Disparate interests and the greater good

It seems a lifetime ago that the country was celebrating the birth of Nedlac, which was supposed to usher in a new period of consensus building towards a common goal. The legislation that brought the National Economic Development and Labour Council into being in 1995 was among the first enacted by the government of national unity led by Nelson Mandela.

Of course, Nedlac still exists and is still an important part of the national dialogue: it recently brokered an agreement on the national minimum wage.

It is worth looking at the organisation’s website, with its laudable goals and a language that of necessity is quite broad, in recognition of the different ideologies of the players, which cover everything from big business to community groups.

That’s exactly why the organisation is still something to be proud of. It encompasses the idea that despite their differences it is possible to get disparate interests together for the greater good.

In another week dominated by the rot that was allowed to set in at state-owned enterprises during the Zuma era, my thoughts turned to those earlier efforts and the contrast with what has happened in the past weeks.

Instead of a national effort to deal with a national crisis that might cripple the economy, what we’ve seen, especially in the case of Eskom, is violence, intimidation and sabotage, all of which combined to plunge the country back into darkness (in parts, literally).

One of the most striking aspects of recent events at Eskom was that it seemed there was more criticism of CEO Phakamani Hadebe and his apparent naivety in not anticipating the violence than the actions of the perpetrators.

Violence as a negotiating tactic has been normalised. Nobody would dispute that the role of trade unions is to protect their members’ interests, though they did lose their way in the latter part of president Thabo Mbeki’s tenure, with their obsession to intervene in the ANC’s internal politics and install Jacob Zuma in his place, at great cost to the country.

But surely there must be a point at which the greater good of the nation and the longerterm interests of the unions converge, as with the need to fix SOEs that are threatening the viability of the whole economy.

In a case like Eskom, is it really more important for workers to get an inflated pay rise for one year if the effect is to accelerate the company’s demise and destroy jobs in the longer term? At the same time, managers have to make compromises and sacrifices of their own. The job cuts, when they do come, should start at the top, and moves to root out and prosecute those who facilitated corruption at the utility need to be seen to be accelerated.

The transition from apartheid has often been compared to Germany, both in the context of the post-Second World War reconstruction and after the 1990 reunification, following the fall of the Berlin Wall. The latter analogy is apt as it entailed the rich West making huge sacrifices. A 2009 report marking the 20th anniversary of German reunification estimated that $2-trillion had by then been transferred from the West to rebuild the East.

Germany is today the most dominant economy in Europe and few remember the days when it was labelled the “sick man of Europe”.

Fourteen years ago Italy had a lower unemployment rate than Germany. Later on, with the euro debt crisis dragging the single currency down and the European Central Bank pushing interest rates to negative territory, Germany also got a leg up from external factors. But what’s not in dispute is that an ability to get labour, government and business behind a single vision for renewal, and acceptance of short-term pain, was central to delivering today’s prosperity. Compromise between labour and business, which involved unions accepting wage restraint, was one of the major factors that made German businesses more competitive, together with aggressive efforts to find new export markets. That sacrifice also paid off for workers when, on the back of the economic boom, the country’s largest trade union won above-inflation raises and a 28-hour week.

The example of Germany came up during last week’s World Economic Forum roundtable in Rosebank, where the idea of a Marshall Plan for SA came up again.

The original Marshall Plan channelled funds to rebuild Europe and Japan after the war, and has since been touted as a template for reconstruction across the world. Reports would indicate that business leaders were at least on the same wavelength as President Cyril Ramaphosa.

Considering what preceded him, it’s not a big shock that they are rooting for him. But it remains to be seen how much of that will be backed by actual investment to help realise his goal of attracting investment worth $100bn, which coincidentally is more or less equivalent to the cost of the Marshall Plan in today’s money.

Perhaps more than money, what this country needs most is to channel the spirit of 1995, and unite the socioeconomic partners behind a common vision.

PERHAPS WHAT THIS COUNTRY NEEDS MOST IS TO CHANNEL THE SPIRIT OF 1995, AND UNITE THE SOCIOECONOMIC PARTNERS BEHIND A COMMON VISION