The diatribe by both Salim Vally and Adam Habib (”The iron fist and the velvet glove” and ”Elites and our racial quagmire”, December 20) on our elected government makes for interesting reading for all those who lack a firm grasp in understanding South Africa’s transition from apartheid colonialism to a national democratic state.
The discourse penned by both begins to lend credibility to the notion that legitimacy of the current state can be entered into on the basis of a current set of principles (economic in particular) adopted by the Mbeki government. This accusation of legitimacy is questioned by both the left and the right wing, and borders on dangerous territory in a bid to defend the gains of the national democratic state. The will of the majority has been tested in both 1994 and 1999 and speaks volumes in comparison to miniscule support for either the left or right.
Fundamental to the debate raised by both Vally and Habib, aside from the rather artificial sideshow of conspiracy theories in an attempt to ”silence the opposition”, is the issue of the nature of the current state, the objective reality and challenges, and the present environmental landscape of our globalised world.
(The view that our Constitution is constantly being eroded by the state cannot be a true reflection of the more than 50 landmark judgements handed down by our able jurists of the Constitutional Court.)
In understanding the nature of the state it is important to briefly sketch the social nature of the African National Congress as a liberation movement. The movement has always been described as a broad church, one that caters for the needs of all strata of South African society. It is within this understanding of its social being that the ANC has been able to attract the levels of popular support from both capital and labour. The argument that this practice will lead to eventual contradictions within this broad front is indeed a reality (and this continues to occur, for example, privatisation for labour and the Community Reinvestment Bill for capital), however the success of the alliance is how well its leadership is able to micro manage the conflicts of interest that emerge among the broad strata.
The transition from an apartheid state to a democratic one is based on the will of the majority and cannot be confined to the boundaries of our country. Global changes in the early 1990s have had a profound impact on nations of the South. The hegemony of the West and in particular the United States became a fundamental factor in determining the nature of transitional governments from despotisms to democracies. It is not to say that liberation movements sold their principles, but rather crafted new tactics and strategies in meeting their foundational principles of improving the quality of life of their people. Yes, indeed, many liberation movements have lost their way and forgotten about the noble ideals of freedom and liberty. But to slander the ANC government within this framework is reactionary and opportunist.
The current nature of South African society can best be described as a society in transit from one based on a racist ideology that manifested itself in all segments of social life, in particular in the political and economic spheres, where Africans bore the brunt of the system of apartheid.
The society to which we should be moving is in the throes of being structured, and human development is a central plank of this transition.
Hence the series of legislation/policy positions that creates the enabling environment for this people-centred development path, for example, employment equity, the rationalisation of higher education institutions, the Communal Land Rights Bill, the national water resource strategy, the motor industry development strategy, the second national fixed-line telephone operator, minimum wages (for domestic and farm workers), the Petroleum Resources Development Act, the privatisation/commercialisation of state assets, and so on.
The past eight years of functional democracy give credence to the many challenges that will enable the government to deliver in the various fields of human development. The nature of 360 years of brutal oppression cannot and will not be erased within one or two decades of freedom. The government has correctly made the first decade of democracy the one that begins to put the framework into place and simultaneously delivers to the most vulnerable in society. This approach in no way makes the government anti-poor and pro-capital.
However it does make the government a serious contender for stability and sustainable growth.
The fiscal approach of the government has come in for severe criticism from the right and left in our country. The former has condemned the government for not accelerating the pace of granting the market carte blanche in all areas of economic life. This route has been championed by a decade of Reaganomics and Thatcherism, where corporate citizens yielded profits unparalleled in the 20th century.
On the left opponents argue that the government’s continuous serenading of both national and international capital has left deep scars on the poor and that the quality of life of ordinary South Africans continues to deteriorate, making the poor more vulnerable. The reality is that you cannot argue with statistics. Indeed there are instances where poverty continues to be the order of the day. But by the same token there have indeed been projects where communities have broken the cycle of poverty and where the government’s policies are beginning to turn back the tide for the poor.
The argument must be based on the balance of probabilities. Will a regulated market with state support yield long-term success for the poor or will the commanding heights of economic state intervention yield success for the poor? Experience the world over shows that where governments allow the market to develop within the realms of good corporate citizenship, success is deeper and long term. The ”commandist” approach has left its scars on human development in a host of Southern nations. We cannot revert back to that era of human ”development”.
The reality of many of the leftist arguments against the government’s economic strategy is that they fail to understand the objective reality of our current landscape and how best we are able to deliver a better quality of life to the most vulnerable in the long term. The practice of non-engagement by the left towards multilateral organisations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation does not alter the balance of forces towards the poor. There is no arguing with their condemnation of these organisations as unrepresentative and that their policies are not geared towards the poor, but unless we engage with them and use the instruments at our disposal these organisations will continue ignoring the plight of the poor. In the light of this the election of Minister of Finance Trevor Manuel as chairperson of the joint boards of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund must been seen as a victory for Southern nations.
Throughout the entire rebuke that the left has scorned upon government, it has failed to perform any form of introspection into itself and the road it has travelled and will continue to travel. For many on the left, ideas have remained static or in the words of President Thabo Mbeki ”frozen”. In many instances the rhetoric of the left is very much a reflection of the new right. It’s an either-or situation, or in the words of President George W Bush ”you’re either with us or against us”. This rather dogmatic principle has seen the demise of many left-wing organisations the world over. The call for a gathering of the left is nothing new. The question is whether it is able to rise to tasks of the 21st century and possess the correct ideas necessary to effect real change. Failure to perform the latter will result in the left remaining insular in its outlook.
The hackneyed views of Vally and Habib with regard to the government’s policy are to be anticipated, as the space and support for their kind of ideas are on the decline. People are concerned about issues raised by left, but what they do want to see simultaneously is a plan to turn things around. In none of the debate around issues and the nature of our objective reality does the left come to terms with its brand of statehood. Recently the ANC termed its understanding of the current state as social democratic. The left defines its own understanding as anti-capitalistic, a position that flies contrary to the ideas of democracy and development in a real world.
Hoosain Kagee is the national director of the Parliamentary Support Programme. This article is written in his personal capacity