The department of mineral resources and energy said the new fuel prices would come into effect on Wednesday. (Waldo Swiegers/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
The failure by the government to rein in the drastic increase in fuel prices calls into question its developmental state stance. This is problematic to many but especially for organised labour, given the fact that its alliance with the government was partly motivated by the fact that South Africa was intended to be a developmental state according to the National Development Plan (NDP), the aspirational document of the country
A developmental state is one that puts government at the centre of providing and protecting its vulnerable citizens from social and economic ills that the free hand of the market cannot correct. A developmental state explicitly recognises the need for the state to act as a safety net in cases of socio-economic vulnerabilities and contingencies.
The high fuel prices for the masses, considered in the context of other economic hardships that South Africans are enduring, constitute an economic vulnerability that ought to trigger government action to protect vulnerable citizens.
To many South Africans, fuel is a necessity that cannot be avoided directly or indirectly. The impact of the increased fuel price is mainly felt by low-paid workers and the self-employed who are trying to make it against the odds. These are people for whom travel is almost a must. People in senior positions may not feel the pinch of the fuel increase as some have flexible and comprehensive travel allowances. Those who do not have access to these travel benefits, can rightly be classified as vulnerable to whom a developmental state owes protection, through reining in the fuel price increase, even if only temporarily.
Trade union federation Cosatu has literally gone on its knees requesting the government to extend the fuel tax relief as a measure to mitigate against the price increase but its call has fallen on deaf ears. With fuel tax constituting more than 30% of what consumers pay, Cosatu expected some flexibility on the matter, but this has not been the case. By ignoring Cosatu’s plea, the government may be setting the stage for a confrontation with workers in the future.
To workers, snubbing their plea can be seen as a sign of widening policy and priority divergence between them and the government that calls into question organised labour’s relevance in the tripartite alliance.
An interesting development of the fuel price increase that has caught many by surprise is that some private actors, instead of the government, have come up with some interventions to cushion consumers from the increase. First National Bank, through its eBucks reward system, has introduced a R2 reward/subsidy for qualifying individuals for each litre of fuel brought. Although this is purely a business decision whose benefit the bank is likely to realise in future, in the short term, it portrays the bank as a socially sensitive private actor, unlike the government.
In the mind of the people, the displacement of the government as their protector by private actors is a confusing phenomenon and does not augur well for citizens who think the government has their back. It brings into question whether the government is still committed to the advancement of a developmental state, whose focus and priority is the people, particularly the vulnerable ones.
For those in organised labour that fall under Cosatu, the government tendency to shade off its developmental state character as and when it feels like it — as has happened with fuel price increases — challenges the justification of the federations’ unqualified support for government.
Leaders of organised labour are put in a very awkward situation to explain to their members why their government is adopting policies that are seen as anti-people and anti-workers.
To some Cosatu affiliates, such as the National Union of Mineworkers, the fuel price increases will be seen as yet another case where their members’ interests have been thrown under the bus by the government. The union has been at loggerheads with the government regarding the accelerated unbundling of Eskom.
Ultimately, there is nothing wrong with a government taking a particular policy stance, developmental or otherwise. The issue of concern is that when the government decides on such a stance, its actions should be consistent with its policy stance. Irrespective of the many other developments that are happening, such as the war in Ukraine, the government’s failure to rein in the massive fuel price increases is not consistent with its developmental state stance. It is disappointing to the people who believe that the government should provide social and economic protection and alliance partners who were motivated, in part, to join the alliance based on the government’s developmental state stance.