David Lewis and Jayendra Naidoo
South Africa has chosen a path of social dialogue – but is it working? Social dialogue reflects the unique national pressures and circumstances of a state making a transition to democracy and introducing far-reaching economic reforms.
A social partnership that is associated with a reduction in inequalities of wealth, income and opportunity, however, will not be constructed overnight – it requires the development of mutual trust and a shared vision, and cannot be equated with the eradication of conflict.
However, it is precisely the depth of division and the concomitant potential for conflict that renders social dialogue indispensable to democracy in South Africa.
The system has been criticised for being too cumbersome and time- consuming and undermining the ability of the government to deliver timeously on its commitments.
Critics say policy cannot be effectively formulated through a collective bargaining-type process; that the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) undermines the sovereignty of Parliament; and a system dominated by a powerful national institution like Nedlac stifles local initiatives and duplicates the functions of specialised sectoral multi-partite bodies like, for example, the National Training Board.
Nedlac represents one of the most comprehensive and formalised systems of consensual policy- making found anywhere in the world, and this in a country emerging from a recent past characterised by, if anything, an absence of dialogue between state and society as well as by continuing social and economic cleavages.
Worldwide there has been a weakening of some of the most advanced and stable systems of social corporatism, and South Africa, in constructing a system of social partnership, has been rowing against an international tide. Even locally, there has been some questioning of its efficacy and desirability. In responding to these criticisms it is imperative that the system does not develop a rules-bound, bureaucratised culture; there is a “tortoise versus hare” analogy at issue here. And Nedlac should not seek to monopolise interactions between the social partners.
While Nedlac lays no claim to Parliament’s sovereign status, Parliament should be wary of overturning an agreement forged through the social-partnership process – not, as is commonly portrayed, for fear of offending a powerful interest; but rather out of regard for the more nuanced and detailed information that social partnership interactions are capable of generating and processing.
The commitment of business, labour and government to continued participation in social partnership remains strong. This claim is, to some extent, belied by the bellicose rhetoric and, occasionally, action that emanates from labour and business, and by the frustrations of top government officials.
Continued commitment to social partnership will be significantly influenced by perceptions of its impact on the process of economic policy formulation and on the consequences (for economic growth and equality) of those policies. The sustainability of social corporatism ultimately rests upon its economic performance.
Major strides have been made in introducing micro and sectoral issues on to Nedlac’s agenda, which reflects a widespread acceptance that the economy is going through a period of deep adjustment.
Social partnership is an implicit shared vision. Sustainable redistribution rests on rapid economic growth and sustained growth rests on more egalitarian outcomes.
It has become commonplace to “justify” social dialogue by referring to its ability to consolidate democracy. Much weight is given to the quality of information flows this state-society interaction generates and to the importance of achieving “buy-in” from major interest groups if far-reaching policy reforms are to take root.
This immediately brings us face-to-face with the argument that social-corporatism privileges the organised, who conspire with each other to the detriment of those outside the privileged “golden triangle” of business, labour and government. Cognisant of this, Nedlac has included representation from a fourth constituency – the community.
Even in the absence of a Nedlac, interaction between concerned social groups and individuals and the government will continue, but the interactions will be less transparent than that afforded by a formalised or accountable structure.
Social dialogue entrenches the need for transparent dialogue and stability in an infant democracy.