SA once did something extraordinary. It built a nuclear arsenal — and then dismantled it. That decision under then-president FW de Klerk was a strategic bet that constitutional governance and the rule of law offer a stronger foundation for security and prosperity than brute force. In today’s world of rising uncertainty, this lesson is more relevant than ever. Trust and constitutional governance are not just ideals; they are competitive advantages in geopolitics and in business.
This theme was powerfully echoed at last week’s fourth FW de Klerk Memorial Lecture in Cape Town, co-hosted by the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. International lawyer Jonathan Granoff posed a stark question: can today’s society rely on 20th-century nuclear deterrence without inviting catastrophe? His answer was an unequivocal “no”. Instead, he argued, it is safer to deepen constitutional governance at home and advance nuclear abolition abroad.
Granoff’s warning extends beyond geopolitics; it has direct implications for business strategy. Constitutions are more than political compacts; they are trust engines. They transform disagreement into rules-based dissent rather than destructive division. SA’s 1996 constitution built this architecture: independent courts, a bill of rights, checks and balances, and clear channels for contestation.
While no system guarantees harmony, a constitutional order makes trust rational. When investors believe that rules will hold, they commit to long-term projects. When they doubt, compliance costs soar, businesses avoid risk, and growth stalls. In this way, constitutional stability becomes a driver of economic performance.
Granoff’s distinction between “Oops” (technical failure) and “Bozo” (human misjudgment) as drivers of nuclear disaster underscores the urgency for the business community to advocate that states dismantle their nuclear arsenals.
SA cannot outmuscle or outmanoeuvre global powers, but it can out-trust them.
During the Cold War, false alarms nearly triggered catastrophe. Today’s risks — cyberattacks, deepfakes, shortened decision times — are more varied, faster and therefore harder to contain than before. No risk specialist in business should accept such concentrated risk. States must prioritise disarmament because one nuclear mistake anywhere renders all other risks irrelevant.
SA’s disarmament was not just a risk management strategy but an investment in legitimacy. By disclosing our arsenal, joining the Non-Proliferation Treaty, championing the Pelindaba Treaty and supporting global bans, we earned credibility. This form of security and influence can evolve into new forms and spaces in a way that a nuclear arsenal cannot.
Earned legitimacy
Credibility, like reputation, is a currency executives trade in daily. SA’s standing in the New Agenda Coalition was built on the costly signal of unilateral nuclear disarmament. That signal earned legitimacy, which can translate into economic benefits — whether negotiating on ocean governance, critical minerals, climate finance or digital rights.
Another lesson to draw from De Klerk’s decision on nuclear disarmament is that legitimacy must be intergenerational. Granoff proposes a new golden rule: “Treat future generations as we would want to be treated.” For business, this principle can be operationalised through intergenerational impact statements for major projects — tools that reduce social risk and policy volatility.
Thinking intergenerationally brings us to the often-overlooked role of civic education. Typically seen as a political or nation-building exercise, civic education should also be recognised as a driver of business competitiveness. Citizens who understand accountability and constitutional principles contribute to social cohesion and institutional stability, which are ingredients for mutually reinforcing peace and a thriving economy.
As De Klerk noted in his Oslo address, “It is difficult to incite people to aggression if they are educated and informed, if their basic rights are properly protected. It is difficult to persuade people who have achieved a degree of material well-being to risk all in unnecessary conflict.”
In a world of shifting power and multiplying risks, our greatest export may be our example: showing that trust and the rule of law are not just ideals but assets.
Of course, none of this ignores SA’s current challenges: unemployment, crime and municipal collapse. In such a context, is constitutional thinking a luxury? Amid load-shedding and gang violence, it may seem so. But SA’s nuclear and constitutional stories offer templates for addressing these very issues. They remind us of the value of rules, processes, verifiable data and institutional accountability — all of which reduce systemic risk in the economy.
De Klerk spoke of peace depending on a “frame of mind” that prefers negotiation to compulsion. This may sound naïve when murder rates spike, but the business case is real: fair process builds co-operation, enables intelligence-led policing and shortens case cycles. Fair procurement on a level playing field disrupts crime networks that feed off state failure.
SA cannot outmuscle or outmanoeuvre global powers, but it can out-trust them. In select topics, we can build on our greater credibility to gain commercial advantage. One lane is nuclear risk, where we already possess a track record that commands respect. Another is in climate negotiations, where our experience as a coal-dependent, water-constrained middle-income economy gives us voice and stakes. In a world of shifting power and multiplying risks, our greatest export may be our example: showing that trust and the rule of law are not just ideals but assets. If we invest in constitutionalism and trust as our intergenerational responsibility, our history becomes not just admirable but a foundation for our national business case.
• Endres is project manager at Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.