Now that the die has been cast — a predictable roll of the dice, mind you — all South Africans who care about their and the country’s future no doubt have something on their minds. For some, this assumes the form, mainly, of misgivings; for others, especially the poor, of hope. And if the impression that Jacob Zuma’s constituency includes the poor is correct, I, for one, hope that Zuma will not forget that their hopes and aspirations are set on him, and that he — assisted by able and knowledgeable advisers — will find creative ways to empower them economically, not only by means of handouts in the guise of social grants, but by increasingly creating conditions that will involve them in the economy.
And for this he cannot only depend on a capitalist economy, although growth in the economy does usually entail the availability of jobs. Instead, he should, in my humble judgement, find a compromise between a capitalist economy — which will, in all probability, still be with us for a long time to come, unfortunately — and that kind of democracy which is not only sustained by a progressive, human rights-oriented constitution as well as a corresponding justice and legal system, but also has a sense of what “distributive justice” means.
An analogy may help clarify what I mean. After the transition to democracy in early 19th-century France, peasants found themselves in a situation very similar to that of the poor in South Africa today, namely that they enjoyed “equality” (in principle, at least) with other citizens before the law, but continued to experience material or economic inequality. In the words of a member of philosopher Michel Foucault’s seminar group that researched the reasons for the brutal crimes in France during that time, the concrete violence inflicted on peasants during the preceding despotic regime of the aristocracy and royalty made way, in the newly democratic France, for “the abstract violence of money”. And it should not be difficult to understand that money (or lack of it) can be every bit as violent as the physical kind.
Anyone who has had experience of the difficulties involved in securing access to legal representation when it became necessary either to defend oneself in court or to attempt to “pursue justice” by taking someone else to court without large financial reserves at one’s disposal will know that so-called “justice” all too often seems to favour the wealthy. I recall a film, years ago, titled Justice for All, which commented wryly on this cruel irony of life. (In South Africa, admittedly, we have the fine institution of the Legal Aid Board, which, as far as I know, assists the impecuniary among us to gain access to appropriate legal representation — but it takes no genius to realise that the wealthy will always have greater access to high-flying lawyers and advocates than those that legal aid can provide.)
Hence, to return to the meaning of “distributive justice” — unless a society finds ways to create mechanisms (through taxation, for example) by which some of the wealth generated by an economy is collected for purposes of redistribution, “the abstract violence of money” will take its toll among the poor, and return to haunt it in the shape of excessive crime, for instance. Again, mere social grants will not suffice, although one should acknowledge that the Mbeki government, through its programme of extending social grants to several categories of people in South Africa, was in the process of promoting social welfare substantially.
Zuma, as newly elected president of the ANC, should strengthen and extend this programme in innovative ways — ways that go hand in hand with job creation in partnership with the private sector. As the experience of the social effects of the “dole” in the United Kingdom shows, people who survive on a social handout alone, minus the concrete experience of earning a living by working, seem to lack even the motivation to live meaningful lives. Only when one has the opportunity to work for a living can one be expected to become a self-respecting human being who lives a fulfilling life.
Needless to say, the capitalist private sector would not do this on its own. Seldom, in the history of the world, have the wealthy shown much concern for the poor — in the economic sphere, “self-love” reigns supreme, as Adam Smith (among others) noted more than two centuries ago. A quid pro quo is required — something that business needs must be exchanged for something the country’s poor need, namely jobs. Business needs circumstances where it can flourish (which a well-functioning government can provide); the poor need jobs. Is it asking too much that some of the profit that business makes (some of which it spends on colossal salaries for its executives — salaries certainly not necessary for living comfortably) should be channelled into job creation? Can one put a price on the future security, or the security of the future, for that matter, of this beautiful country?
I feel that the electricity situation should be factored into your thinking.
Basically we have run out of growth power for the next 5 years at least until new power stations come online.
So how does anyone help the poor in a stagnate economy?
So we agree that it all hinges on “how to create sustainable jobs that produce economic value”.
I’ve spent my life working for capitalists as a manufacturing engineer. I am one of those worker bees who help the mean fat capitalist pigs make money by employing people to convert materials into value propositions. I’ve watched ill considered government interventions drive millions (yes you’ve seen the statistics) of jobs to other markets in other countries.
And you say that capitalism does not produce job professor…
That’s why we working class wollies wonder what work you wondrous wesearchers do at uniworsity.
Professor, once again a thought-provoking read.
Empowerment is crucial to SA’s future.
Mohammad Yunus, winner of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize and globally acknowledged as the founder of the system of “micro-credit” as a weapon in the fight against global poverty, discusses this in depth in his book, “Banker to the Poor”. In his book he dissects the age old question, “should we give hand-outs to the poor?”.
Yunus makes an insightful argument in saying that most of the time giving out charity proves more harmful than useful. From the donor’s perspective, you have a feeling that you have achieved something in alleviating your conscience, when in fact you have achieved nothing substantial.
What you have achieved, according to Yunus, is a cycle of perpetual poverty wherby the recipient assumes a neverending passive role, continuously moving on to the next handout. By giving charity to the poor we are simply throwing money at a complex problem, not creating a short or long term (sustainable) solution.
The way to really help, argues Yunus, is far more involved than that. Next time you see a beggar at the traffic light, stop your car, get out, and engage in conversation with the beggar. Try and find out as much about him as possible, ito what is ailing him, what his circumstances are, and what skills, however menial, he possesses. Then once you have done this, think of a way in which he could be empowered to lift himself out of his current situation, and think how you could help him achieve this.
Yet how many of us stopping at the traffic lights would do this? Not so easy, is it?
Your thoughts?
Ok, im gonna tell you something that might actually shock you. Apartheid happened.
Goddamnit, its people like you thats gonna force me to say smart things again and thats so much effort.
Ah Prof, you’ve preempted my next post! Except I had this whole anti neo-liberal rant planned out. But thanks, it’s important that the capitalist pig-dogs (hehe) start thinking about ‘sustainable’ redistribution.
jobs ,jobs ,jobs, I tend to wonder that having a job and you cannot even feed your own children with whatever you earn, makes any difference.With the inflation being what it is nowadays, it goes without saying people will still go on suffering and expecting some form of a hand out from the State.In the Uk ofcourse millions are on benefits the government provides housing and fuels drug dependecy and alcohol dependece on others due to this money they receive from benefits.Many hate even mentioning the word of “Job”.The question still remains how are people going to be empowered to function independetly of govt grants or any form Govt assistance.Should people still be asking what can they do for their Govt, when the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
Why the roll of the dice was predictable , and what to do about the cause.
One thought that comes to my mind is that Mbeki & Co. ruled while this country is or was experiencing the longest period of economic growth and re-distribution in the country’s recent history. Now that the dice have presented a new Zuma & Co, will they have the luxury of implementing what their constituency needs, to allow them to remain in power for longer than one term? when it is possible that the business cycle will no doubt turn against them. Despite all that is said about our prospects, we are unfortunately linked to global trade and as we are at least 20 years away from exporting ‘value added’ products from this well endowed country, it is becoming obvious that International trade will be harder in the years ahead. Our raw materiel competitors (Russia, Australia South America) are not sleeping and are mostly in the developing world with quite different historical problems and demographics.
So where will the resources come from to ‘broaden’ the benefit to more South Africans? The absence of which is why the dice are where they are. Zuma & Co will certainly have to correct the past Mbeki experience, (despite the huge increase in social benefits over the past 10 years or so). Will it be more charters, royalties, capping company profits, windfall taxes, higher taxes for the ‘rich’, property taxes, wealth taxes, it will certainly have to include many of these, inflation will rise , the deficit will widen , and as more Black South Africans have tasted the benefits of ‘credit’ it will be hard for Mboyeni, if he survives, to correct the balance with higher interest rates, so a devaluing currency will result, which will compound and add to a relative global un-competitive risk/reward outcome for investors and entrepreneurs.
The outcome is not certain , however with increasing socialism on the cards , diluting of the wealth of the nation will be inevitable.
The greatest enemy of the ANC is within itself. The ANC has provided an excellent institutional and legal framework at local government level to address problems of poverty and economic development. It has been plagued by poor management, greed, self-interest, poor leadership and sheer waste of resources by local government politicians. Largely this constituency has voted in Zuma and he will find himself in the same position as Mbeki if not worse off. Maybe South Africa needs to privatise local government and take it out of the clutches of selfish political opportunities.
Sipho – Thanks for your comment, which is spot-on. As you will no doubt have noticed, Yunus’s views correspond to my own, namely that social handouts are not ultimately the solution to poverty, and that only people who have the experience of being paid for work on their part, are likely to feel ‘empowered’.
Bond – of course capitalist economies generate work, or jobs – I never said anything to the contrary. But remember that it does so on the basis of the principle of scarcity of jobs, which the workers have to compete for. When it suits capital, it sheds jobs as easily as they were created, all in the service of the hallowed principle of optimal profits. My point is simply this: in a country such as ours, where jobs are still sorely needed, is it justifiable for a company (I can think of several such cases recently) to declare huge profits for a financial year (in the billions) and then still announce job cuts running into thousands the next year to ‘improve competitiveness’? At the same time these companies pay their top executives bonuses of millions of rand. Capital has to develop a heart, and be prepared, sometimes, to limit profit for the sake of retaining jobs (not to such an extent that the company concerned will go under; it requires good judgment, to be sure). But that is not the way it usually operates, of course. (And by the way, in case you thought otherwise, Bond, academics like myself are also just workers, albeit intellectual workers, both in terms of what we do and what we earn – which is peanuts compared to the private sector. Which is no reason to complain; a moderate income is enough to live – the important thing is what one does for fulfillment: ‘being’, rather than ‘having’.)
Bernard – I think your analysis is a good one, because you bring out the complexity of the situation very well. Governments today – and SA is no exception – have the difficult task to remain part of a globalized economy while at the same time recognizing the specific needs of their populations. I don’t believe, however, as the ‘free market’ supporters do, that the market-mechanism alone will or can bring about what I called ‘distributive justice’ in my piece, above. The wealth generated by the market has to be distributed in ways that – as Sipho argued via Yunus’s views – engage as many people as possible in the economy, instead of merely giving out social grants (much as the latter seem, for the moment, to be needed by millions). These ways or mechanisms are not ready-made; they have to devised by government and the private sector together in such a way that the private sector would still find it worthwhile to operate in the country while also being willing to go further than the creation of jobs according to the principle of scarcity (of jobs, to ensure maximum profit). However, even the most astute economist would acknowledge that the sheer complexity of the problem in the globalized economy (in which countries have to participate if they want to survive, let alone flourish) is such that there are no easy solutions. Socialism – although underpinned by the admirable principle of social and economic justice – does not work in any supposedly ‘pure’ form; that much history has taught us. Capitalism, again, works very well for the few, but lacks any semblance of social and economic justice (there are several publications which show how much, since the 1970s, the gap between rich and poor has widened worldwide). What seems to be required, is a combination of the two: a capitalist economy that incorporates principles of social and economic justice. Precisely how this should be done is the difficult question. If it is not done, though – as the French aristocracy learnt the hard way during the French revolution of the 18th century; remember Marie-Antionette’s cynical remark that, if the poor do not have bread, they should eat cake? – one sits on a pressure cooker where the pressure of poverty will just continue increasing…
Bert, sipho aint really black. You do know this, right?