The national grievance remains unattended to

UNFINISHED BUSINESS: When President Jacob Zuma appointed Des van Rooyen, left, minister of finance the aim was to further nepotism, says former public protector Thuli Madonsela's State of Capture report.Picture: EPA

UNFINISHED BUSINESS: When President Jacob Zuma appointed Des van Rooyen, left, minister of finance the aim was to further nepotism, says former public protector Thuli Madonsela's State of Capture report.Picture: EPA

Published Jan 29, 2017

Share

The debate about white monopoly capital has been going on for too long. The government must act, says Mcebisi Ndletyana.

What of white monopoly capital? There’s hardly a discussion nowadays without mention of the phrase. It’s in vogue - like “part and parcel” and “let the bygones be bygones” once were, but have since escaped our lexicon.

They were part of a narrative occasioned by a specific moment in our history. Each moment generates its own language to explain, if not legitimise itself.

Unlike Nelson Mandela’s reconciliatory language, “white monopoly capital” is not new. Judging by its sudden prominence, you’d be forgiven to think that it’s a recent discovery. The term is as old as South Africa’s modern economy.

Monopoly capital is an inescapable feature of colonial and post-colonial economies. It’s simply a matter of who came first and asserted control over the state. A couple of mining companies, for instance, drove the formation of the Union in 1910.

This was evident in the slew of legislation which forced Africans into wage labour and enabled the mining industry to optimise profits. Black life was essentially re-arranged to serve the mining industry.

Few players similarly dominated the financial and the manufacturing industries, which subsequently developed from the 1920s onwards. Their monopoly over the economy owed to their dominant control over the state, from the union to apartheid.

“White monopoly capital”, therefore, describes an old phenomenon. At its adoption in 1955, even the Freedom Charter grappled with how to break-up white monopoly that had become a feature of the economy.

The charter proposed nationalisation, also as a way of empowering aspirant black-business.

This became a recurrent question in many subsequent ANC policy documents.

In other words, the character of society itself occasioned the recurrent question about how to break white monopoly capital. As a settler colony, South Africa’s economy grew on the back of dispossession and disfranchisement.

Natives had to be impoverished and silenced for the economy to thrive. That is why there’s often a talk of reparations. It is an admission of a debt that monopoly capital owes to the African folk. The national grievance remains unattended to.

What we’re repeatedly hearing today, however, is not addressing the national grievance. The manner in which the debate was sparked is itself quite telling of its deceitful ends.

President Jacob Zuma re-introduced the phrase sometime last year as he sought to explain why he had appointed Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs Des van Rooyen to replace Nhlanhla Nene as finance minister.

Zuma said Van Rooyen was his tool to dismantle white monopoly capital.

The State of Capture report, however, has come out telling us quite the opposite of Zuma’s claim. Van Rooyen was appointed to further nepotism.

The Gupta and Zuma families, together with their proxies in the public sector, were going to be the major beneficiaries of Van Rooyen’s take-over of the Treasury. Even without having taken over the Treasury, we’ve already heard of billions of rands the Guptas were switching from one bank to another.

We’ve also heard Zuma’s children have become wealthy all because of the Guptas, who have an association with their father, the president of the republic. Appointing Van Rooyen to take over the Treasury, therefore, was never going to be about addressing the national grievance, but an enrichment of a politically connected family and foreign-nationals of recent arrival.

This is the most embarrassing aspect of this whole circus.

Gupta beneficiaries make such claims knowing full well they’re false and yet, strangely, expect the watching public to believe them.

It’s self-delusion. What has truly happened here is a derailment of the nationalists’ historical mission.

BEE, for instance, has almost come to a halt.

There’s been talk recently of a government-initiated black industrialists programme. The objective is noble.

But this government has been fraught with cronyism to the point one doubts if anyone outside of Zuma’s circles will benefit.

It’s really not about merit but who you know in politics.

In the hands of a clear-minded and conscientious political elite, the state remains an effective instrument to address the national grievance. Ignore the talk that the state’s role is to provide social services, and stay out of the economy.

That’s all nonsense. The state has historically played a leading role in the economy. In fact, business has influenced the state, from the union to apartheid.

The state is a major economic player, through its purchasing power and regulatory role. It can initiate demand for a particular product and introduce regulation to influence economic activity.

Am I saying capital acquired through conquest shouldn’t be appropriated? That’s not for me to answer now. We made that choice in the early 1990s at the negotiation table, when we chose to protect private property.

That was a compromise reached out of negotiations. It was and remains unpopular, but was a necessary condition to reach a settlement. It was political justice.

There’s obviously little appreciation of the flak the liberation movement has had to endure for making that compromise. Capital leaves the country illegally, instead of being reinvested in the local economy.

The state alone cannot meet all the challenges that face our society. Business must be pro-actively involved.

Apart from expatriating capital, companies can localise their productive activities, instead of exporting some of their raw materials for beneficiation abroad.

This requires readjustment in how they think of their sustainability. Profit alone does not secure sustainability.

Localising yields a broader societal gain through employment and expanded revenue. High levels of unemployment and inequality are not good for any society. They not only deny people of a livelihood, but also make them feel excluded. Without a stake in society, marginalised people become discontented. This makes the malcontent susceptible to radical alternatives which offer them a chance of turning their lives around.

That’s how demagogues are born.

South Africa is not immune to that possibility.

But the state cannot wait on business while it’s still making up its mind. The government must forge ahead in the interest of the republic.

The ANC took a policy decision years ago to limit the export of what it called “strategic minerals” for beneficiation locally.

This was meant to be followed by legislation for implementation, which doesn’t seem to have happened.

Moreover, everyone agrees telecommunication is critical for economic activity.

South Africa probably charges the highest rates for cellphone calls and data. This is prohibitive, and is surely within the government’s regulatory reach to influence.

The debate has just been going on for too long. The government must act.

We cannot remain a stable society simply by managing the status quo. Doing so is counter-productive. The status quo is gradually stoking unhappiness.

Future prosperity lies in reconfiguring the economy. The state must exercise its power to save the future.

Of course, there will be some disgruntlement from business. That’s immaterial. There’s already unhappiness in the countryside and townships. The unemployed and poor are getting increasingly restless.

We need to do something now, otherwise sakufa singalwanga - we’ll perish without a fight.

If the ruling party continues to be timid, it then becomes difficult to refute claims that it has been captured by business.

Why else would it not pursue meaningful changes if it is not a beneficiary of the status quo?

* Ndletyana is an associate professor of politics at the University of Johannesburg.

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

The Sunday Independent

Related Topics: