ANC trips over itself trying to decode Zuma’s phrase du jour
• ‘Radical economic transformation’ is so wooly it is impossible to implement — or to monitor
If you still haven’t figured out what “radical economic transformation” is, you are not alone. The phrase has been doing the rounds in the ANC for some time, but it was only when it emerged from the mouth of the president during his state of the nation address that this new “it” phrase gained prominence in the South African political discourse.
I haven’t yet figured out if the use of this particular phrase is deliberately vague in that it provides broad scope for the government to engage in a wide range of potentially damaging economic policies without actually stating them, or if it is just useful rhetoric to counter the success of the EFF’s “populist” messaging. It could also simply be another example of the ANC falling into the trap that so many post-liberation governments fall into, in using unintentionally illdefined terms when they lay out their plans for the future.
Luckily for those of us who are still wondering about all of this, several ANC stalwarts have leapt to our assistance to provide clarity. ANC chief whip Jackson Mthembu said transforming the economy required transfer of ownership of land as well as the support of black entrepreneurs and transformation of the financial sector.
“You can’t talk about transforming the economy of the country when the very people who are supposed to be an active part of that economy have no land,” he told the Huffington Post shortly after the speech.
Beleaguered Communications Minister Faith Muthambi says economic transformation has become the “hallmark of president Zuma’s administration” and that radical economic transformation is merely the latest incarnation of that idea.
According to her, the president could not have been more bold and direct in defining radical economic transformation: “It is a fundamental change in the structure, systems, institutions and patterns of ownership, management and control of the economy in favour of all South Africans, especially the poor, the majority of whom are African and female,” she said, quoting Zuma’s speech.
Reluctant fashion darling and Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies chose to define “radical” as what it is not: “Radical … is not calling for bold new ideas and then trotting out tired old clichés,” he said pointedly to Mmusi Maimane during the state of the nation debate. I have a big soft spot for the minister, but I couldn’t help but chuckle at the irony of that statement.
What all these definitions have in common is that they seem to fall short of providing clarity on what this phrase actually means. Words such as “transformation”, “inclusive”, and “equitable”, which are so popular with post-liberation governments, are also an inherent hindrance to those policy goals being achieved.
As I mentioned above, the use in this particular case could be an intentional move to conceal a far more sinister motive, but if you look back at the language used in so many policy documents since 1994, this is just a slightly more excited extension of a well-established theme. After all, there are only so many times you can use the words “inclusive growth and transformation” before someone notices that it hasn’t happened.
The problem is that the inability to provide a clear definition makes it difficult to implement and almost impossible for the government to be held to account. I genuinely don’t mean to be a killjoy, but what does “inclusive” really mean? When we talk about “empowerment” what are the nuts and bolts that we need to make this happen? If structural change is necessary — and I think it is — there are many ways to achieve this and how do we know if we have changed enough?
Another clear theme in the address was that of “ownership” — no doubt a key element in the concept of radical economic transformation — but even this is a contested concept. Although there has been a transfer of capital from the white minority to the black majority since 1994, there is still very clearly a feeling that there is a lack of black control in the economy.
Many people have argued that black ownership on the JSE is underrepresented because of investments made by the Public Investment Corporation, but this is potentially misleading because those so-called black shareholders have no control over the investments. Control is arguably a key element in ownership, but then why would the government want to stop people from exercising control over the businesses and property?
These examples are perhaps overly simplistic, but they illustrate the problem with using poorly defined terms as fundamental policy objectives. If you don’t know where you are going, it’s very difficult to plot your route. So, when Zuma said “Today we are starting a new chapter of radical economic transformation. We are moving beyond words”, what he didn’t seem to notice is it is those very words that are holding us back.
I HAVEN’T YET FIGURED OUT IF THE USE OF THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE IS DELIBERATELY VAGUE … OR IF IT IS JUST USEFUL RHETORIC RELUCTANT FASHION DARLING AND TRADE AND INDUSTRY MINISTER ROB DAVIES CHOSE TO DEFINE ‘RADICAL’ AS WHAT IT IS NOT