Development needs history and patience

Cardo needs a few lessons in history

(See original posting here)

[DA MP] Michael Cardo, in his article The ANCs developmental doublethink, does his PhD in History a grave disservice for two reasons.

Firstly, he seems to ignore the history of development, the development discourse and the emergence of the term developmental state. Had he taken the time to study the developmental discourse in the last, say, 50 years, he would have soon discovered the metamorphosis, almost literally, of this science and practice. Erik Thorbeckes research paper, The Evolution of the Development Doctrine, 1950-2005, is a good starting point.

If anything we can deduce from Thorbeckes analysis then it is that i) the concept and practice of development has evolved; and, ii) that doublethink continues, even to this day, in the scientific field of developmental studies on what exactly development means. For example, for decades development was measured, and continues to be measured, in economic terms. There is an almost automatic equation of economic development and development. Worse still, economic growth means development. Even worst, economic freedom, lets think of freedom in Sens terms, was to come from the nationalisation of mines, as grossly suggested by some.

Importantly, one would want to suggest that national consensus be reached on what exactly we, as South Africans, not as members of the ANC, the DA, Cosatu, NUMSA, but as South Africans, mean when we use the term development; but more about national consensus in a bit. There is no one size fits all definition of development.

Furthermore, one would have thought that an academic of Cardos calibre would interrogate the history of the developmental state. This is as interesting as it is exciting in a number of respects. Studying and starting the concept developmental state, Chalmers Johnson*, in his study of the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) came to two particular pointers, relevant to our discussion.

Johnson points out that the interventionist state specifically identified special areas in which it found it necessary to intervene and play a role. In the area of social services, it sought it necessary to improve health and education, hence improving human capital. In the area of the economy, it specifically identified sectors and/or industries that were succeeding and invested more funding, directly or indirectly, from the fiscus, to ensure that those sectors or industries grew (see our IPAP and New Growth Path in this respect).

The National Development Plan: Vision 2020 envisages doing just that in its 15 chapters. It is built on the premise that the state must be interventionist and that it cannot leave critical areas such as health, education, the development of industries and even social cohesion and transformation to the varies of the market. This is the contradiction and farce of parties such as the Democratic Alliance. They agree with the plan, with all its ingredients for a developmental state but completely rule out its founding philosophy of a state that must intervene.

Cardo points out this contradiction in his article when he insists on the establishment of ...a capable state whose role is developmental rather than dirigiste.... If only he had ventured into the history of a developmental state, as seen in the rise of the Asian Tigers for example, then he would find that at the heart of the notion of a developmental state is precisely a state that is dirigiste. But then again we might now even question the doublethink on state.

As a side point, this contradiction is a symptom of liberals still stuck in the Thathcher/Reagan mould. Even the World Bank, as far back as in 1997, had to recognise the need for the state to intervene in order to play a developmental role. History was simply repeating itself, this is what Hitler had done in pre-World War II Germany and what the Marshall Plan was all about. Free-market economics worked for Thatcher and Reagan, it crashed the world economy in 2008 and yet liberals, of the Cardo ilk, wish for us to go back to Egypt.

In addition, Chalmers Johnson also laid emphasis on the particular characters that bureaucrats had. Peter Evans** later develops this into the notion of embedded autonomy. In deconstructing embedded autonomy, Evans notes that firstly these bureaucrats, though highly skilled, enjoy the institutional culture of gakubatsu. They have studied together, are formed together and are deployed to various strategic positions within the state, be it in government, parastatals and/or government agencies. Here they work for decades before being deployed to head-up certain industries and sectors. In the ANC, we call this cadre deployment.

However, Johnson and later Evans highlight the important role that social capital plays in building a developmental state. In this respect, reaching national consensus is of utmost importance and ensuring that we move beyond the cleavages of our society becomes imperative.

As a student of history, Cardo would hopefully appreciate the role that CODESA I and II played in the shaping of our Constitution, a document that hopefully, he will agree with me, unites and should unite all of us, despite our differences. Reaching consensus through these talks, over time, required all parties to move beyond their corners and bridge the gaps that infiltrated us through our history and circumstances. We could reach a democratic dispensation because of national consensus. We could ride off this wave of national consensus, with social capital in hand, by successfully hosting the Rugby and Soccer World Cups, among others.

National consensus but more importantly social capital, the child thereof, is the hinge in which the NDP works or not. Hence the ANC has assured others that it views the NDP as a working document, a document that is alive. It needs, whether you agree or not, the buy-in from the largest trade union in this country.

Consideration of all views is important even those parties not represented in Parliament. The DA might be arrogant, as they are in the Western Cape, and not give much attention and detail to consultation, participation and engagement but the ANC does place these high on its agenda for it wants to create national consensus. Together, in a non-partisan manner, we need to be patient in order to create a better future for our children.  

 

Secondly, given this national consensus, Cardo, as a good historian, would know that CODESA I and II was not the first time that South Africans crossed their divisions and sat down to talk to each other and reached consensus. Even though a major role player was absent, the government at the time, the Congress of the People held in Kliptown in 1955 sought to reach national consensus. It was not a gathering of the ANC alone, albeit a major role player. Imagine what the outcome would have been had the other major role player at the time, the National Party, joined the Congress of the People?

The Freedom Charter, the product of that national consensus project, is the gakubatsu of the National Democratic Revolution. Yes the NDR, like any theory on a developmental state, requires an interventionist state but it also espouses a free, non-racist, non-sexist, democratic South Africa in which everyone enjoys in the countrys wealth. As a historian, Cardo might be surprised that at the very heart of our Constitution lies the lines of the Freedom Charter. To therefore suggest that the Freedom Charter, which guides the NDR, contradicts the Constitution and the NDP is therefore dangerously disingenuous.

Just as he does his PhD in History a disservice, Michael Cardo does Amertya Sen definition of development as freedom a gross injustice. As a student of development, one shudders to think that Sen could have suggested that the state must not be developmental, and all that means with its history, and that the state must therefore leave the circumstances, which create or hinder opportunities for the development of capabilities, untouched. Even in the capabilities approach, correctly as Cardo points out espoused by the NDP, an interventionist and therefore NDR approach needs to take place.  

There is no better example of doublethink and doubletalk in South Africa than the DAs opposition to transformation. We have seen it question this term as it has flip-flopped on employment equity, broad-based Black economic empowerment and land reform. The DA fundamentally opposes transformation and therefore will not agree to the objectives of the NDR. It uses the NDP as a launch-pad, nothing else, to attack the NDR because it dismisses the ideals of a non-racist, non-sexist, free and democratic South Africa where all share in the countrys wealth. It wants to perpetuate past privilege. If anything, like Cardo, it professes to acknowledge history but in the same stroke dismiss it.

Yet what the NDP, based on the Constitution and the NDR, calls for is a national consensus and just as the government has to be patient with some in Cosatu and the SACP, so too the ANC government will be patient with the DA. For as with Cardo, and his spin, we have to be patient if we wish to build a capable and developmental state.

*See Johnson, C. 1982. MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925-1975. Stanford: Stanford University Press

**See Evans, P. 1989. "Predatory, Developmental, and Other Apparatuses: A Comparative Political Economy Perspective on the Third World State". Sociological Forum. Vol. 4 No. 4. Special Issue: Comparative National Development: Theory and Facts for the 1990's. pp561-587

Unity in Diversity? Let's be innovative and start with balls.

Anonymity must be high up there on the list with factionalism, slates and patronage as its bed-buddies. It does the movement no good when “high placed–sources”, “insiders” or even “members” do not want to be identified yet want their remarks or comments to be published and taken seriously. How does one take seriously a concern or allegation made by ‘anonymous’?

If one takes oneself seriously, one’s thoughts seriously and one’s principles seriously you will not be afraid to put your name to it. Whatever happened to the maxim: stand up and be counted?

I must confess, personally, I think this is what gossip is made of. It never becomes ‘official’, it stays in the dark secret rooms of anonymity where rumours, cloaks and daggers are festered. There is a grey area where the one who made the comment or took the stand can retract or deny making it. Hence there is no surety and one cannot challenge them. In fact, those who remain anonymous don’t like to be challenged. Hiding is way much easier.

This is what came to mind as I read the newspaper article today about the new developments in the question of the ANC Western Cape leadership. I have studied the document “Unity in Diversity” which is refreshing in some aspects but also stale in others.

Stale because the fundamental challenge facing the ANC is that we are engrossed with leadership questions. The document makes no mention of policy and makes no effort to propose new policy directions. Have we ever had a discussion document on policy matters? It uses, for example, the national question once again to settle leadership scores when what is actually needed is a thorough engagement with the national question, in which questions of leadership and elections are but two aspects of a more deeper and fundamental issue.

The premise of the document is 2016 and not necessarily building a strong and vibrant ANC despite 2016. We need a strong ANC not a strong elections campaign. An elections campaign is a means to an ends: a strong organisation. Nothing in the document on building capacity, on better communications, on changing perceptions, on the correct utilization of resources, in fact the entire premise for building a ‘vibrant’ ANC, this nameless document contends, is to propose that we (re)look at leadership. Stale!

I suspect a bit of misunderstanding of Path to People’s Power as well; as one who had no hand in drafting it but who has studied it numerous times, the aim of the strategy was not 2014 NPE’s. For example, the document explicitly indicates how the ANC can have power without even having the tools of the state, at provincial and local level, at hand. Surely a worthwhile topic for a discussion paper: a critique of Path to People’s Power, 3 years on?

Instead the authors stick with: leadership. And it’s more about ego, access to resources than actual leadership. The authors, whoever they are, have been here before and have done what they are doing now before. So it literally is a case of: been there, done that. What are ‘they’ proposing different this time? Are they proposing that they will not be a slate? They will not use patronage? That they will ‘unite’ and work with the current leadership? Gosh I hate ‘they’.

The often quoted definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome. Need I say more? More anonymity, more leadership discussions.

The ANC is currently pursuing the Imvuselelo Campaign launched by the President on 20 July 2014. It is a pity that the document makes no mention of this important campaign in order to build a strong and vibrant ANC. One would have assumed that ‘they’ would take this into account.

What is refreshing about the document is that it does deal with issues of factions, slates and patronage. Whether intentionally or not, it links these three and poses the question whether the ANC in the Western Cape can continue on the same road or whether something else is required.

However, because the document is anonymous and because those speaking to the media remain anonymous one is not sure how seriously to take these proposals. Maybe the aim was simply to make headlines? Portray the ANC as divided?

No doubt, the issue of leadership needs to be looked at. But as I have said before and I will continue to contend, the ANC, in the Western Cape, needs people with guts. It needs people who can take decisions without worrying about covering their balls, backs and worrying about their political/economic futures. Selfless sacrifice. Ring-a-bell?

The ANC needs people who can challenge leaders and leaders who are willing to listen. The ANC needs people who have the balls to get rid of dead-wood and bring in people who have the capacity, capability and professionalism to run the organisation. If an employee doesn’t perform and runs his area of work into a shambles he/she must go. The ANC in the Western Cape needs capable cadres; professionals who have a history in the ANC.

My definition of a leader: one who has balls and is prepared to have them kicked. Put your name to your comments, your document and grow some balls. Whoever said politics was for the faint hearted?

If the authors want to get stuck on leadership then this, in my opinion, is what the ANC requires. I put my name to it and I am exposing my balls to be kicked. I just wish we had more political leaders who could do the same.

P.S. I know some female political leaders who have more balls than their men counterparts so forgive my using this metaphor.

Support Palestine? Educate yourself

False consciousness. The most potent ingredient for any dictatorship: a nation that suffers from mass false consciousness. I googled the definition and chose one which went like this:

 

1. a Marxist theory that people are unable to see things, especially exploitation, oppression, and social relations, as they really are: the hypothesized inability of the human mind to develop a sophisticated awareness of how it is developed and shaped by circumstances.

2. any belief or view that prevents a person from being able to understand the true nature of a situation.

Hence, very possible in a democracy and so a dictatorship in a democratic setting.

 

Those involved with the United Democratic Front (UDF) in South Africa during the 1980’s would recall the slogan: organise, mobilise and educate!

Integral to their efforts, the activists believed then, was that in order to embarrass the Apartheid government and question its legitimacy they had to ensure that whoever they mobilised and whatever they organised, had to include, as a matter of course, political education.

 

(In fact, many would believe that the single important challenge in the Mass Democratic Movement today is the question of cadre development and political education; but that for another day.)

 

The UDF was established as an "alternative” to the Apartheid regime’s plan to establish the Tri-Cameral parliament. Coloured and Indian stooges were used to legitimise the Apartheid folly with each race group i.e. White, Coloured and Indian, having their own parliament. Notably Africans had their own tribal homelands and were therefore only in South Africa for cheap labour.

 

At the same time, while this UDF activism was happening in South Africa, false consciousness was widespread throughout West. Most noticeable in the UK and the USA, with working class Britons returning Thatcher to 10 Downing Street in 3 consecutive general elections and working class communities in the USA putting Reagan into the White House in 2 presidential elections and then voting Bush Senior into power after Reagan’s second term. 

 

Working class Americans (from the US) and Britons could just not comprehend that Thatcher and Regan/Bush were the most anti-worker leaders their countries ever knew yet they won overwhelming majorities, thanks to working class communities, at every election.

 

There exists, of course, one could argue a link between false consciousness and Gramsci’s cultural hegemony. The working class suffer from false consciousness as it were because of cultural hegemony or at least the two compliment each other. Thatcher’s glitz and glamour together with Regan’s theatrical moves made the working class go gaga for these leaders even though it was to their own detriment. 

 

The oppressed in SA, in the eighties, would not suffer the same folly. The broad alliance of organisations and leaders that formed the UDF made sure that political education was primary in fighting Apartheid. After all, as Steven Bantu Biko would remind us, the most potent weapon in the hand of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.

 

Today, the mobilisation and organisation tools of the UDF have somewhat whittled down. It exists in pockets here and there, especially in civil society coalitions – the few that we have – but by and large they are weak. Service delivery protests are the children of the protests and “boycotts” of the eighties: burning tyres/cars, throwing stones, damaging state/municipal property and looting shops. Recent developments by Ses’Khona People’s Movement indicate an emergence of organisation similar to that of the UDF where street committees and organisers play a central role in mass mobilisation. TAC’s success was due to the important emphasis the leadership placed on educating people about diets, about ARV’s and bio-politics.

 

Yet the great malaise in our politics, especially in the Western Cape, is due to the inability “...to see things, especially exploitation, oppression, and social relations, as they really are: the hypothesized inability of the human mind to develop a sophisticated awareness of how it is developed and shaped by circumstances...”

With the 7 May elections done and dusted one cannot but help to think that the working class in the Western Cape must be suffering from the same false consciousness as those Britons and Americans did during the ‘80’s. They elected a woman and party that is the most anti-trade unions and therefore most anti-workers, anti-poor and anti-small business since the dawn of democracy in South Africa.

 

A good example of this false consciousness: the majority of the estimated 40 000 people who took to the streets in Cape Town a few weeks ago, to rally against the attacks on Gaza do not realize the exploitation, oppression and discord that exists and is happening right here under their noses in the Western Cape. The human rights report on sanitation is but one example. When Ses’Khona People’s Movement march, do these who protest against the occupation and bombardment of Palestine, join them?  

 

In fact the majority of those who marched two weeks ago as well as those who marched this past Friday, voted for the Zionist funded DA on the 7 May; classic false consciousness. It is no secret that the DA is funded by Zionists and yet we see no attempt for those who organise and mobilise around the Palestinian cause to educate marchers about whom the local Zionists are and why the Zionists are doing what they are doing in Palestine. In fact, their argument goes: Palestine is not a party-political issue! What rubbish!

 

The Premier of the Western Cape should be told that what is happening in Gaza is not a question of religion. It is a question of humanity and it is a question of politics. The same reason why Arab governments have been silent in condemnation of Israeli atrocities is the same reason why our home-grown Zionists are silent: money.

 

Apartheid fell not because the masses, Black and White, could mobilise and organise but because the activists and their leaders knew that they could never leave education out of the equation. Apartheid Israel will only fall once those inside and outside start realising who their local Zionists are, why the Zionists are occupying Palestine and why Apartheid Israel is bombing Palestine at this point in time.

ANC appoints tried and tested

The fallacy of spin is that one puts in a little truth here, doctors it a bit there, adds in a bit of untruths to spice it up and you start to believe your own half-baked truth of a story.

Kameel Premhid, in his piece, falls squarely into this trap. No doubt, his political masters have taught him well.

Firstly, he fumbles. One usually does this when untruths are involved. What does the first sentence: "Given the sheer size of the ANC in Parliament, and the impact of proportional representation on MPs, the ruling party's anointment [sic] of its committee chairs and whips normally draws little attention." even mean?

OK. He could have mixed up his conjunctions (hard to believe for an Oxford MPhil candidate in IR  besides I've never heard of this breed before MPhil 'candidates' you only find PhD 'candidates' and that's in an advanced stage of your studies. Even if you are doing your MPhil, which is normally done by thesis only. But OK a topic for another discussion).

Maybe his sentence should have read: "Given the sheer size of the ANC in Parliament [BECAUSE] of the impact of proportional representation on MPs, the ruling party's [APPOINTMENT] (though he might have been sheepishly sarcastic in using the word "anointment") of its committee chairs and whips normally draws little attention." Well did it? It got the attention of a MPhil 'candidate' in IR nogal all the way up in Oxford.

But alas, Premhid's issue is not proportional representation, I would hope. The DA would score far less seats in any house based on the constituency representation system. One assumes too that he does not take issue with the ANC beating other political parties fair and square at the polls unless of course this Oxford MPhil 'candidate' also regards voters as clowns or dogs. Not nearly impossible, I would imagine.

But this is how the proportional system works: the one with the "sheer size" of the vote gets the "sheer size" of the number of parliamentary seats. No?

What are his issues though? He, firstly, takes issue with the fact "...that the committee chairs and whips feature many 'big beasts' of parliamentary politics, both past and present..." Let's forgive him for the unfortunate usage of the word "beasts" (maybe down there with clowns and dogs?).

This Oxford MPhil in IR 'candidate' would maybe understand that in any political system the more senior members of the party would take precedence over the more junior ones. Ah, not so in the DA! A foreign concept, for sure, for them. People are parachuted left, right and centre. From Mazi-tea-girl-buko to Obama-cum-Maimane, from Fernandez to MacKenzie. Their defense? Wit, sorry fit, for purpose.

And then remember Mamphele Ramphele? Lets come back later to this 'fit for purpose' thing-a-ma-jig.

As a side swipe, President Zuma's cabinet is described as "bloated". What can we expect from this true to form liberal? "Small state is the answer, you idiot!" Premhid and his ilk would argue. Never mind that post-2008 economic crisis the biggest creator of jobs in every country has been the state, Premhid and his liberal friends (if he even knows his company) will advocate smaller state.

But let's learn something from the tried and tested former Justice Minister, Dullah Omar, (Premhid have you ever heard of this man?) when his thinking was: "...as we went about right-sizing (sic) government, to avoid creating a bloated and expensive public administration, we should take care not to fall into the dangerous trap of weakening and therefore disempowering the democratic state..." Here, I'm quoting President Thabo Mbeki. Your Mbekite colleague, Maimane, should be able to give you a few hints on how to learn from this tried and tested ANC cadre.

When the apartheid state was designed to function for the well-being of about only 10% of the population it made sense that a leaner cabinet should suffice. Yet there is hardly any evidence suggesting that Botha, De Klerk or even Vorster's cabinets were a 10th of what the present cabinet is. For sure, their cabinets were bloated. De Klerk, for one, was Minister of Bantu Education. What kind of work could he possibly have done besides lay the foundations to the mess that our education system is in today?

The "bloated cabinet" myth has been coming on since the cabinet was announced. Yet no normative nor descriptive arguments have been presented supporting the notion that the cabinet is "bloated". Again, it is one of those spin fallacies that is used by neo-liberals in the country with which to beat President Zuma. Not beat the ANC, not beat the lackadaisical private sector, beat President Zuma.

Has this personalising of our politics anything to do with Premhid's insistence on referring to President Zuma, simply as "Zuma"? He is after all only the primary protector of the Constitution and the first citizen of our country.

Premhid then takes issue with Gwede Mantashe making the announcement iro the naming of the committee chairs and chief whips. He does not understand firstly, the proportional system because then he would know that parties deploy and hence it is only appropriate that party officials name. Secondly, he misconstrues separation of party and state because it would seem he has never asked why President Zuma and not Gwede Mantashe names the executive. Thirdly, he should do himself a favour by reading up on what 'democratic centralism' is and means.

Let's not even venture into his third reason. For like his spin, he wishes to suggest to the reader that he might be onto something when in actual fact he has nothing. Something like mental masturbation.

So what if Cyril Ramaphosa and Gwede Mantashe stand for the presidency in 2017? Surprise, surprise the ANC is a democratic organisation! Anyone, if they qualify, could stand. Even, ugogo Xoliswa. Difference between the ANC and other parties: one has to be a tried and tested cadre.

Does tried and tested exist in the DA? Look in the direction of the Western Cape, Premhid. The DA, not the ANC, controls the Legislature there, you may know. The DA controls the Executive too.

Speaker Fernandez was hand-picked, that's right, hand-picked, or anointed (your word) by the Premier. The ANC caucus elects its Speaker candidate. So the DA Speaker, entrusted with holding the DA Premier and her executive accountable and giving oversight, is selected by the DA Premier herself. The Speaker has no legislative experience, no political office experience and hardly any political experience either, only joining the DA less than 3 years ago. So much for 'fit for purpose'.

All of the committee chairs are chaired by DA people, except for SCOPA, which is chaired by the sole ACDP opposition representative. Christians himself is a political prosecute having jumped from the Nats, to the ID, now with the ACDP. Then again the Christians do forgive. Maybe his next stop is the DA?

More importantly, the DA's appointees, or premier anointees more like it, are nowhere near being "big beasts". Take one Ricardo MacKenzie, promised more than what he got, had to settle for being the chair of the sports and recreation standing committee.

Or Basil Kivedo, long a political hopper and who had to make way for a white mayor in Breede Valley, being awarded the chair of the education standing committee. Go google him, he has an interesting history but not in the DA.

The fundamental difference with the ANC 'big beasts', as Premhid calls them, is that they are tried and tested. Not parachuted, not a name the IT system spits out to say who the best candidate is based on an online test. No, tried and tested!

Premhid's article tells us nothing about the ANC's parliamentary appointments. What the appointments though do tell us is that the ANC goes for tried and tested cadres. Not tokens, not parachuted leaders nor leaders paid through patronage. Tried and tested cadres.

Who sets the agenda?

I’m back. 

This blog was never intended to attract thousands of followers nor to “raise my profile”. Rather it was my way of keeping track of my own thoughts and then making it possible for others to peep into my head. For example, the other day, I read the blog I wrote about our own Iron Lady and how spot on that blog was and still is.

I must confess though that I was surprised by the amount of people who have told me, since getting back from Belgium, that they read this blog. Writing this blog, or a specific blog entry, the analysis on ward 88, landed me my current job in the ANC.

This brings me to the sensitive issue about writing publically. For weeks now, I have struggled between getting into this habit of blogging again and on the other hand being wary or making sure I do not divulge matters that should be ideally discussed inside in the organisation. 

The ANC, of which I am voluntarily a member and now employee, has guidelines about discussing internal party matters externally. There is also a fine line between me sharing my ideas publically and those ideas which should rightfully be kept in the private domain of the organisation. 

However, we must engage in the battle of ideas. Sometimes as disciplined cadres we tend to shy away from publically engaging on issues that affect the lives of our people or we fail to rise to the occasion of setting the national, and in this case specifically provincial, agenda. 

This blog, as before, will try to give an informed view but it must be emphasised that it will be a personal view. I write in my private capacity simply to encourage debate both within and outside our structures.

If we are silent then we allow those few among us to continue their attempt in setting our national and provincial agenda. During these past elections, for example, we have seen these national and provincial elections reduced to a referendum on Nkandla. Opposition parties and the governing party in the Western Cape could not explicitly indicate to South Africans what their policies or programmes were to address the issues faced by our people. They campaigned on Nkandla.

What the ANC tried to do, especially in the Western Cape, was to set the agenda by highlighting the real issues affecting our people. We took up campaigns with regards to jobs, skills, education, early childhood development, crime, gangsterism, drugs, sanitation, housing, land and the plight of farm-workers.

And yet the ANC in the Western Cape now has to ask itself some difficult questions. In complete absence to a DA provincial government’s response to these issues, the people of the province still voted DA. Was the ANC off course with these issues? Did voters expect something else than the championing of these issues? Is all they ever wanted a condemnation or vote against Nkandla?

Who sets the provincial agenda?

Let’s engage.