The selective use of evidence to support a pre-determined conclusion results in a book blind to balance and nuance and out of touch with the real world, writes Chris Landsberg.

Patrick Bond has become one of the most prolific writers on, and critics of, the national and international socio-economic strategies of President Thabo Mbeki's government. His latest work, 'Talk Left, Walk Right', also falls in the legion of works being so critical that it has almost developed a blind spot to nuance and balance. The title of the book appears to be borrowed from Rand Merchant Bank chief economist, Rudolph Gouws, who asserted that the current government is "talking left but acting right". One criticism of Bond's work is that it seems he first makes up your mind about the plot or outcome of any problem, and then proceeds to look for the evidence. Never mind if the evidence does not support the thesis; such evidence is simply discarded. He only seems to use the evidence that backs up his plot and argument.

For Bond, President Mbeki pursues some "of the most egregious policies at home". For him the president is engaged in a "great scam"; the game represents a "world-historic failure". As the title of the book suggests, the Mbeki government talks left by engaging in a sophisticated left and radical rhetoric; but in practice the Mbeki government reinforces the imperialist, neo-liberal global order. On the one hand Bond is making a desperate appeal for the president to come up with a new, leftist, global agenda. On the other hand he complains that Mbeki is neglecting the home front. The policy of Gear, the Growth, Employment and Redistribution strategy, is seen as some Washington conspiracy. South Africa is depicted as the conservative country from the South, snubbing and battling protesters and "African" trade negotiators at Seattle, Doha and Cancun.

One sometimes wonders whether the author writes about the real world, or whether he imagines some fanciful, cloud-cuckoo-land where a country on the southern tip of Africa can simply do as it pleases, on its own terms. There is almost no diplomacy in Bond's world. South Africa should not engage the world or big powers and other states. South Africa can simply issue some decrees and declare a more radical world. In fact, when reading most of Bond's works, there is almost the suggestion that a country like South Africa could simply opt out of the global system, because everything is some conspiracy.

This book is shocking in its lack of detail. There is little appreciation for South Africa's efforts to help bring about a rules-based order. There is little reference to power politics, or to the selfish interests of different states. There is little analysis of South Africa's painstaking efforts to build South-South partnerships with countries like Brazil, India, Malaysia and others. Even more, there is very little said about South Africa's taxing efforts at peacemaking and ending brutal conflicts in Africa, from Comoros and Cote d'Ivoire, to Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Bond needs to realise that no one can seriously and genuinely hope to make sense of South Africa's external relations unless it is located in Africa's complex political environment.

Bond asserts that the "home front remains a disaster in socio-economic terms" and social movements like the Anti-Privatisation Forum and the Landless People's Movement will save us from the disaster. Few questions are asked about the weaknesses and problems of these social movements - such as whether they are connected with the poor on whose behalf Bond claims to speaks.

The most serious criticism of Bond's work, however, is that while a lot is said about social movements, the one thing that Bond cannot bring himself to write about is race and related issues like racial transformation and affirmative action. Attacking macroeconomic policy has almost become a cover under which many other issues and agendas are hidden. There is hardly a recognition that poverty and inequality in our country runs along race lines. Bond would do well to start addressing these issues and move away from just focusing on their preferred issues; they should not only look at their self-constructed worlds, but look at the real world and the harsh reality in this country as it actually represents itself.

It is illuminating that for many opinion shapers this government is selling out to the 'Africanists'and is not conservative and friendly enough to market forces. For other opinion shapers like Bond, government is selling out to market forces, and thereby reinforcing global apartheid.

But this criticism of Bond should not be an excuse for government not to carefully look at its policy postures. The president, cabinet, and the ANC should realise that the three issues of HIV/AIDS, Zimbabwe, and macroeconomic policy are used, for better or for worse, to characterise this government's morality. Government should find solutions to these challenges, not as a means to placate these critics, but because the vast majority of South Africa's citizens deserve better. It should ask what the fault lines are in its macroeconomic strategy, and whether it reinforces inequality. If so, it should bring about the necessary adjustments. Thus, it is now the time to urgently give meaning and substance to the notion of the developmental, activist state, and to work on the idea of bridging the divide between the First and Second economies. This is what the real debate should be about for those inside and outside of government.

Chris Landsberg is director of the Centre for Policy Studies.

Talk left, Walk right: South Africa's frustrated global reforms
By Patrick Bond
University of KwaZulu-Natal Press

[Contents]