Dale T McKinley
A Second Look
In the midst of what really amounts to yet another, if more publicised, round of tripartite alliance power politicking, it is all too easy to forget that there are much larger and more important socio-economic issues at stake for the majority of South Africans.
Given that the labour movement represents a powerful and key voice of that majority, it is instructive to revisit the form and content of the “big questions” facing the organised working class (“Cosatu faces the big questions”, May 4 to 10).
Prior to South Africa’s first democratic elections in 1994 there was not much talk or thought given to the political, social and economic role that the labour movement might play in the new dispensation.
If anything, there seemed to be a general expectation that the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) would serve as the “loyal labour wing” of the dominant African National Congress and federations such as the National Council of Trade Unions and the Federated Unions of South Africa would articulate the loyalties of their constituents.
The dominant lens through which the relationship of labour, capital and the new state was viewed rested on a foundation of political loyalties and racial categories.
It did not take long for the labour movement to (re)learn the “lesson” that the overthrow of a political and social system apartheid is not the same thing as the overthrow of an economic system capitalism. By 1996 any thoughts that Cosatu (or the National Council of Trade Unions) may have harboured about the organised (black) working class claiming a central role in defining the economic and social path of the New South Africa were effectively buried.
The introduction of the growth, employment and redistribution strategy signalled the formal institutionalisation of a deracialised capitalism by the ANC government and gave a clear indication that the South African labour movement was to be treated like any other sector operating within a capitalist framework.
Once this “normalised” relationship had been accepted, the labour movement as a whole entered into a corporatist territory for which it was not prepared.
Despite proactive “successes”, such as progressive changes to labour laws, the main preoccupation of labour over the past few years has involved a defensive battle to protect organised workers against the ravages of an unrepentant capitalism.
It is not surprising, then, that the dominant line sold to, and generally bought by, organised labour is one of institutionalised talk-shop corporatism. Such a line has been activated through various forums such as the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac), the alliance secretariat and, more recently, the Millennium Labour Council (MLC), as well as numerous “sectoral” forums involving public sector unions and the government.
Where and what has this embrace of capitalist corporatism brought organised workers after five years? Into a strategic cul-de-sac and not a great deal. For example, if the strike weapon is viewed as a means of defending a more progressive vision of labour relations and restructuring when that vision has already been undermined, what effectiveness do such strikes actually have? If the purpose is to reverse the government’s macro-economic strategies, then what is it about the action that is going to achieve anything close to that?
A limited national strike does send a message, but it is not necessarily the one that labour leaders say is intended. The government (and business) can ride out such a strike (as they have in the past) and still remain on their policy courses. As has been the case with continued privatisation of state assets, organised labour is then left with little else than to complain about arrogance and lack of consultation, and go back to the very talk-shop forums that failed them in the first place.
Witness the endless alliance workshops on “key economic issues” that always produce much in the way of verbal affirmations of “unity” and “consensus” but precious little in the way of meaningful shifts in policy.
Within this context it is all the more amazing that labour, business and the government can now publicly state that they have agreed on the national priorities facing South Africa and are therefore on the verge of formulating a common strategy for the country.
Nedlac director Phillip Dexter has stated: “We’ve developed a common analysis of what the problems are and are finalising a common growth strategy … We do disagree on some things and there will have to be trade-offs.”
The latest version of the MLC agreement on labour law amendments, which was endorsed by the Cosatu central executive committee meeting, states: “The MLC will strive to make South Africa the leading emerging market and the destination of first choice for domestic and foreign investment, where investments are secure and can earn a competitive return measured over an appropriate term.”
This constitutes a very strange “common strategy” between workers and capitalists.
The believability of a public face of commonality rests, solely, on the willingness of the various leaders to make elite compacts. These only serve to further entrench the interests of big capitalists and an emergent black bourgeoisie. The so-called “cooperation” asked of labour will only leave workers further divided and without effective leverage over societal change.
For business and the government, however, there is every reason to propagate and facilitate this supposedly “new relationship”. Achieving a “strategic agreement on the need for shared growth” will lock labour even further into a corporatist matrix.
The labour movement does not seem to have grasped that there is no necessary connection between an active, interventionist state and parallel economic and social policies that benefit the majority of workers.
The real question is: what kind of economic foundation is such intervention and activity being built upon? The equation is quite simple if the growth, employment and redistribution strategy is the policy of the government and the government is run by the ANC, then privatisation is the policy of the ANC. It is rank hypocrisy to ask workers to wage an anti-privatisation struggle that pretends otherwise.
Class struggle cannot be waged with one hand tied behind your back and with your adversaries having every opportunity to use all weapons at their disposal. Without tackling the fundamental contradictions that have given rise to the very existence of labour within capitalist society, the labour movement can only hope to continuously mitigate the circumstances under which workers are exploited.
There is no “third way” for South African labour. It has been tried and it has failed workers elsewhere. South Africa is not so unique as to be suspended above such realities. The foundation upon which such a “new” path is based that a strategic consensus about the economic and social path upon which the country should travel can be found, that class struggle can be effectively suspended and that the contradictions emerging can be successfully managed is an illusion.
Labour movements that have postponed hard decisions in the process of waiting for some kind of societal and/or national consensus and identity to materialise always lose out.
The need for an independent political partner for labour that is created, controlled by and carries out the political mandate of the broader working class is fundamental to any hope of a labour movement wanting to play a central role in defining and leading society. Accompanying class battles must be fought out to the end and prices have to be paid.
There can be no real social and economic progress if only one side is always and forever being forced to pay the price and feel the pain.