour.
Responding requires both agility and speed. Government and perhaps other institutions such as the Nelson Mandela Foundation, need to make their voices heard in real time and on the right platforms, mowing down rumours and speculation with detail and facts.
They would make a grave mistake if they believe that Twitter is an elitist phenomenon in a country where almost every adult carries a cellphone. Motlanthe did well to put out the fire, but he would not have needed to do this if communication had been open from the start.
CHINA’S invitation to South Africa to join the loose alliance of nations under the Brics umbrella presents this country with opportunities for economic growth and influence.
Brics — an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — does not derive its influence from being a formal trading bloc or a political alliance.
But it is, nonetheless, a forum that provides its members with opportunities to network and to initiate economic arrangements.
In a paper published in May last year, Goldman Sachs said: “Our baseline projections envisage the Brics, as an aggregate, overtaking the US by 2018. In terms of size, Brazil’s economy will be larger than Italy’s by 2020; India and Russia will individually be larger than Spain, Canada or Italy.
“In the coming decade, the more striking story will be the rise of the new Brics middle class. In the last decade alone, the number of people with incomes greater than $6 000 and less than $30 000 has grown by hundreds of millions.”
Some have expressed surprise at South Africa’s invitation to join this club of emerging nations at the expense of faster-growing economies such as South Korea and Mexico, but there is a ready explanation.
Two of the five nations — China and India — are substantial manufacturing economies, while Brazil, Russia and South Africa are large suppliers of raw materials.
China’s long-term stability hinges on its ability to continue to improve the standard of living of its population by growing employment in manufacturing.
The key to this is securing the supply of raw materials needed to fire up production. South Africa’s potential uranium, coal, iron ore and platinum resources are likely to be vital to meeting both energy and infrastructure needs.
South Africa is also strategically positioned to provide regional financial and services infrastructure to these two economies as they seek opportunities to exploit resources from other African countries.
Like all good opportunities, this one comes with a new set of threats. For one, the democratic governance records of Russia and China do not chime with South Africa’s progressive democracy.
For another, South Africa will be expected to pay a price for the privilege of a seat at this table. It may have to burn more of its credibility with the highly industrialised world by voting in lock-step with China and Russia on global security issues.
When it comes to the advancement of human rights, this is not the company that polite states keep. Because it is the smallest of the Brics countries in every respect — geographical area, population, armed forces and GDP — South Africa will be in a weak position to push back. Brace yourself for a rocky ride.
