Policy shift raises big questions for all

The writer says the poor must actively participate in the transformation of the neo-liberal policies that have not provided as many jobs as hoped. Picture: Reuters

The writer says the poor must actively participate in the transformation of the neo-liberal policies that have not provided as many jobs as hoped. Picture: Reuters

Published May 21, 2017

Share

Every level of society, government must be prepared for socio-economic change to deliver real results, writes Muxe Nkondo.

Why is there the need for radical social and economic transformation? What will be the distinguishing features of a radically transformed social and economic order? How can the government and its partners work together, sharing responsibilities and risks, and offering a high-quality strategy?

What is the most effective way of communicating the strategy? What do South Africans have in common and what differences do they have to accommodate? How will decisions be made? And what indicators will we use to assess impact?

These questions are meant to guide the government - and all concerned - in recognising the need, formulating a clear strategic direction, answering the need and, in the process, bringing out the underlying values of the strategy into national consciousness.

The process of becoming conscious of what South Africans need and want to bring to expression is very important today. South Africans want to contribute concretely by sharing responsibility instead of following the leader or the expert. However, South Africans can act intelligently together only if the strategic direction and the overarching vision become explicit.

The aim is not theoretical, but practical and ethical. However, radical transformation will fail if the lessons of unsuccessful neo-liberal policies since 1994 are not learnt and avoided; decisive action is not taken; there is no sustained focus on the implementation of priorities; there is no termination of political deployments in strategic positions; and, most crucial, if in the government there is little commitment or confidence that we can ever get beyond crisis management, and there is failure, particularly among policymakers and senior executives, to live the new vision.

The crucial issue is how to establish a new political frontier capable of giving a real impetus to our multivocal democracy. This requires defining radical transformation as a horizon where the various struggles find a space of inscription. The notions of active “citizenry” and “radical social and economic transformation” are crucial here because they enable the establishment of a common political identity among diverse democratic struggles.

This process consists of setting up decision-making structures without which the changes needed to make radical transformation hegemonic either simply will not happen or will take place so painfully slowly that, to most people, the revolutionary project starts looking like another electoral fiction. Regardless of how well-intentioned the government may be, it will never fully understand what needs to be done without the active participation of the poor.

This needs deep understanding of the consequences of the “elite transition” in 1994, specifically how the assumptions and values of neo-liberal capitalism cohere around a distinctively elitist and individualistic conception of relations between individuals, society and the state.

The existence of a fundamental antagonism at the centre of our politics raises questions about the feasibility of radical transformation. Current national and global politics are marked by a manifest paradox.

The triumphal procession of neo-liberalism has been transformed into real joblessness. The government has to develop a strategy on how the programme will function in the next three to five years. It is important to be concrete. The government needs to play with various mechanisms, in particular the popular audiovisual media, so that gradually an integrated image of the strategy becomes visible to all.

All this is not only meant to reveal to the people what the government sees as the central thrusts of the strategy. It can also serve as a focal point for public deliberation as people respond to the questions and themes that shape the strategy.

In this context, what is “radical”? Is it not meaningful to invoke the revolutionary ideals that lay behind the project of liberating South African society? We are undoubtedly living through the era of the Freedom Charter imaginary, which has characterised the revolutionary politics of the ANC in the last 60 years.

It still has to be seen whether the ANC will recover from the blows it has suffered in recent years, not only the discredit brought upon the neo-liberal capitalist model it has adopted by the critique of neo-liberalism, but also the challenge to individual and property rights posed by the emergence of the Landless People’s Movement.

Its fraternal enemy - socialism - is not in any better shape. It has proved incapable of addressing the demands for socio-economic justice and its central achievement - the ANC Alliance - is holding badly under attacks from the left and the right. As for the idea of people’s sovereignty, what seems to be in question is the very idea of people’s power that is bound up with the revolutionary project of freedom and justice. Discussion of these issues, which until recently focused on electoral power, has taken a radical turn.

Unfortunately, the discussion all too quickly petrified around a set of simplistic and sterile descriptions and explanations. Whereas the left accuses the ANC-led government of neo-liberal capitalist deployment of public resources, exposing public institutions to state capture, the neo-liberal opposition declares with pathos that the project of individual rights and choice is under threat.

A number of criteria have been suggested for defining radical social and economic transformation. I, for one, think radical transformation must be constructed at the macro-policy level, for it is there social and economic relations are constituted and symbolically ordered. In so far as it inaugurates a new type of society, radical transformation can be viewed as a decisive point of reference.

In this respect, the fundamental characteristic of radical transformation is undoubtedly the democratic ownership and control of decision-making structures and processes. For this reason, the new society must be constituted as a “republic” without a “sovereign figure”, in which political power, knowledge, law, policy, institutional arrangements, rules and regulations are exposed to a radical democratic determination, a state that becomes the theatre of informed, responsive, and responsible interactive communities, so that what is instituted is always subjected to public reasoning, expertise and knowledge, remaining a place of continuous questioning and consensus building.

Reconciling presidential prerogative with accountability embodied in a person as “head of state” - the “modern prince”, so to speak - tied to democratic consent would pre-empt the existence of a final guarantee or source of legitimation. It is in this way South African politics can be characterised by the dissolution of antagonism at its core.

This provides an overview of the revolutionary movement, which has moved from competition for power through armed struggle to party activity in a multiparty parliamentary framework.

All South Africans have to make some important adjustments in our behaviour and outlooks. Such an overhaul of the political, social and economic order and the national sensibility can never be without conflict, nor can it be easily achieved.

It requires patience, political will, administrative capacity, understanding of the psychology of official behaviour, and sophisticated deliberative skills on all sides.

* Nkondo is a member of the Freedom Park and Unisa councils. He writes in his personal capacity.

** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.

The Sunday Independent

Related Topics: