|
||||
Dale T. McKinley *Political
commentator, community activist and independent researcher
A
few months ago Dale T. McKinley, one of the government’s most formidable
leftwing critics, published a comprehensive report commisioned by the
Johannesburg-based Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation on the
reasons for community revolts on local government level. It is a penetrating,
surgical analysis of how the ANC’s neoliberal policy is crushing poor South
Africans, which makes the Minister of Intelligence, Mr. Ronnie Kasrils’
investigation by the National Intelligence Agency of the reasons behind the
revolts absurd, if not volgar, not to speak of his blaming of a “Third Force”.
On these pages Die Vrye Afrikaan
publishes in the run-up to the local government election on March 1 with
McKinley’s friendly permission the executive summary, recommendations and
verbatim extracts on the revolts from his report. The full report appears in
English at http://www.csvr.org.za/papers/papvtp10.htm
The emergence of post apartheid social movements in the first decade of democracy has been dramatically shaped by the context of the South African transition.At a political level, the 1980s saw the exiled African National Congress (ANC) emerge at the head of the people’s struggle against the apartheid regime. Underpinned by the doctrine of the National Democratic Revolution (NDR), the broad church strategy of the ANC ensured that the national struggle against apartheid would be prioritised over the class struggle against capitalism. In spite of the material location of people’s struggles (situated in direct opposition to the interests of capitalism), once negotiations had begun in the early 1990s, the ANC used its position to manage (including the suspension of) bread and butter struggles. The effect of this process was to institutionalise a narrow post-apartheid vision of the ANC and a negotiations-centric polity. Organisationally, the political hegemony of the ANC was not without destructive consequences for political and ideological diversity, and much of the space for independent grassroots organisation was virtually closed down. The context of the economy would also see the ANC’s commitment to the abandonment of an anti-capitalist front codified in the formal unveiling of the overtly neoliberal Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) macroeconomic programme in 1996, reinforcing class inequalities and social unevenness. Anticipating massive opposition to the policy within it own ranks the policy was dubbed ‘non-negotiable’.These contexts provide the background to more contemporary
and emergent conflicts between the state and impoverished communities centred
on basic socio-economic needs/services.
Section One:
Neoliberalism and the Commons
Embedded
in the crises experienced by capitalism in the late 1960s the process of
globalisation is driven by the need to search for more markets and areas for
investment. Thus it is often argued that the reforms grouped under the term
neoliberalism are the primary means through which capital addresses the
challenges to further accumulation. Theorists have also pointed out that
neoliberalism involves the creation of “new enclosures” in so far as the end
result of these strategies aim to forcibly separate people from whatever access
to social wealth they have which is not mediated or co-optable by the market.
Thus it is through neoliberal restructuring that nation states have been forced
to adopt policies aimed at bringing necessary resources such as water, housing,
electricity, health care, education, etc. under the rule of the market.
The
specific challenges faced by apartheid accumulation strategies, saw the
apartheid regime attempt a series of reforms that would eventually lead to the
opening of a terrain of negotiations with the ANC. It was within this
transitional negotiations framework that an accommodation between the ANC and
big business emerged, including a ‘distributional coalition’ of white business
and emerging black business premised on policies to promote globalisation and
Black Economic Empowerment (BEE). In this sense, key outcomes of the negotiated
settlement were designed to address the specific crisis of the South African
accumulation strategy.
As
a result, that which was envisaged as fundamental to the redress of apartheid
inequalities by the liberation movement (from basic services to the nature and
forms of governance that a new government would assume) would slowly be
encroached on by the market. Symbolically this shift manifested itself through
GEAR. Under GEAR, the role of local government shifted from a redistributive
one to an ‘enabling’, or ‘facilitating’ one and whereby real access has come to
be determined by market forces, with the state becoming the facilitator of this
logic.
At
stake in the current conflict between the state and new social movements is
thus the very vision of the struggle against apartheid. For the state, the reproductive demands of
communities resisting apartheid (in particular the payment boycotts of the
1980’s) were merely a means of leveraging the position of the liberation movement
in relation to the apartheid state. For
new social movements, strategies such as the payment boycotts were the key
redistributive challenge of the new state and needed to be
institutionalised. The clash of these
narratives represents the conceptual basis for the contemporary conflict
between the state and communities in relation to basic socio-economic services
and their ‘delivery’.
Section
Two: The Genesis and Evolution of Social Movements in Three Urban Communities
As
the practical consequences of GEAR began to bear down on the lives of workers
and poor communities, groups of people organised at community level to resist
the effects of the policies of cost recovery and privatisation, flexibilisation
and casualisation of labour, cuts in social spending, and the general extension
of the rule of the market into all aspects of people’s lives.
In
this study, three urban, poor communities that have experienced, and continue
to experience, conflict with the state over basic socio-economic struggles are
presented as case studies. These communities are, Mandela Park (Khayelitsha),
Bayview (Chatsworth) and Orange Farm (Johannesburg). Detailed histories leading
to the formation of specific community organisations in each of these areas –
namely, the Mandela Park Anti-Eviction Campaign, the Bayview Flats Residents
Association, and the Orange Farm Water Crisis Committee – are provided. Through interviews, community organisation
materials and qualitative research analysis, the various activities,
organisational trajectories and emergent relationships with the state, private
sector and other actors in civil society (local, national and international)
are presented and analysed.
Section Three:
Arresting Dissent
In
all three communities, the closing down of any meaningful institutional space
for the presentation of community grievances, combined with the generalised
non-negotiability of the framework of the state’s economic strategy, has meant
that attempts to seek government intervention in addressing local demands has
failed. On the one hand, this has forced local communities to adopt more
antagonistic strategies such as marches and reconnections. On the other hand,
the inability of the state to offer any meaningful concessions to these
community movements has meant that the state’s only recourse has been repression
and the deployment of the various arms of the criminal justice system in
‘maintaining order’. In this respect our research has noted a number of trends
and effects stemming from the conflict.
The
local police, the council, and state service providers have come to represent
for these communities the primary focus of social movement antagonism. In most
cases, however, engagements between the communities and the state have taken on
a conflictual character, mediated by the criminal justice system. However, the
private sector, usually in the form of private security companies, has also
played an important role in structuring perceptions of the state’s responses to
community resistance. The need for strategic management of social movement
activity has also seen the formation of strategic partnerships between the
relevant arms of the national and the local state.
The
courts have played an extremely important role in the conflict. While the intervention of the judiciary in
certain cases has had positive outcomes for social movements, for the most part
the courts have been used to distract the attention of local movements or used
to deal out punitive measures and discipline activists. Local Alliance structures
have also played an important role, based on a strategy of the ANC to
facilitate counter mobilisation in areas where community organisations have
begun to challenge their local hegemony.
The
conflict between social movements and the state has often had dramatic and
far-reaching consequences for both the movements and the communities in which
they work. The greatest danger
presented by the conflict is the manner in which its current terms structure a
self-reproducing discourse of marginalisation and repression. On the one hand
the extension of the logic of GEAR’s non-negotiability structures the state’s
refusal to engage with social movements. On the other, social movements have no
option but to shift to increasingly antagonistic activity.
Section Four: Social
Movements and Democracy in South Africa’s Transition
The
first phase of South Africa’s ‘transition’ has witnessed the ANC’s political
and ideological acceptance of the broad framework of a globally dominant,
neoliberal political and economic orthodoxy. In turn, this has led to the institutionalised (and false) separation
between political and socio-economic change, such that democracy has come to be
seen as synonymous with the capitalist market. The result has been a perpetual ‘crisis of democracy’ wherein
institutionalised practices of representative democracy such as elections make
little difference since the key societal decisions are taken by the ‘market’.
In this context the emergence of new social movements is a contestation of this
narrow vision of democracy.
Given
that the rhetorical core of governance, since 1994, has revolved around
prioritising the ‘delivery’ of basic needs and services to South Africa’s poor
majority, the emergence of new social movements on this terrain is a practical
manifestation of the very real impact/effect of the ANC state’s governance
track record. Thus, the existence and
activities of the new social movements are not only a direct result of the
socio-economic realities that pertain in contemporary South Africa but also
represent a more general and positive contribution to widening and deepening
democracy.
The
fact that most social movements are presently outside of the mainstream of
South Africa’s institutional political framework indicates that an increasing
number of poor South Africans no longer see active participation in the present
institutional set-up of representative democracy as being in their political
and/or socio-economic interests. The
existing state, its institutionalised politics and its socio-economic policies
are increasingly being seen, and treated, as a central target of a class
struggle emanating from poor communities. What the state has failed to
understand is that the ‘democratic’ character and content of such struggle
cannot be managed, manufactured and/or imposed. Those struggling to create new avenues of political expression,
governance and accountability and to free themselves from the shackles of
capitalism’s ‘democracy’ will create it – and that is precisely what new social
movements are in the process of doing.
Recommendations
The
resurgence of popular grassroots organisations in the last five years has
profoundly altered the political landscape of South Africa. As a consequence of the antagonisms between
these organisations and the state, South Africa has experienced increased
levels of conflict in relation to the delivery of basic services. In the interest of minimising the effects of
this conflict it is necessary for all sectors and role players to actively seek
out strategies that enhance democracy and facilitate meaningful dialogue. The
various recommendations at the end of this report flesh out some possible
avenues.
Recommendations
The
resurgence of popular grassroots organisations – in the form of new social
movements – since 1994 has profoundly altered the political landscape of South
Africa and relations within civil society more generally. As this research report demonstrates, the
antagonisms between the state and social movements, a direct result of the
adoption of neoliberal strategies and policies, have led to increasing levels
of conflict around basic socio-economic issues/struggles. The return of such conflict in the context
of a society that has historically experienced the trauma of politically
motivated violence presents a major challenge to both the social and political
cohesiveness of South African still fragile democracy. While it is highly unlikely that the current
conflict between the state and the new social movements will go away anytime
soon, there are possibilities for the terrain on which the conflict is taking
place to be altered so as to facilitate greater space for dialogue and
constructive forms of engagement between the antagonists. It is within this spirit, that the following
recommendations are offered:
For community
organisations/social movements:
· Develop programmes for the dissemination
of information relating to existing structures of dialogue within communities
(e.g., ward committees, community development forums and community policing
forums). This should be paralleled by
the development of strategies for direct involvement in such structures with
the explicit aim of democratising and empowering these structures.
· Capacitate members to develop avenues for
participating in policy formulation at the local, provincial and national
levels of government. At present,
community organisations simply have not attempted, in a co-ordinated way, to
impact on policy formulation, preferring to react to legislation as it begins
to affect their daily lives.
· Expand existing (but limited) initiatives
aimed at broadening the knowledge base of social movement activists in relation
to domestic macro-economic policy and international political economy (e.g.
political education workshops).
· In order to empower ordinary members of
social movements, there is the need to embark on learning experiences that
would raise literacy levels and basic life skills (e.g., night schools). In addition to raising levels of general
educational competency, such programmes would specifically empower women, who
make up the bulk of the membership of new social movements and who are
historically the most affected by the legacy of the apartheid education system,
patriarchy and poverty.
· The development and/or expansion of
income-generating projects. Where such
projects already exist (e.g., the women’s consortium gardening project in
Orange Farm), it is clear that they have served to enhance community
solidarities and have also served to articulate alternative forms of collective
livelihoods. Although such projects are
limited in the extent to which they present alternatives to state provision for
socio-economic need, in the absence of the latter these projects could play an
important role in meeting the needs of basic survival.
· Deepening and broadening existing
strategies for bringing social movements together and creating the space for
dialogue between social movements at a national level (e.g. the Social
Movements Indaba initiative). This
would not only take forward the development of policy alternatives to the
current macro-economic trajectory but would also enhance solidarities between
communities that are experiencing the negative effects of neoliberal
restructuring.
· A re-orientation towards identifying and
accessing existing state programmes and resources that are ostensibly aimed at
enhancing community development (e.g., National Development Agency
initiatives/projects). Presently, most
social movements are completely dependent on financial assistance from either
members and/or overseas-based funding agencies but have yet to develop way and
means of accessing resources from their own government.
For progressive organs
of civil society (e.g. NGOs like CSVR):
· Orientating existing and new civil society
projects/ programmes towards linking up with the work and struggles of new
social movements. As things stand, social movements exist on the periphery of
the NGO sector.
· The creation of learning experiences
involving NGOs/civil society activists aimed at augmenting existing knowledge
of the work being done by social movements in poor communities and the
associated socio-economic struggles that they have undertaken (e.g. workshops,
seminars, popular booklets)
· Assist social movements in the development
of capacity-building programmes in relation to:
a) Knowledge and application of basic
constitutional rights and existing legislation that impacts on the daily lives
of community residents and their socio-economic struggles;
b) Available structures of dialogue with the
state;
c) Policy formulation at all levels of
government (but specifically as applied to the local/municipal sphere);
d) Domestic macro-economic policy and
international political economy (i.e., economic literacy);
e) The formation and sustenance of
income-generating projects/community co-operatives;
f) Accessing state resources earmarked for
developmental programmes;
g) Processes and procedures in lodging of
complaints in circumstances where the state has acted unlawfully.
· To undertake an audit of progress made by
the state in giving expression to civil and political rights. An example of
this would be to test the effectiveness of legislation such as the Gatherings
Act in realising the constitutional right to social dissent and political
protest. As part of such an audit,
determination would need to be made of the most effective mechanisms for
disseminating the findings to social movements and other stakeholders.
· Setting up a partnership of civil society
organisations to play a watchdog role in relation to civil and political
rights. This would involve the
monitoring of protest and conflict to ensure that the rights of all those
involved are being respected and upheld. Practically, consideration would need to be given to the training and
deployment of ‘observers’ in conflict areas and for specific events.
Additionally, the partnership would also need to develop strategies for the
dissemination of information related to socio-economic conflict and civil/
political rights.
· To offer practical assistance for the
networking of social movements and civil society more generally. For example,
assisting in the establishment of community ICT centres, in conjunction with social
movements, to allow for access to cheap forms of communication and information
dissemination.
· The extension of civil society media
monitoring strategies to include coverage of social movement struggles. In this regard, special attention would need
to be given to the manner in which the reproduction of the marginalisation of
social movement struggles is effected through the mainstream media.
For the state:
· Establish an investigative commission to
probe the role of the private sector in municipal/community policing, in
particular, their involvement in large-scale cost recovery operations and
evictions. For example, the crucial
role played by Wozani Security (the ‘ red ants’) in the Johannesburg Metro. Such
a commission, would also review municipal guidelines in relation to the
outsourcing of security functions to the private sector.
· Setting up specific training programmes
for the police and other officials in the criminal justice system (e.g.
magistrate’s, state prosecutors and public defenders) to acquaint them with
legislation governing civil and political rights – for example, the Gatherings
Act.
· Develop specific protocols for municipal
officials to be employed in the carrying out of cost recovery operations that
relate to the carrying and use of weapons, conflict resolution mechanisms and
procedures for non-violent punitive action.
· The integration, of strategies aimed at
minimising conflict centred on socio-economic issues, in both community
policing forums (CPFs) and community development forums (CDFs). An example would be for CPFs to develop
guidelines to assist police in managing protests involving large numbers of
people from the community.
· To orient ward committees and other local
government-community structures towards the inclusion of social
movements/community organisations in a manner that minimises existing
antagonisms and exclusivist tendencies.
· The Human Rights Commission to consider a
second round of ‘Poverty Hearings’ oriented around issues that have emerged as
a direct result of socio-economic conflict between communities and the
state. This would include testimonies
from community residents and social movement activists as well as assessing the
impact of cost recovery operations carried out by the state in exacerbating the
effects of poverty and intensifying conflict.
· National government to convene a summit
focusing on the socio-economic crisis currently affecting poor
communities. Such a summit would create
space for, and extend, the current dialogue around issues of socio-economic
import to move beyond the narrow boundaries that presently characterise
state-community relations.
General
The
convening of a ‘Right to Dissent’ national conference involving representatives
of the state (from all levels of government), trade unions, NGOs, social
movements/community organisations and the private sector (in particular,
private security firms and those involved in service delivery). Such a conference would be designed to create
avenues for the sharing of differing perspectives on democratic expression and
dissent. It would also need to address
the implications of the proposed anti-terror legislation on the status of civil
and political rights in South Africa, the region and on the continent as a
whole.
|