There can be no question that Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi has been brave in publicly questioning the government’s stance on the crisis in Zimbabwe and the inequities of the ruling approach to black economic empowerment (BEE). But it is debatable whether Cosatu’s leaders have effectively harnessed the federation’s considerable power in its attempt to reshape state policy.
Many ordinary members of Cosatu, the African National Congress and the South African Communist Party might agree that “quiet diplomacy” on Zimbabwe has failed, and even more question the elitist character of black empowerment. Vavi is not sounding off in a wild or irresponsible fashion — he is merely giving voice to Cosatu congress resolutions. But have unions members been rallied to provide the kind of street-level support he needs to make the ANC listen?ÂÂ
Lunchtime pickets in support of these resolutions, or even worker petitions, could have preceded Cosatu’s mission to Zimbabwe, for example. There is little evidence of rigorous engagement with ordinary workers on BEE and its implications. To do this would be to reassert the honourable tradition, forged by such leaders as Jay Naidoo and Elijah Barayi, of building campaigns from the grass roots up.ÂÂ
Many Cosatu members are also card-carrying ANC activists steeped in a tradition that puts workers at the sharp end of struggle. After liberation, the theory went, this would ensure that their interests, and those of the poor, were kept in the foreground. Cosatu pioneered the Reconstruction and Development Programme — the platform on which the ANC came to power in 1994. Union shop stewards helped to build township youth, women’s and civic movements countrywide.
Cosatu’s fundamental problem in “post-independence” South Africa has been its inability to define the labour movement’s role in an alliance with the party of government. Its shop-floor mobilisation, for example in repeated public service strike action, has largely been confined to protecting members’ narrow wage and job security interests. It has not pursued pressing service delivery issues — the key concern of the poor — with the same vigour. In their approach to corruption, under-performance and inertia in the public service — the state’s interface with the broader public — its prisons and education affiliates have tended to operate like classic labour aristocrats, responsive only to members’ self-interest.
There are elements in the ANC who clearly do not like labour and resent its criticisms, and Cosatu can justifiably complain that the governing party only takes it seriously come election time. The ANC leadership’s orchestrated moves to marginalise and silence the union left — which have gathered momentum since the April poll — are a dangerously anti-democratic trend. The Mail & Guardian strongly identifies with Cosatu’s objections to the direction of BEE and the government’s apparent indifference to the human rights crisis in Zimbabwe. But we suspect that the voice of the unions will resonate much more powerfully in the Union Buildings and Luthuli House if they confront the really tough issues on their own beat.
Let Christian right waste its money
Minister of Home Affairs Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula has not yet responded to the Supreme Court of Appeal’s favourable ruling on gay marriage, but we sincerely hope she does not take it on appeal to the Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court does not like ex parte (undefended) cases, and this seems to be the main reason ministries of state have opposed every gay rights case to come before it. These include the challenge to the criminal status of sodomy, the plea for adoption rights for gay couples and the application for equal pension benefits for gay partners. As in all of these cases, the constitutional ban on discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation guarantees that any legal challenge to gay marriage must fail. But in any event, consistent state opposition to gay rights cases sends out the wrong message to the many South Africans who continue to harbour homophobic prejudices. The authorities should be seen to support gay South Africans and their constitutional rights. Let the Christian right waste its money on lawyers — that is also its democratic prerogative.
The M&G is unequivocal on this issue: we support our enlightened Constitution and believe gays and lesbians must be free from discrimination in every area. That many, even most, South Africans feel differently is not the issue: it is safe to assume right-wing whites would not want the “majority sentiment” principle applied to such matters as land or income distribution. Nor do we buy the evangelical Christian objection that same-sex unions are “unnatural” as marriage was ordained for the propagation of children. Does this mean that childless marriages are unnatural? “Natural” is an emotionally charged word with no fixed meaning. In classical Greece, for example, homosexual bonds were not merely tolerated — they were regarded as spiritually superior.
The fundamental point is that gay marriage hurts no one. Indeed, it adds to the quantum of love and caring in a world where these commodities are in critically short supply.