BY DALE T. McKINLEY
JOHANNESBURG — Prior to South Africa's first democratic elections in 1994, the labour movement here did not give much thought to the specific political, social and economic role that it might play in the new dispensation. If anything, the general expectation was that the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) would play the role of the loyal "labour wing" of the ruling African National Congress.
The much smaller trade union federations, the broadly black consciousness-aligned National Council of Trade Unions (NACTU) and historically white, skilled worker-dominated Federation of Unions of South Africa (FEDUSA), were expected to continue to articulate the particular loyalties of their constituents.
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 as the overthrow of an economic system (capitalism). By 1996, any thoughts that COSATU or NACTU 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 led by the ANC were buried.
The introduction of neo-liberal Growth Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) macroeconomic 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 entered into a corporatist territory for which it was not prepared. Whether involving, as in the case of COSATU and NACTU, a shift from resistance to institutionalised co-operation or, as in the case of FEDUSA, from the protection of racial privilege to "normal" trade unionism, the labour movement has found itself constantly on the back foot.
Despite successes, such as progressive changes to labour laws, the main preoccupation of trade unions has been a defensive battle to protect organised workers against the ravages of an unrepentant capitalism.
It is not surprising that the dominant line sold to organised labour by the ANC, big business, academics and visiting "advisers" from reformist trade unions and federations in Europe and Australia has the promotion of "talk shop" corporatism in various forums such as the tripartite National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) and, more recently, the Millennium Labour Council, as well as numerous "sectoral" forums.
Embracing corporatism
Where and what has this embrace of capitalist corporatism brought organised workers after five years? The simple answers are, respectively, into a strategic cul-de-sac and not a great deal.
For example, if the strike weapon is viewed as a means of "defending" and "restructuring" a more progressive vision of labour relations, when that vision has already been undermined, how effective can such strikes be and what do they accomplish?
On the other hand, if the purpose is to reverse government's macro-economic strategies, then what is it about the action itself that is going to achieve that? A limited national strike does send a message, but it is not necessarily the one that labour leaders say is intended. Government (and business) can ride out such a strike (as they have in the past) and still remain on their respective policy courses. 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.
Within this context it is all the more amazing that labour, business and 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 (and a senior leader of the South African Communist Party), Phillip Dexter has stated that labour, business and government have "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".
This does not bode well for workers. Such "elite-compacts" only serve to further entrench the interests of big capitalists and an emergent black bourgeoisie that is to be found in both the private and public sectors. The so-called "cooperation" asked of labour will only leave workers further divided and without leverage over societal change. For business and 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, by giving labour a "slice of the cake".
Attempting to present the supposed commonalities as a binding consensus, South Africa's deputy president Jacob Zuma has said that, "this is a matter on which we all rise and fall together". With all due respect to the deputy president, this is complete nonsense in the "real" world of hard-nosed capitalist economics. The capitalist rules of the game work to ensure that there are always winners and losers, and we all know that those without the property and money (the working class) fall in the latter category.
Merely stating that there needs to be an industrial strategy and a restructuring of financial institutions does little to challenge, directly, the underlying foundation of economic power and resource distribution. What does an industrial policy mean in the context of an economy in which private capital holds the vast majority of the wealth and controls the productive levers? How is the state going to "successfully" implement a strategy of job creation if the "people's" government is not, at the same time, willing to attack the basic control of production of the capitalists and to take key productive decisions outside of the market?
Real question
Labour has to understand 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?
What has happened, for example, to the calls by COSATU for the abolition of the value-added tax (South Africa's GST), the socialisation of basic services, the socialisation of the mining and financial sectors, the cancellation of the apartheid debt, the provision of free education, health care and other basic social services?
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 they are exploited. This is the prime lesson that the South African labour movement must take from the application of welfare capitalism, in which an active, interventionist state was involved.
There is no South African "third way" for 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 "suspended" and that the contradictions that emerge can be successfully managed — is an illusion.
Trade union movements and leaders 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 working class, is fundamental to any hope of a labour movement that wants to play a central role in defining and leading society.
This means that well-organised and strategically waged class conflict is an absolute necessity. 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. Government and business must feel the pain of labour power to the point that they are forced to relinquish real economic and social power to the working class.
[Dale T. McKinley, former chairperson of the Johannesburg Central branch of the South African Communist Party (SACP), was expelled from the party after he wrote articles critical of the ANC government's anti-worker policies and the role of SACP cabinet ministers in implementing them.]