Interviews

The Role of Business in South Africa’s Transformation.

What has the role of business been, both during the pre-transition period and subsequent to that? What have been the shifts within this engagement, and what are the future roles/ scenarios that we can anticipate for business both nationally and globally that will affect current levels of poverty, marginalization and inequalities, and how does poverty and inequality shape the choices and options of the business sector?
What are the non-negotiables for business, and for each sector that need to be understood as providing the options and limitations for positive, structural transformation?
‘Many of the people involved in the liberation process, where not knowledgeable about business and viewed business with suspicion, rightly so, in relation to their role and link to the Apartheid regime. Big business however, recognized the writing on the wall and took the spaces to influence and co-opt individuals- BEE was big business brain-child- which in effect took our transition on another path.
Post 1994, Business was viewed as a cash cow by the political elite and decision-makers. Business itself has no vision for a future South Africa. Beyond their main aim of profits, there is little commitment to South Africa. The recent strikes in the mining industry, we have seen that business’s attitude is to fire the lot- everyone is replaceable- 12000 people are easily dealt with.
Business, especially BEE business links’ and relationship to civil society structures like the trade unions is a significant factor to bear in mind.
The economic elite does not have confidence in the government’s policies and are therefore taking their money abroad. Thus, in 2007 alone, R20 billion flowed out of the country illegally. Up to 20% of our GDP is lost to South Africa annually in this way.’
‘Business has various roles. At the core it is to invest and develop productive forces of technology, to employ as many people, and to grow the economy at as fast a pace as possible. Not as much of this has happened as should have, but this started to change in 2000, with higher rates of investment and investment from the private sector improving. Business always complains, it is a question of mindset, they have not played a core role in a changing and transformative society.
Then there is the question of trust between business and government against the historic positions and relationships between business and government. It is the interstices between politics, the bureaucracy and business. Usually one finds an Old Boy’s Club in developmental states between business and the bureaucrats, but South Africa lacks that. Nedlac does not manage to build this trust enough; we need to have more and better informal platforms. The Millennium Development Council was good, but post 2009 we dissolved those Working Groups (like the Big Business Working Group) and that was problematic, as they were not replaced by anything else.

We can also see a challenge of leadership in all sectors. If you look at Germany during the global financial crisis, business, the trade unions and government met to mitigate the impact on jobs during the recession, and this led to an understanding of what would be redressed in a post- crisis period (and so people were prepared to sacrifice their own short term interests because they were re-assured that these would be addressed after the crisis). But in South Africa this did not happen – workers’ wages increased by 20%, there was no wage moderation and you got the labour insider- outsider phenomenon with unions not prepared to compromise for their members, those workers on the inside, such as the public sector wage negotiations. This shows a lack of strategic leadership. But it must also be said that the remuneration packages of business also shows a definite short -termism.’

‘The real problem is that we have not been able to develop SMMEs – the state has put up weak and failing institutions that fail to assist, and some of our laws militate against these enterprises. There is a lot of pressure around BBE and elite enrichment, but less so for the needs of people on the ground.’
‘Who needs business? Business has been captured by the tripartite alliance and so it is business as usual and business does not speak out. Business has built some schools and clinics, and have been sometimes more outspoken tan business in other developing countries, but business has not spoken out about the death of apprenticeships, the lack of skills, like clerically skilled people. The SETAs are failing, but there is nothing much said about that. Business it seems got lost and caught up in their own very narrow sectoral issues.
Business has worked out that there are constraints – look at the textile sector, there is strong international competition, and this applies also to other sectors.
The necessary strategic alignment between business and government has not been as strategic as it should have. Government needs to be more interventionist, such as in providing incentives for manufacturing.
What does business need? Certainty of policy directions, to enable them to be confident enough to really invest. We have had uncertainty about nationalisation for so long. The policy environment is so confusing, and we are living through the worst international depression, which affects our largest trading partner (the European Union), but we have not had this debate as it affects the social, economic and political realms. There is no business leadership that speaks of or with, certainty, and this increases the polarity that we see.
We are not a wealthy country, and we need more proactive leadership from business, to say that office is not a prize dream, you are not going to be a councilor so that you can become a millionaire overnight – herein has been a lapse in business and government leadership and the values that come with consumption, and very conspicuous consumption.’

Perspectives on Civil Society.

Civil Society and Transformation.
There is a view that civil society should be transformed into a depoliticized extension of state delivery and development, driven not by ideology, which is viewed as divisive, but rather based on a view of charity and short term anti-poverty projects rather than engaging in driving structural changes and broadening inclusion and participation.
Must civil society be oppositional, or are there ways of the sector acting as a buffer between narrow self-interests and implementing an inclusive transformation that does not reduce to narrow state substitution/ service delivery. Where is non- commodified intellectual growth and challenge located and how does the elite marry with marginalized mass bases? Have we seen a demise of activism, how are we trying to regenerate this?
‘I hear what you are saying, but if you are really organizing within communities then it is different. If you look at the response by the tripartite alliance, COSATU and the SACP, they tried for a long time to claim that they were acting as civil society, and at a community level they sometimes acted as gatekeepers. What we are now seeing is that this within the tripartite alliance is now shifting, and there is now a greater opportunity when working with communities for genuine civil society to continue. It has to happen. A (political) party can never represent civil society, especially where we have so many poor people in communities, their voices have to be heard against the big and powerful blocs. The state is opening up to hear this, but there will be a big contestation around this.
My own view is that you get poor quality services in poor areas. Our constraint is not a budget question, but we do not know how to deliver services properly or we are not putting the right people in. We are not trying to overthrow the government, but make it work. We are trying to coerce government into being a willing partner in providing services in new and innovative ways.
Civil society, including the unions, was denuded by the transformation process. Our approach to Social Justice is too fragmented- especially with regard to Civics and community based involvement. The idea should not be to create a huge edifice to co-ordinate people. The more informal networks that worked are not working now. Where they are forming these I think are driven by narrow political agenda’s and interests.

Party political or narrow political agendas have replaced or eclipsed the networking which should be the underbelly of social justice advocacy.’

‘The primary understanding of re-enfranchisement is that political parties and not Civil Society are the drivers of this change process. Civil Society is much more an ancillary and not a key pillar of change.
Pre 1994, we conflated the role of Civil Society, and it was subsumed within the broader struggle. Post 1994, the primary form of expression of enfranchisement is the political party. Civil Society should take on a more developmental role.’
Institutions of Civil Society.
With an ever-increasing fall in formal employment, an increase in unemployment and a rise in informal employment, how has this affected the ability of the trade union movement to continue to drive critical demands around transformation? Where has the terrain of organizing shifted and who is organizing and mobilizing those excluded from these institutions?
The profile of structures such as the SACC has also waned.

What is your view of the drivers that occasioned the demise of these structures as providing facilitative and remedial spaces?

• 
  Is there still a role for them?
  
• 
  What, if anything, has replaced them and the role that they have played as beacons of moral leadership?
  
• 
  What is the future of new institutions that promote the ability to operate in multi-class ways, as institutionalizing potential catalysts for change?
  

Does the ANC fear civil society as operating beyond its command and control, as not being disciplined actors of the liberation movement? If so, why? What are the implications of these divisions in terms of the oxygen needed for new thinking?
‘Civil society and the churches have been a critical force because they have the interests of the most marginalised at their heart, and so can specialise and dig deeper into policy issues, but three dynamics have played themselves out since transition in 1994 in this regard:
The most experienced, politically astute and best-educated people moved into the formal institutions of the state and the private sector, which denuded strategic leadership in the sector. Historically, the orientation of civil society was oppositionist, and necessarily so for the time (opposing the Apartheid state), but they have not managed to transcend that.

People also failed to understand the opportunities that came with democracy in terms of developmental programmes, so we do talk about liberation theology still, but we do not talk about developmental theology. Civil society should see that it is about campaigning, advocacy and partnering.

Take for instance the issue of MTCT and HIV and other civil society campaigns that emphasise sectoral specialisation. These sectors can be tempted to cave in to exaggeration of the problem, and then when the situation itself changes, they are not always adept enough to change to the changed situation. There are many complexities to these matters, both subjective and objective choices exist that are so complex, including the example of the provision of ARVs, but these issues are too complex, so people shift and drift between the issues and from one issue to another. Civil society can be too oppositionist and not able to partner with government, and should concentrate more on identifying issues that civil society can be taken up in partnership. Developmental.’
‘There was an organized social consciousness in the 80’s, when people were working together to deal a heavy blow to apartheid. CSOs were invited to belong to a broader umbrella of bodies under the UDF, which included churches and a number of organizations.
A lot of work was done to train leaders for communities. In the pre-80’s there was a gap due to the banning of the liberation movement. Biko and others had tried to address this gap, but the conditions at the time were not conducive.’
Impact of the transformation on Civil Society.
‘In the 1990’s, there was greater normalization within the country. The ANC cleverly crafted the narrative that the UDF was the ANC, which was dangerous as leaders of the UDF thought that they should all go into the ANC government, leaving huge gaps in communities.
This uprooting of leaders continued into the 2000s. Sharp leaders, even of NGOs, get collected and removed. It is difficult for organizations to retain good staff, good people go to government where you can become instantly middle class and move to the suburbs, leaving gaps in communities and townships. The people who move out (the ‘deployed cadres’) then begin to think that everybody back in the communities is counterrevolutionary when they begin to protest and make a noise, like Trevor Ngwane. Then they begin to either threaten you, or alienate you in an attempt to silence you.
Civil society activists currently sitting in government and in donor organizations do not want to fund grass roots structures – they favour elitist think tanks that can demonstrate a close proximity to power.

Thus, even activist minded research graduates do not think about going into grass roots organizations, but to these elite think tanks and this has huge ramifications for social distance.’

‘Global trends and our own Civil Society experience show the move towards silo based, funding dependent organizations. Today it’s hard to find an NGO that is not funded.
The negative impact of the transition on Civil Society has been the creation of an industry, development became an industry. Development has been depoliticized, with emphasis on “less government-we can use technology”. The funding slant is on the supply side, there is little strengthening of health care systems, and hardly any funding is available for Social Justice activism.
Foreign funding has distorted social activism at the coal face.’
‘We have degenerated into sound byte shallowness as regards the national discourse. Tertiary institutions are not finding ways to engage a young population in social justice activities. Unlike in the past where the involvement of young people in union work or student newspapers provided opportunities for substantive content and comment. (e.g., town-planning students engaged in rural community development work programmes). There were many more avenues that encouraged participation and intellectual development and the Universities in particular provided this platform.
With the exception of independent initiatives (blogs, daily maverick, M&G investigative journalism, critique and exposure is limited in our national press- print and electronic. There is a high level of tolerance of rubbish. In the electronic media there is a glaring absence of substance, challenge, debate (20% coverage ok- 80% no or little creativity in communications).
In the past, alternatives were discussed from a perspective and based on ideology, and a debate of principles, people spoke and acted in the context of there truly being an alternative. Now alternatives get discussed superficially- from an interest base.’
‘Civil Society perspective then and now – differences: We saw ourselves as social movements not NGO’s. Civil Society failed to engage in their own transitional debate in terms of their role in a post-apartheid South Africa (how to build the citizenry etc.).’
Do you think that the state can envisage a true partnership with civil society towards transformation?
‘Perhaps there was a hypersensitivity within the ANC to oppositional civil society, and civil society was set up as oppositionist even in formal documentation. If you look at Nelson Mandela’s Mafikeng Political Report (about civil society), it injected oppositional reaction within government, reflecting a weakness that was not consistent with the historical perspectives of the ANC. This leadership of the ANC to disparate elements, well there was an arrogance for people when you are involved in such a huge and powerful machine as the state, and you are connecting at a high level with other governments rather than with people.
In the latter period, we saw the Expanded Public Works Programme and especially the more recent Community Works Programme, which saw a reinjection of the element of human centered development.
Another potential weakness in both government and civil society was South Africans’ inability to translate Batho Pele principles and policies into reality. We need a rights based approach and a rights awareness of how to enforce rights. There has been a massive failure on behalf of civil society to embed that awareness down to the most marginalised.’
What is the role for civil society going forward?

‘Advice offices are still essential – sometimes they represent the last hope for people.

Civil society needs to re-engage with the poor in a dynamic way, and also develop spaces for mentorship where activists and training by older activists - spaces for reflection, and also for sectoral work. There is also a need for civil society to engage at that level – education, healthcare but we also need to develop a leadership that can grow in maturity and its ability to provide leadership, we need to be growing activists.
So on the one hand, social justice organistions need to be engaged with organizing the poor, but they also need to be involved in strategic reflection on concrete issues like why the Eastern Cape Education Department cannot deliver. We need thoughtfulness, but instead, thinking is drowned out by the currency of emphasising ‘business as usual’. We have so much data at our disposal, but so little thinking taking us forward. We will have a new government in 2014, but where is the space for thoughtful and protected deliberations going forward? And I mean, really, not just superficially.
The ANC lost its intellectuals. The ANC still thinks it can arrange major policy conferences without powerful intellectual engines, have big jamborees about policy positions. How does that take you forward? We need a reconfiguration of policy
In 1992, a group of five of us within the ANC went to look at the Social Democratic Part in Sweden and Labour in the UK, and I was struck by how much emphasis on policy there was. We have lost that in the trade union movement and also in political parties. It is left to party functionaries. We need to include leading thinkers who can bring innovation and harmonise this creative energy that does exist within the country.
Pre-governing, we used to organise as NGOS and civil society, and there are still several spaces in which we can tackle transformation. Government is huge, and there are several layers of government, including local and provincial, leading to endless workshops, and lekgotlas and PowerPoint presentations. The real reflections are only happening now in terms of the crisis such as Marikana, which has focused minds. The poor need to have more and better-organized modes for articulating their grievances, more clear avenues that do not have to only be heard with the burning of tyres.
Social justice movements need to go back to the hard work, how trade unions started, which is by organizing with the people affected by the realities. Organizing will assist in going beyond protest, forcing government to engage – there needs to be used a combination of pressures, litigation, organization, mobilization and engagement. This needs to be done by concrete organization, not juts parachuting people in without having the wherewithal to carry people through beyond that. If you do not involve the people who are affected, government is not constrained to listen. We need to have a determined, organized force to deal with government, out maneuver them sometimes and congratulate them for what they have done well, and they have done some things well. We are not trying to overthrow the government like we used to, we need to work out how to engage now in this context.’
‘Civil society, or Social Justice Movements, like government, has become far removed and dislocated from the people they purport to speak on behalf of. Reconnecting with its base and deriving a relevant mandate and legitimacy, will define the role of Civil Society. Or else we wait and government/ANC decides what the role and function of Civil Society is. This role will have to be fought for and defended. Our leaders still operate with the liberation mindset- if challenged and pushed they’ll respond- silence will just allow them to sink into their comfort zones.’