MO IBRAHIM FOUNDATION INDEX – SA RANKED WITH WAR ZONES
Introduction
The first Mo Ibrahim Foundation Index of African Governance was released this week, Tuesday, 26 September 2007 measuring the governance of forty-eight countries in sub-Sahara Africa for 2000, 2002 and 2005.
The index studied forty-eight countries according to fifty-eight individual measures based on five “essential political goods”: human development; sustainable economic development; participation and human rights; rule of law, transparency and corruption and safety and security.
South Africa was ranked 5th overall behind Mauritius, Seychelles, Botswana and Cape Verde. When looking at the five categories mentioned above, South Africa scored second-highest for participation and human rights, third-highest for sustainable economic development and fourth-highest for rule of law, transparency and corruption and for human development.
However, in the safety and security category South Africa was 46th on the list, three places from the bottom - only faring better than Sudan and Burundi, countries devastated by internal conflicts.
Sudanese telecoms billionare Mo Ibrahim launched this index in November 2006 in conjunction with the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Robert Rotberg (director of the programme on intrastate conflict and conflict resolution at the Kennedy School), under whose direction the index was developed, stated the following (“Strengthening Governance: Ranking Countries Would Help”, Washington Quarterly ,Winter 2004-05):
The most important political good is the supply of security, especially human security: freedom from crime and threats to the person. Groups of individuals can theoretically band together to purchase goods or services that provide substantial measures of security. Traditionally and most typically, however, individuals and groups are more securely protected by publicly provided security arrangements. Only when reasonable provisions for security exist within a country, especially in a fragile, newly reconstructed nation-state in the developing world, can governments deliver other desirable political goods.
Given the emphasis placed on safety and security, it is clear, then, why South Africa faired so badly.
Reactions to South Africa’s ranking have been interesting.
The ANC Government
Department of safety and security spokesperson Hangwani Mulaudzi stated: “There is this hullabaloo over crime, but we need to put it on record that South Africa is one of the safest countries in the world.”
Ignoring crime statistics for a moment, this reaction stands in stark contrast to other evidence which has recently come to the fore. The 2005 SA Tourism brand- tracking survey found that 33. 8 percent of a total market of 65.8 million tourists mentioned fears about safety as one reason for not visiting South Africa in the past five years and that the 2004 South Africa Investment Climate Survey revealed that about 30 per cent of enterprises in South Africa rated crime as a major or very severe problem. Direct losses due to crime and the cost of security were higher in South Africa than they are in some middle-income countries such as China, Poland, Brazil and Russia.
However, Malaudizi’s statement is bizarre when one compares how the media reported on the outcomes of the index. Barring a few, most newspapers hardly made a “hullabaloo” over the country’s safety and security ranking.
The South African press
The Independent Newspaper group merely revealed the aggregate rankings of the top five and bottom five countries highlighting that South Africa was placed fifth. A breakdown of the scores given for the “political goods” was not included in these reports. South Africa being ranked third w
| Posted on 28/9/2007
 |  | |