What does it mean to govern effectively in a highly unequal society? The African National Congress answer to this question is that governing is about “advancing the national democratic revolution”.
At its essence, the NDR is about changing social and economic conditions created under apartheid, through tackling structural nature of poverty, inequality and unemployment. There has been progress, evidenced in significant improvements in access to services and a significant increase in social grants. Underlying these improvements has been a moderately expansionary fiscal stance since 2000.
However, our official development indicators suggest that poverty traps remain resilient, and progress in these indicators is modest and fragile. The official government statistics indicate that 43,2% of South Africans lived in poverty in 2006. Importantly, this statistic represents a decline in the poverty rate, which increased from 1993 to 1999, due to excessively tight fiscal policy. As fiscal policy has become more expansionary, South Africa has experienced a decline in its poverty rate. There are disputes about whether the extent of poverty reduction since 2000 has been as quick as the government suggests, but there is broad agreement that poverty has been reduced since 2000.
These reductions in poverty are, however, fragile. The fragility of these gains are associated with the inability of poor households to withstand shocks, whether household shock (for example death and unemployment) or national (such as a decline in commodity prices, or a sudden revaluation of the currency). Being unable to withstand these shocks, these households would sink below the poverty line. The policy implication is that if these households are unable to withstand shocks, South Africa could experience a large increase in its official poverty rate. This is especially true as about 5% of the population live on slightly above the poverty line. These households might not be classified as poor in the official data, but survive on slightly more than the most used poverty line of R250 per person.
Reinforcing the picture of fragile and moderate gains is that income inequality has risen in South Africa. The government, to its credit, recognises that expansion of social grants and job creation has not been sufficient to reduce inequality. This is reflected in the bottom 10% of South Africans receiving only 0,6% of total income in 2006, the exact percentage they received in 1993! The richest 10% received 55,9% of income in 2006; slightly up from 1993. The resilience of inequality to government policy has important policy implications.
First, any economic growth strategy must change this distribution pattern if poverty reduction and employment creation are to be sustainable. Second, involving the poor in the economy requires the government to craft strategies for inclusion and redistribution. This is not a novel conclusion, as these foundational elements of development strategy had been central to the Reconstruction and Development Programme. In fact, the need for redistribution finds expression in government policy that is focused on the “second economy”, which despite its conceptual ambiguities recognises that without interventions, large sections of our society will be excluded from economic growth.
South Africa has, however, been very modest in its interventions. Other countries — both developed and developing — have crafted and are experimenting with strategies for redistribution that are significantly more ambitious than our own. India is experimenting with a large-scale employment guarantee scheme. Unlike our public works programmes, these schemes provide for longer-term employment and certainty of income. Several Latin-American countries have attempted to link social assistance programmes to build capabilities. For instance, children must attend school for households to qualify for grants.
While there is some debate, the value of the grants in Latin America is considered to be in line with the poverty line. In South Africa, the commendable expansion of the child-support grant provides a grant that is lower than the proposed official poverty lines and that is not linked to building capabilities.
Across the globe, governments are using state money to fund programmes aimed at addressing youth unemployment, a worrying problem internationally. Our combined youth unemployment programmes, compared with international experience — and more importantly with the exceptional high youth unemployment we experience — will not tackle this challenge. These international experiences provide important lessons for how we tackle poverty, and indicate clearly that even under current conditions more redistributive policies are feasible and effective.
The argument for more direct state redistribution — primarily through the fiscus — is reinforced by the absence of market-based opportunities for the poor. Black economic empowerment provides an example of the closure of opportunities for the poor. There are several BEE companies that are venturing into productive activities, which means that they are actually employing people. However, the vast majority of BEE deals provide for significant changes in share ownership, without any material impact on job creation.
In fact, it would not be unsurprising to find that BEE deals create the least number of jobs by R1-million invested. Yet, the government has effectively run a programme to make BEE compliance one of “rules of the game” for doing business. There are, of course, important motivations for BEE; however, as we learn from the Asian Tigers — and India and China more recently — governments provide opportunities for capitalists but ask for something in return. The quid pro quo is that these capitalists promise mass employment and sustained investment. Instead, in the government’s engagements with the private sector — white and black — it has failed to establish job creation as a “rule of the game”.
The South African challenge is finding the right mix of policies that would lead to a more aggressive stance of reducing poverty, inequality and creating jobs. In our context, it is only the ANC by virtue of its political dominance that can implement a more aggressive redistribution strategy. Political dominance is one requirement; another is utilising this dominance to lead a redistributive programme. There is, for instance, ample empirical evidence to show that more equal societies experience longer and higher sustained economic growth. Political leadership is, however, required to build support across classes. Economic growth remains important, but tackling inequality is a complementary goal.
Most importantly, a more aggressive redistributive stance is not a one-way bet: ill-designed redistributive programmes could backfire, or the redistributive outcomes could benefit not the poor, but the elite. Again, political leadership is vital to maintain an ethical stance towards the poor, and ensure the balance between economic growth and redistribution.
The ANC thus must provide leadership on how South Africa will tackle poverty and inequality traps. Governing in this environment is a tough process, requiring the government to navigate a complex set of power arrangements. South Africa, for instance, is one of few countries that have a strong trade-union movement, and a powerful big business sector. There are new forms of power emerging in the protests around HIV/Aids and service delivery. At the same time, black business is emerging as a strong political force. There are thus multiple centres of power, with different proposals on how to reach our developmental targets.
This not only reflects the nature of democracy in South Africa, but also is the terrain in which a consensus on a developmental strategy must be crafted and implemented. It is in this area of consensus building around developmental strategy that the ANC has failed. The absence of a pragmatic consensus on a developmental strategy hinders more redistributive efforts, and fails to mobilise society around a common programme.
A more inclusive governance style obviously has a touchy-feely quality to it. However, in a society as unequal as ours, the bringing together of different actors to craft a development strategy is tougher than, for instance, the government insulating itself and implementing.
Moreover, it is a necessary condition to maintain investment levels in order to ensure a sustainable poverty-eradication effort. For our country to meet its targets, the ANC must tackle the politics of redistribution, and the process towards developing a comprehensive development strategy. It needs to do that if the fragile gains of our democracy are to be sustained, and so that we tackle the structural nature of poverty in our society. In the run-up to Polokwane, hopefully ANC delegates do more than wear competing T-shirts and go through the process of finalising nominations. They need to focus on what programme the elected leadership of the ANC will be implementing.
This article in an edited form appeared in the print edition of the Mail & Guardian. The print version can be found here
This entry was posted
on Monday, November 26th, 2007 at 11:08 am and is filed under Perspective, News & Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
25 Responses to “The politics of redistribution”
Nicely said. My experience has shown that at the implementation level government is faced with the following problems as well:
- Insufficient and unreliable economic data
- Project-specific approach to development
- Weak economic inputs into development plans (IDPs, PGDS)- resulting in over-ambitious plans
- Funding for stimulating private sector investment is disjointed
- And there is unclear role-definition for economic development support
Great article! One of the problems I have with government intervention is that it lacks a long-term dynamic. A trade off with business for an element of pro-poor return is in itself great but what does this achieve in the long term? Are the poor beneficiaries of such transactions going to break the poverty ceiling and reduce the future numbers requiring such benefits? It’s a bit like the welfare grant system; a pension and a child grant to a household of 6 still keeps them below the poverty line (about R160pppp as opposed to R250). It’s better than nothing but doesn’t technically eradicate poverty. In fact, I would argue that the welfare system – to some extent – entrenches or even institutionalises poverty. Welfare may feed households but it doesn’t dispose them any better to the labour market or even local subsistence/income activities. I suspect that the despondent category in any employment statistics, i.e. ‘stopped/not looking for work’ are in many instances beneficiaries of welfare payments.
To be fair, what many such people are saying is that employment (if found) doesn’t significantly advantage the household over their welfare income. It does not significantly empower in terms of improved socio-economic choices to really be that attractive.
But I’m going off at a tangent - getting back to the development strat; I think there are (at least) two prominent issues that need to be addressed in the development strategy to which you refer;
1. The relationship between the formal and informal economy. In SA, the latter is really just another welfare institution, providing very basic [albeit important] incomes to millions of people. Amongst our fellow SADC countries, the informal sector is dynamic, entrepreneurial and critical to the country’s GDP. There is a lot more to work with in other developing countries’ informal sector than our own, which appears to be something of a holding pattern between pittance and despair. The formal sector doesn’t really engage with the informal sector – it either makes the goods itself or shops in China. I think this is quite different to, for example, Uganda, Tanzania, etc. where the relationships between sectors are more pronounced.
2. The second issue is capacity; the smaller, particularly rural, municipalities lack the capacity to make things happen. Any development strategy will have to take into account that the constitutionally mandated ‘agents’ (i.e. the municipalities) are not really up to the job. I have had endless problems with municipalities who promise everything and deliver nothing. If they are the gatekeepers and agents of change – change will be very slow at best. In many cases, the communities do not trust them either. A very difficult situation in which to make things happen.
Most of the poorest in SA live in the rural Eastern Cape and KZN. These persons have little economic opportunities, despite the fact that they live on highly valuable agricultural land. The existing hard and soft infrastructure in these areas dont support the agricultural sector either. As a redistributive policy, I would love it if govt could initiate a R100bn-R200bn 15-year public investment plan to stimulate the economies in these areas, i.e.:
* Build the infrastructure: roads, irrigation infrastructure, electricity, etc.
* Upgrade and properly develop the infrastructure in towns and also the villages.
* Develop the soft infrastructure: markets, agricultural colleges, skills training programmes, etc.
* Provide subsidies to small scale farmers (so they can actually compete against established commercial farmers), give scholarships to agricultural schools, etc.
* And many more
Basically a “New Deal” type of public investment in these areas, not the scanty like EPWP that have been taking place in these areas. The purpose is also attract private sector investment to further support these initiatives, encourage SMME development by locals (also by providing the necessary support structures) and ultimately act as trigger for longer term, sustainable economic development in these areas.
I forgot to add: the purpose of the plan is to maximise the local economic multiplier (i.e. long term economic impact on the local economy), not highest profit / return on investment. Not to debunk the PFMA, but the state should not really seek a financial “return on investment” but more a economic return on investment in terms of investment, development and jobs.
@ Garsen and Robert – I agree. Improving planning and getting to that illusive integration is vital. This means building the capacity of municipalities. Check out the Municapal IQ website, which has some interesting stats. I am still working through them, but it provides a good input for economic planning. http://www.municipaliq.co.za/
@ Robert – There is an interesting development in social grant systems internationally, that links grants to conditions (e.g. children must go to school, or get immunised.). This is precisely due to the point you raise about grants not lifting people out of poverty. I am writing on this approach, and ‘asset based social policy’ for a project I am working on. Will share more detailed thoughts on TL in the future on this.
On the formal and informal linkages, you are right. There are some examples in SA (sugar and wool) of how links between the formal and informal can be developed. But, the informal sector is survivalist in nature. Government’s ‘second economy’ strategy has conceptual problems, but is recognition from government that a different intervention strategy is needed.
@ Oupoot – I was surprised to find that it is the Eastern Cape and Free State that have the highest poverty rates (measured as percent of the population). Like you I assumed KZN and EC. This is from the recent National Treasury statistics as it develops the poverty line. (If you want a copy happy to email it). But, I think you make a valid point on the need for a better agricultural strategy. On the ‘New Deal’ approach, I agree with you. We need a much more expansive and extensive strategy for redistribution, and this must involve land. An interesting perspective - supportive of quicker land redistribution - from the World Bank can be found at the following link http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__national/&articleid=325274&referrer=RSS
I like the way you discuss the ‘economic return on investment’. A distinction between profits, and wider development outcomes I think is powerful way to debate these issues.
Great to see others make the case for more and better redistribution. And, that so many people have ideas on what we should be doing.
For someone to be rich many must be poor otherwise the poor will not know that they are poor.
Is someone living a simple existance in a rural area neccessarily poor or do they choose to live a simple life? Would they respond possitively to a raised standard of living? Yet they are classified as poor.
Any redistribution of wealth (money) will simple return to the rich over time as there is a basic reason why poor people will always be poor. They don’t pursue riches relentlessly. They are content with less. Most rich folk have originally come from very poor backgrounds simply because they had a passion to become rich and not through any redistribution of wealth / upliftment programmes.
We, relatively rich folk, (we have computers connected to the internet) have to ease our conscience by redistributing wealth but it won’t make the poor any richer over the long term.
The peasants might revolt but the majority will remain peasants. History has shown this to be a constant throughout the ages.
You are right, we should try to raise the general standard of living BUT we will never eradicate poverty as it is all relative and in the mind.
The real way to reduce poverty is to have negative population growth.
“There is a lot more to work with in other developing countries’ informal sector than our own, which appears to be something of a holding pattern between pittance and despair.”
Roberts makes a meaningful observation. Having spent some time in the East it strikes me that “land” in SA political discourse was antediluvian; simply the wrong word.
Space could be a better way of referring to a reality that fundamental to economic success. It is what the poor in the East have. Mansions rise next to hovels, formal business operates with traders just outside the door or across the street, successful executives in the Science Parks have parents who operate soup kitchens on the pavements with out any shame. The executive is often uncomfortable but that is because he does not want others to think he is not looking after his parents.
Besides many other benefits, most importantly access to a market with money, when it comes to development this space has to be bought and the sellers are canny. Families will live in a hovel and wait for the price. And they get it because there is no shame in doing so.
This lack of shame is a cultural matter. To achieve it in SA a massive educational drive has to be implemented. This is not impossible. The achievement of a democracy in SA was the result of just that.
It can be done, but only if the people agree to do it. A CODESA of economic affairs may be an answer.
Once again, thanks for the very thoughtful comments. A quick note, before responding to MidoFo and Owen. The Municipal IQ website I referred to in an earlier response is a subscription based service, and like all of them is very pricey. I will post links to publically available data on municapalities in the next few days, as a comment to this article.
@ Owen - poverty is structural. It reflects our history. Amartya Sen, for instance, draws a distinction between a person fasting for spiritual/ religious reasons on the one hand, and a poor person who has no food. Poor people do not have a choice. There means of living - land, education, employment - were determined by apartheid government. And, being poor and surviving is very hard work.
On redistribution and wealth. There is solid empirical evidence to indicate that economic growth is sustained by making society more equal. That means that redistribution, remains a key not only to increase economic growth, but also to ensure that benifits of growth are widely shared. I will do an article on this in the next week, time permitting.
@ MidaFo - Having a ’space’ perspective is important. You are correct to indicate that in the East the poor have land, and that there is less of a spatial divide.
Adam Smith, raised the question of shame, very early on. He mentioned that someone should have be able to walk in the streets with shoes, but that differed according to context. I think Smith is right on this. I do not neccesarily agree with your view that people are too ashamed to do what is needed. I see the opposite every day. Maybe, it is the rich that do not want the poor within their eyesights? But, you raise a point about cultural change and poverty, which is something I still need to think about.
A CODESA on economic affairs, is needed. Or soemthing like that. We need to build a society wide undertanding that breaking poverty and inequality, requires us to do much more. That is tougher, than simply implementing policy.
One point: shame is imposed by chauvinists. The people are not too ashamed to do what is necessary. All the evidence indicates they are only too willing. The shame is imposed. Look at the laws that exclude the poor from participating; at the shameful actions of governments who remove street traders and beggars from the presence of the visiting dignitaries and the venues attracting international visitors. This means that poverty, which is indeed a shame, is not the fault of the poor.
Oh it is delightful to write that! It is so anarchic! It is so true!
Watch this space as regards the looming Soccer Cup.
So the destructive consequences of Apartheid will not be eradicated until the whites (the guilty group by and large) accept the physical presence of he blacks (the oppressed group by and large)
Finally it has to be said again and again (because people do not like to think about the truth when it nails them) that the failures in SA, in the past and now, must be attributed to the people who had the choice. That is the white man and the woman who supported them.
To balance this comment it must be said that there are huge successes in SA. But it remains true that in this balance the biggest cannot be attributed to the culture of the white.
In response to MidaFo; I’m sure that whites established and controlled the prevalent values and attitudes that characterise the way people do business, the way the formal sector eschews the informal sector, etc. But it is not whites who currently control policy. It is by and large black local/national governments that manage space and to some extent therefore, the interface between formal and informal sectors. It may be a crisis of inherited values but it’s not currently a ‘white thing’.
The failure to integrate – or at least promote - the informal sector is because it is not widely perceived as part of the solution to SA’s economic growth & development. It’s seen as a fortuitous safety net for the excluded, capable of feeding and keeping people moderately happy until the ‘integration’ plans kick in. There are many NGO, government, pvt sector training/capacity building programmes that pay little cognisance to the requirements of doing business in the informal sector but instead offer computer training, book keeping, technology maintenance, etc. courses that are really pre-induction classes for the ‘soon to be integrated’.
That’s why the space is being maintained because we believe that growth will come from the formal sector so are not inclined to invest much on the nearly obsolete. There is also an element of chauvinism; the formal swagger of Africa’s biggest…economy.
@ MidaFo - Our history still haunts us. However, increasingly poverty is becoming more class based, rather than race based. Blacks remain the poorest obviously, but there is significant mobility amongst blacks. An important question then is why some have become upwardly mobile, while others are tarpped in poverty?
A feasible redistribution startegy in our context, should not be punitive. It should rather use the fiscus, political alliances and even the market to change distribution patterns. It is about creating assets and resources for the victims.
@ Robert - The approach to the informal econmy is very important. I think De Soto has a point, even though I disagree with him. The point he makes is that market economies require formalised property rights. I disagree that this will lead to widescale poverty reduction. I fully agree that their is a mismatch between government interventions on the one hand, and the realities on the ground.
Apartheid was essentially a minority dictatorship like any other dictatorship world wide. Most are founded on socalistic / communisitic values (the Nats had their roots in the SACP 1920’s) and all failed / fail to address poverty and yet what brings them to power is the mobilising of the massses to eradicate poverty / a better life for all. Unfortunately, the great revolutions of the past, French, Russian, Chinese have shown that poverty was exacerbated not alleviated. SA was and will be no different.
I spent 30 years in a development agency / bank and came to realise that alleviating poverty while a noble goal cannot be achieved for one simple reason. The moment the government takes responsibility for eradicating poverty the individuals stop trying and hold out their hands. The queues for social grants are testimany to this.
Dont give out fish, teach the man how to fish.
Take RDP housing. The contract is awarded to a few individuals who make a profit out of building houses for the poor. Do the mass of people benefit long term? They just have to pay for water, electricty, rates etc. It does force them to work harder if they can get work. Surely teaching the poor how to build a house would be far more beneficial.
We can redistribute all we want, all that will happen is that the rich will get richer as they know how to use the system and the poor, well, they will stay poor.
Zimbabwe is a classic case. The old rich whites like the Tsars, French royalty etc are gone and the new rich blacks get richer and the poor stand in queues for food. What changed - the color of the skin of the rich is all that changed.
Sorry, but I just don’t believe poverty can be eradicated, maybe alleviated but there will always be poor people relative to the rich folk and the poverty line will just be moved up or down to suit the polliticians and their next election campaign.
I remain a sceptic of poverty alleviation programs as they generally mean at best a shift in wealth from one rich person to another rich person, at worse the retaining of the status quo.
Also the French revolution showed that land redistribution to the peasants/ poor did not work over the medium to long term. The poor went back to the ghettos and new rich landlords appeared.
Owen, you raise many points. In the article I indicate that redistribution is not a one way bet. I however believe that we can be doing better as a country. It might help if you read the World Development Report 2006, and the Human Development Report 2006. They both deal with equity and its relationship to economic growth, poverty reduction etc. They both make a convincing argument - from different perspectives - on greater levels of equity being acheivable, and done in ways that benifit the poor. There is always the danger of elite capture, and well designed systems are needed. Amongst, the approaches that have worked, there is a strong focus on building capabilities and assets. In borrow the example, teaching people to fish. But, governments are needed to support people to become independent. BTW, the Nats had their roots in the SACP? Please explain.
Owen you do make sense indeed.
As for building houses people in the squatter camps show stunning innovation. Instead of flattening the products of this amazing energy we should run a competition, assess and judge the best on the basis of innovation and utilisation of available resources, publish the interviews of the participants and the pictures of their efforts in a nice glossy magazine over the period of judging and make heroes of those who are most creative. Giving a cash prize may just be the starting a new contracting business. I believe the winners could be more popular than soccer stars.
This will not make losers of those who do not win for it honours and publicises all who were able to participate.
PS. I have always felt that poverty is largely not a lack of resources; it is a lack of significance; a product of chauvinism. It is partly and essentially what we may call enforced envy. Having painstakingly made a good roof out of beaten tin cans the owner is made to believe that he is no good because his roof is not tiled.
Ebrahim-Khalil, Its a long time since I read up on this bit of history but around 1920 after the Bolshevik revolution in Russia the SACP was born. In its ranks were poor white afrikaners. Around that time there were the Foordsburg riots. Jan Smuts ordered the army in and some afrikaners were killed. Anyway after about 5 years the whites decided to seperate from the SACP as they wanted job reservation for whites, they joined / formed the Nats.
In the eighties an english friend of mine came to this country from working in Poland. I still think that he worked for British intelligence but he never admitted it and he now works in China. Anyway he maintained that the Nats ruled SA in much the same way as the communists ruled Poland.
The old Nats, other than skin color problems, had / have more in common with the ANC than the DA.
Midafo, there are poor people in all parts of the world. Go visits india and china to see much worse poverty than what exists in SA and it has nothing to do with white culture. In Rio, Brazil they build multi storey shacks next to luxury hotels. The chinese sweat shops where poeple work, eat and sleep in the factory and the practice in india of breaking childrens limbs so that they can be better beggars are deplorable. In some ways it makes apartheid look like a picnic as our slums look quite respectable in comparison.
Rich and poor don’t know skin color.
Can a government make a difference, yes they can. Will they, unlikely as self interest normally prevails.
@ Owen - Actually, India has a lower poverty rate than SA, measured as a percentage of total population. I have been to Rio, and have not seen multi-storey shacks next to hotels. The spatial aspects of Rio are fascinating, the favelas (slums) are on the hills, on the outskirts. From the beach till about four blocks into the city it is so posh. There is a clear spatial division in Rio between the rich and poor.
Owen, I think you a strechting reality to argue that the Nats had there roots in the SACP. There was this thing called nationalism, and some fisticuffs with the Brits, that might be more important to explain the rise of the Nats.
@ MidaFo and Robert- just back from a presentation, and chatted to some informal traders. I think I am getting the point on the informal sector, more clearly. Thanks
I promised to post some links for free data on local government socio-economic data. Online data on local government that is freely avilable can be found at
Over the last three years I have become increasingly convinced that much of the difficulty in the last century and more is closely associated with the previous white presence here, which presence can reasonably be summed up with the word piracy. Moreover the sophistication of Eastern culture, the gentle nature of interpersonal communication, the respect for the scholar, the tolerance and praise of differences, makes me think deeply about Western basics such as monotheism and our brand of individualism, which are beginning to make me feel curiously uncomfortable. Your confident assertions brought this to mind.
It is relevant to say that there is somehow no poverty here in that those without position or money blame no one but themselves. Don’t push me too hard on this. The most relevant word in my mind is somehow, so it is a mystery to me. I see grannies in the streets, little and old and wizened, pulling carts of scraps they find by grovelling in the dust on building sites and they are not ashamed, in fact they are respected even if most who do so desperately work to avoid such a fate. Then I hear from the smart and wealthy executive lady I consult with that her mother of 85 runs a clothes stall in the street market, every day of the week and on Chinese New Year (half the day)! And the sweet lady is deeply ashamed of this because her neighbours may think that she is not looking after her mother, but mother refuses to stop. The money is saved.
Somehow again it seems that the answer lies in the fact that the Chinese are not Christian. Moreover they are not anti-Christian: they would happily put a crucifix in their temple if they did not think the the Christians would object. Please regard this as a puzzle I share with you.
We have a lot to learn. If the Americans, with their “virtue of selfishness”, fail in their desire to queer the pitch, cause war between China and Taiwan and cannot enslave Iraq to starve China of oil, then China is going to be the economic king of the world. They probably will be whatever the Americans do
From this vantage we Westerners look increasingly like brigands. It is becoming embarrassing to think that as a boy I used to believe that it was the Chinese in the China Sea who were the pirates! Who made me believe it?
Ebrahim, my referneces to Rio, India etc date back some 20 odd years so much will have changed since then considering the economic growth of all the countries mentioned. My point was that our poor are no worse off than other poor peoples and it has nothing to do with white culture as Midafo was alluding to.
Some online history of the SACP for your info. My understanding from other literature is that majority of those white communists left the SACP and joined with the nationalists.
The history of the South African Communist Party (SACP), formed in 1921 as the Communist Party of South Africa (CPSA) and subsequently banned in 1950, has generated a very rich and fascinating literature. During the first phase of its existence, between 1921 and the early 1930s, the CPSA battled with the reality of being a largely white organisation that had to adapt its Marxism-Leninism to conditions in which the African majority, irrespective of class affiliation, were subjected to one of the most oppressive systems of settler colonial rule. Thus the CPSA supported the 1922 white miners’ strike whose main objective was the protection of the job reservation regime for white workers. The Communist International, the Comintern, intervened in the form of the famous 1928 “Native Republic” resolution which called upon the SACP to work with the nationalist movement for the establishment of the national democratic order.
During the second phase, from the late 1930s to the outbreak of World War II, the CPSA underwent a strategic reorientation and was fully Africanised, at least in terms of its membership. The period 1931-35 was however one of the most difficult, as the CPSA had to survive Stalinisation efforts in the form of purges and expulsions, the organisation’s membership dropping from about 3 000 in 1929 to below 300 in the mid-1930s. The first generation of African CPSA leaders emerged during this phase, beginning with Albert Nzula who became the first African general secretary of the organisation. Other notable African figures who emerged during this phase were Moses Kotane (who became general secretary in 1938), Edwin Mofutsanyane, and JB Marks.
@ Owen, I know the history of the SACP fairly well. And yes, it started out based on racial lines as you described. The point I was making - which seems to have been lost - is that there were more important factors leading to the rise of the Nats, then disgruntled communist turned nationalists. Anyway, perhaps more for another day.
@ MidaFo - I am always cautious of cultural explanations of social phenomena. The Chinese story from a policy perspective fascinates me, and I am still learning about it. However, it would seem that egalitarian policies have provided a foundation for economic progress. But, there are of course problems even in China.
We cannot pretend that cultural perspective does not play a part. It is simply silly to ignore it, like wearing a blindfold because there is a snake in the room. Owen’s statement that rich and poor don’t know skin colour is a blindfold statement. Culture and religion lie at the heart of distribution of wealth in all its forms.
Winning this debate is not the point of it but Owen’s post about China was brutally inadequate. Sorry if this post is inadequate but it is all getting too confusing for me.
Would a similar agricultural subsidy for small scale agriculture not also benefit agriculture in rural Eastern Cape, KZN, Mpumalanga and Limpopo as a first step to radically develop the agricultural sector in these parts of the country. Possibly also smaller land reform and redistribution projects?
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
Ebrahim-Khalil is an independent researcher and policy analyst.
Ebrahim-Khalil's links
My Blog A space to share what I am working on and thinking.
This conversation from the movie Before Sunset provides a reason why the people who provide the little achievements of the day should be resting on Ma...
Two incomplete and complicit strands of thought characterise South African responses to the publication of a cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad (P...
There is some confusion over whether the idiom should be a "600-pound gorilla" or the much larger "800-pound" creature. The usage also differs with so...
One line of comments stood out for me as I reacquaint myself with Thought Leader. It stood out because of its callousness. In response to an article ...
As Professor Pink, lead narrator on the SABC educational programme, Knock Knock, explored Galileo's confrontation with power, the SABC was engaged in ...
Loading ...
Nicely said. My experience has shown that at the implementation level government is faced with the following problems as well:
- Insufficient and unreliable economic data
- Project-specific approach to development
- Weak economic inputs into development plans (IDPs, PGDS)- resulting in over-ambitious plans
- Funding for stimulating private sector investment is disjointed
- And there is unclear role-definition for economic development support
(Report abuse)