By Amandla! Editorial Staff
The ANC, according to many of its leaders, does not intend to change economic policy. But the debate on the mining industry signifies that people see the necessity for change. These are the two things to learn from the public exchange over the spirit and letter of the Polokwane conference – ignited by the ANC Youth League’s call for nationalisation of the mines. COSATU immediately backed the call. The trade union movement seeks every weapon to pressurise the new government on the promises given about change. The call is also supported by the Young Communist League, if for no other reason than to defend a principle.
Experienced commentators acknowledge that amongst those have participated in the debate, various and divergent interests are at play – some of which have nothing to do with the ownership of the mining industry. After the initial statement, ‘Nationalisation is not ANC policy’, Party leaders were forced to ‘welcome’ further debate. Yes, if this debate cannot be avoided it can be used for a walk further down the road of capitalism with a multicoloured face. A state-owned mining company is being promoted to stand side-by-side with giants like Anglo American and Harmony Gold. Then there are BEE contracts waiting to be mined. And the state already owns the mineral rights.
Perhaps halfway into the current capitalist crisis, more than 50 000 workers have already been sacked in the mining industry. This alone makes the call for nationalisation immediately ‘reasonable and not ideological’. As does the prospect of rehiring those who have been sacked. If the private mining industry did not prioritise safeguarding the interest of shareholders, workplace security work and further education in the profession could be organised for as long as the crisis continues.
But what makes the measure strategically ‘reasonable and not ideological’ is the opening up of a possibility to transfer profits from the mining industry to other parts of the economy, as was pointed out by ANCYL in a subsequent statement on nationalisation. The demand for being ‘reasonable’ came from the Chamber of Mines chief executive Mzolisi Diliza. He is one of those economically empowered few who have been shaking their heads in irritation over this debate.
They should reflect upon the deaths of hundreds of mine workers every year. These deaths signify a hundred years of management negligence for workplace safety infested by racism. Those who call for ‘reason’ in the debate on mining should take a look at the many conflicts erupting between villages and private companies in mining areas, as reported from Lady Frere in Eastern Cape (Saturday Dispatch, 11/7). Informal coal mining has been a thriving industry in that area for more than 40 years. In a travesty of justice, the historical rights of 35 villages have been put aside by the BEE enterprise Elitheni Coal. The BEE enterprise has the full support of the state while conflicts have arisen between foreign mining companies and local communities in the Mpumalanga, Pondoland and Limpopo regions.
Should it not be part of the common law that private ownership of a mine or a prospect mine shall be forfeited when human rights are abused, historical rights are disregarded or sacred memorial sites vandalised? To this must be added that in the search for mining profits, restitution and land reform cases already resolved have started to be challenged. Hasn’t a limit for what can be tolerated then been reached? It should stand clear: abhorrent enrichment of ‘business’ individuals and political rascals have nothing to do with ‘unifying the nation’ or ‘reason’. Nor is it good economics.
Opposing ‘nothing will change’
Widespread state corruption doesn’t make the issue of nationalisation easier. Nor does it mean the acknowledgement that private is better. Between privatisation and centralised state control lie various forms of collective and community control. Some already exist and just need legal recognition. That difficulty points to a broad range of collective solutions at a local level. This represents real alternatives to plans for a tiny minority to join the group of mining barons as outlined in the BEE-enabling Mining Charter.
Unfortunately, these plans for private enrichment fit hand-in-glove into the strategy of the government and belie the existence of a Tripartite Alliance based on the interests of workers and the poor. The appeasing words of the ANC government mining minister to the rich and mighty – ‘the investors’ − couldn’t have stated this more clearly: ‘The South Africa they knew yesterday is the same today and nothing will change.’ Mark those words. The only functioning alliance is the one alliance between a new state bureaucracy, corporate capital – with the mighty Mining and Energy Complex at its core – and the big landowners.
That third member of the existing Tripartite Alliance blocks land reform by clinging to the paragraph in the Constitution on property rights. A debate on the mines also actualises this
abortive compromise. Proponents of nationalisation should welcome this debate. It opens a gate to forge a unity between the urban and rural working classes around a common cause.
Demanding real citizenship
But right now the question is how this debate can be developed. It is doomed to fizzle out if not broadened beyond the dynamics of an internal quarrel. To avoid this Amandla! proposes that the issue of nationalising the mines is brought forward by holding a referendum. This could also be a way of settling the debate on economic policy that rears its head every now and then, but is smothered by ‘expert;’ and ‘technical’ jargon. Who should own and use the natural resources and wealth of the country? This is a clear and simple matter, in which all South Africans should be allowed to have a say, in the interests of dealing with the legacy of apartheid inequality. This is an issue of citizenship. The historical victory of political citizenship for all is won. But social citizenship – a tolerable and sustainable livelihood for all – is still a dream. What has happened since 1994 threatens to equate the dream of equality with an impossible utopia. Civil citizenship, thirdly, is the right for each and every person to be a conscious member of society, who is aware of his or her rights. Civil citizenship for all is impossible while the education system is suffering a disastrous crisis.
Real citizenship is simply incompatible with the current state of the nation, in which the rage of communities explode in the euphemistic service delivery protests. These protests are a call for full citizenship. It is with this in mind that the proposal of nationalising the mines and other strategic industries could be put to general debate and referendum.
Campaign for referendum
How shall the most valuable income sources in the country be used to the direct benefit of all citizens? This is not about ‘ideology’. This is about delivery, ultimately, of substantive citizenship for all members of society. As the government cannot start to deliver this, the people can seize the moment and use the precious political tool they have won, that is, the right to vote.
Referendums are called for when a nation stands before a fork in the road. In 1992, a whites-only referendum decided to support F. W. de Klerk and his negotiated reforms of apartheid. The very debate before the referendum broke up mentalities and power constellations within the white minority. Today, when everyone has the right to vote, another break up is necessary.
This break up must include a change in the mentalities that back up the present class policy of BEE. Under the slogan of ‘Unifying the nation’, BEE divides the country. It breaks up every colour in the rainbow into a minority of rich and a majority of poor.
Now, can we heal this growing gap with one month of football? To pose that question ought to be a sign of lunacy, but is heralded by political leaders, by the corporate building industry and by media as a sign of patriotism.
Starting the complete turn-around
It is factual development, not symbol politics that actualises the famous lines in the Freedom Charter about transferring ownership of vital parts of the economy ‘to the people as a whole’. This idea both embraces all citizens irrespective of the colour of their skins and envisions them as being collective owners.
The pressure is building up. The continued reality of non-delivery will, in the end, refute the most cunning inner-party manoeuvring. It would be disastrous if this happens simultaneously with a widespread and complete loss of hope for change. A referendum on the future of South Africa’s mining industry can be the necessary democratic shake-up to the landscape of popular and labour organisation and its outworn political loyalties. Presently, the alternative is fragmented social battles and the elitist neo-liberal walk of inequality, corruption and private enrichment towards the cliff.
0 Comments