­President Cyril Ramaphosa’s explanation for remaining in South Africa was to “attend to the implementation of government’s urgent measures on gender-based violence, the restoration of order and stability in areas affected by public violence, and to oversee initiatives to turn around the economy”. These are all powerful issues for SA and widespread globally. Progress here in addressing them could also become a beacon of hope not only for South Africans but for our neighbours and beyond.

There could be some diplomatic grumbling over Ramaphosa’s absence at the UNGA. SA secured Africa’s backing for another two-year term as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council (2019 and 2020) with the promise to champion African concerns, and then was elected to be the 2020 Chair of the African Union.

Minister Naledi Pandor is, however, a capable and credible representative and it is difficult to imagine any African leader questioning Ramaphosa’s priorities, which many others share. The issues he has identified are strategic, affecting domestic peace and development that are the foundations of an effective foreign policy. Gender equality and gender safety is already a priority of the African Union’s, although the rhetoric belies many dismal deficiencies in virtually every other nation-state.

The ANC government has long advocated gender equality. Earlier this year, Ramaphosa won praise for finally achieving gender balance in the national Cabinet.

Policies of the ruling African National Congress to effect gender parity in all governing structures, including local branches and affiliated student representative councils are underway and must continue. Polling data suggests this policy is not only morally right but politically effective, with two-thirds of women voters backing the ANC compared to 55% of men.

In recent weeks, however, the spate of horrific crimes against women shockingly shows the depth and breadth of this national crisis. And only if the President succeeds in mobilising an unprecedented national commitment can SA show faith in the very ideals are the source of our prestige and influence in international affairs, including the UN.

The day after cancelling his trip to New York, Ramaphosa wrote to the Speaker of the National Assembly, Thandi Modise, citing section 84(2) (d) of the Constitution, and urgently calling for a joint sitting of the National Assembly and National Council of Provinces on 18 September to deal with gender-based violence. In justifying this extraordinary step, Ramaphosa implicitly acknowledged that widespread grassroots protests were having an effect: “In the last two weeks, South Africa’s approach to violence perpetrated against women has changed fundamentally.”

Popular demonstrations, however, are finally forcing the government to do much more. Ramaphosa is responding and the world is watching.

The influential US journal, The New Yorker, recently ran an essay by Cape Town-based writer Rosa Lyster entitled The Death of Uyinine Mrwetyana and Rise of South Africa’s #AMINEXT Movement. American women have been traumatised and politicised by similar abuses. SA can lead by example internationally in solidarity with #MeToo Movement that could have politically transformative effects locally and globally.

Ramaphosa’s second immediate challenge is ending the recent outbreaks of urban violence that have been widely seen as directed primarily against non-SA African workers and small business owners, is also a matter of urgent domestic and foreign policy concern.

On 14 September, Ramaphosa dispatched a team of special envoys to reassure African leaders Nigeria, Niger, Ghana, Senegal, Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Zambia and reaffirm SA’s determination to uphold the rule of law to protect their nationals.

The day the envoys left, President Rampahosa was in Zimbabwe and effectively used his eulogy at the memorial service of former President Robert Mugabe, to apologise personally and publicly for recent violent acts against Zimbabweans living in SA, to the cheers of many who had initially booed his presence.

This issue too has foreign policy implications that extend far beyond Africa, damaging SA’s image and influence. On 5 September the Washington Post ran a detailed report on the sources and nature of anti-foreigner violence in SA.

A week later a more thorough analysis was posted by the influential New York Council on Foreign Relations. South Africans meanwhile will continue to publicly debate the nature, meaning, and modes of redress to resolve and prevent further eruptions of urban violence. But at a time when anti-immigrant sentiments are at historic highs in the US and appear to be at the root of Britain’s decision to withdraw from the EU, SA can rally more progressive democratic forces internationally, to the extent that it can demonstrate greater tolerance and democratic inclusivity at home.

Ensuring that “initiatives to turn around the economy”, the third challenge keeping Ramaphosa in SA, will require a politically and economically viable long-term implementation strategy to reassure the public of its cumulative and transformative effects. Discernible progress on gender-based and public violence might also allow Ramaphosa more time to begin dealing with the long-term problems of the economy: poverty, unemployment and inequality.

Just a year ago, Ramaphosa did attend the UNGA in New York and on 24 September unveiled a life-sized statue of SA’s first democratically elected President at UN Headquarters on the eve of Nelson Mandela Peace Summit. He rightly noted that “the values by which Mandela lived and to which he dedicated his life were universal”.

So too, alas are the problems of gender-based violence, anti-immigrant sentiments, and rising inequalities within and among nations. These problems are no less intractable than apartheid once seemed to be and progress on any and all of them will be good for South Africans and, as we were reminded during last year’s Mandela Peace Summit, for everyone else as well. DM