The news, released earlier this month, that Egypt had become Africa’s second- largest economy, pushing South Africa into third place, did not create all that much of a stir. There were two good reasons for this. The huge shock, back in 2014, had been to lose first place to Nigeria whose economy was both much bigger and much more diversified than previously believed. Dropping from second to third is less of a big deal when you have already dropped from first to second. But, much more importantly, this fall into third place (reported by auditing group KPMG, using International Monetary Fund – IMF – data) is really a kind of illusion. South Africa’s ranking declined in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) measured in dollars.

The big problem with measuring a country’s GDP in dollars is that, if that country’s currency has declined relative to the dollar, its economy seems to have shrunk. In reality, of course, its economy is exactly the same size. And it was the fall in the rand that toppled South Africa from second to third place in this analysis. This is the reason why I prefer to use GDP figures calculated on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis; no system is perfect – PPP has its drawbacks too, but at least it eliminates the effects of currency fluctuations.

So, how does South Africa stand in PPP terms? First, let’s get an idea of the difference in the results of GDP calculations using dollar terms and PPP terms. According to The Economist Pocket World in Figures 2015, in 2012, South Africa was, in dollar terms, the 29th-biggest economy in the world, with a GDP of $384-billion, but, in PPP terms, ranked 25th, with a GDP of $576-billion. In comparison, in 2012, Egypt ranked 38th in dollar terms at $263-billion, but was the world’s 26th-biggest economy in PPP terms, with a GDP of $534-billion. Which means that, in PPP terms, Egypt was pretty much breathing down South Africa’s neck in the economic rankings four years ago.

But is there more recent data? The Central Intelligence Agency’s invaluable The World Factbook 2016 gives PPP terms GDP estimates for 2015. And here the news is bad: Egypt is ranked as the 25th-biggest economy in the world, with a PPP GDP of $996-billion, while South Africa is in 31st place, with $724-billion. It looks like South Africa was pushed into third place at least a year ago, and nobody, at least in South Africa, noticed! Now, the IMF forecasts that the Egyptian economy will grow at 3.3% this year (down from 4.2% last year) and should grow at 4.3% next year, while the South African economy will grow at only 0.6% this year and 1.2% next year. So, South Africa’s chances of regaining second place in Africa during the next few years don’t look good. Moreover, Egypt is achieving much higher growth rates that South Africa, despite being in the grip of a very significant domestic political and security crisis.

This relative decline – and it is relative, not absolute, but nonetheless serious for that – has consequences, especially regarding South Africa’s role and weight in global and continental politics. It also highlights the absurdity of government’s plans to acquire a new (perhaps refurbished), reportedly larger, VIP jet for the President. A flashier mode of Presidential transport will not offset or hide South Africa’s slide down the African rank- ings. Rather, it will just make the President look ridiculous (‘who is he trying to fool?’ will be the inevitable question) and highlights just how out of contact with reality his administration is.

But there will be consequences much more serious than international mockery of the President. South Africa has been an ardent advocate of the reform of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to increase its number of permanent members from the current five (China, France, Russia, the UK and the US) to reflect the great changes in global politics and economics over the past quarter century. Pretoria did so assuming that South Africa, as the (then) leading power in Africa, would be one of the new permanent members. (Other likely candidates were and still are Brazil, Germany, India and Japan.)

Africa wanted – and wants – two permanent seats on the UNSC. But, with South Africa now the continent’s number three economy, it would clearly be absurd for one of these two seats, if they eventuate, to go to Pretoria. They would have to go to Abuja and Cairo. Moreover, giving Egypt a permanent seat on the UNSC would mean that an Arab State and a predomi- nantly Moslem State would be on the council. As for Nigeria, that country is half Christian, half Moslem. Which brings us to an irony: ‘representivity’ is a central tenet of the ideology and policy of the South African government; a UNSC with Egypt and Nigeria as permanent members would be more ‘representative’ of the world than one on which either of these countries plus South Africa sat. South Africa is not “representative” enough!

Now, of course, the UNSC is fundamentally about global security. So, a country’s military power is important. I have not mentioned this so far because South Africa is simply not in the running in this regard. The South African National Defence Force is today operating at a low level, with inadequate funding. In com- parison, the Egyptian Army, for example, is reported to number 310 000 troops (plus 375 000 reservists), with more than 3 000 main battle tanks (MBTs). Nigeria is rapidly rebuilding its armed forces to deal with the country’s various security challenges. The Nigerian Army is believed to number about 100 000. The South African Army numbers some 40 000 (plus, perhaps, 12 000 reservists). In military terms, South Africa actually ranks fourth in Africa – Algeria ranks higher: the Algerian Army numbers around 110 000 troops (excluding paramilitary forces and reservists), with some 1 600 MBTs. Should UNSC reform happen soon, South Africa will be left out in the cold.