Disingenuous effort to enrich Guptas et al
WHAT of “white monopoly capital”? There’s hardly a discussion nowadays without mention of the phrase. It’s in vogue, like “part and parcel” and “let the bygone be bygones” that were once part of our lexicon but have escaped.
They were part of Nelson Mandela’s reconciliatory language. It was part of a narrative occasioned by a specific moment in our history. Each moment generates its own language to explain, if not legitimise itself.
“White monopoly capital” is, however, not new. Judging by its sudden prominence, you’d be forgiven in thinking it was a recent discovery. But the term is as old as South Africa’s modern economy.
Monopoly capital is an inescapable feature of colonial and post-colonial economies. It’s simply a matter of who got in first and asserted control over the state.
A couple of mining companies for instance, drove the formation of the Union in 1910. This is evident in the slew of legislation that forced Africans into wage labour and enabled the mining industry to optimise profits. Black life was essentially re-arranged to serve the mining industry.
Similarly, only a few players dominated the financial and manufacturing industries which developed from the 1920s onwards. Their monopoly over the South African economy was due to their dominant control of the state, from the Union throughout apartheid.
“White monopoly capital” therefore, describes an old phenomenon.
Even the Freedom Charter, when it was adopted in 1955, grappled with how to break up white monopoly of the South African economy. The charter proposed nationalisation, also as a way of empowering aspirant black-business.
The matter became a recurrent question in many subsequent ANC policy documents.
In other words, the nature of South African society itself occasioned the recurrent question of how to break up white monopoly capital.
As a settler colony, South Africa’s economy grew on the back of dispossession and disfranchisement. Natives had to be impoverished and silenced for the economy to thrive. That is why there’s often a talk of reparations. It is an admission of a debt owed by monopoly capital to the African folk. The national grievance remains unattended.
But what we’re repeatedly hearing today does not address the national grievance.
The manner in which the debate was sparked is in itself quite telling of its deceitful ends.
President Jacob Zuma reintroduced the phrase sometime last year when he sought to explain why he had appointed Des van Rooyen to replace Nhlanhla Nene as the finance minister.
Zuma said Van Rooyen was his tool to dismantle white monopoly capital.
The “State of Capture” report however, tells quite a different story, one that is the opposite to Zuma’s claim.
Van Rooyen was in fact, appointed to further nepotism. The Gupta and Zuma families together with their proxies in the public sector were going to be the major beneficiaries of Van Rooyen’s takeover of Treasury.
Even without them managing to take over the Treasury, we’ve heard of the Guptas switching billions of rand from one bank to another.
We’ve also heard that Zuma’s children have become wealthy all because of their links with the Guptas – a family closely associated with their father, the President of the Republic.
Appointing Van Rooyen to take over Treasury was therefore, never going to be about addressing the national grievance. It was about the enrichment of a politically connected family who are foreign-nationals of recent arrival. That is the most embarrassing aspect of this whole circus.
The Gupta’s beneficiaries make claims about addressing the national grievance knowing quite well they’re false, yet strangely expecting the watching public to believe them. It’s self-delusion!
What has truly happened here is the derailment of the nationalists’ historical mission. Black economic empowerment has for instance, almost come to a halt.
There’s been talk recently of a government-initiated black industrialists programme. The objective is noble. But this government is so fraught with cronyism that one must doubt if anyone outside of Zuma’s circles will benefit. It’s really not about merit, but who you know in politics.
In the hands of a clear-minded and conscientious political elite, the state is an effective instrument to address the national grievance. Ignore the talk that says the state’s role is to provide social services and stay out of the economy. That’s all nonsense.
The state has historically played a leading role in the South African economy.
The fact is, the state is a major economic player through its purchasing power and regulatory role. It can initiate demand for a particular product and introduce regulations to influence economic activity.
Am I saying that capital acquired through conquest should not be appropriated?
That’s not for me to answer now. We made that choice in the early 1990s, at the negotiation table, when we chose to protect private property. That was a compromise reached through negotiations. It was and remains unpopular, but was a necessary condition to reach a settlement. It was political justice.
There’s obviously little appreciation for the flak the liberation movement has had to endure for making that compromise. Capital leaves the country illegally, instead of being (re-)invested in the local economy.
But the fact is, the state alone cannot meet all the challenges facing our society. Business must be proactively involved. Apart from expatriating capital, companies can localise their productive activities instead of exporting some of their raw materials for beneficiation abroad.
This requires readjustment in how they think of their sustainability. Profit alone does not secure sustainability.
But localising does yield a broader societal gain through employment and expanded revenue.
High levels of unemployment and inequality are not good for any society. They not only deny people a livelihood, but also make them feel excluded.
Without a stake in society, marginalised people become discontent. This makes the malcontent susceptible to radical alternatives that offer them a chance of turning their lives around.
That’s how demagogues are born. South Africa is not immune to that possibility.
The state cannot wait on business whilst it’s still making up its mind. Government must forge ahead in the interest of the Republic.
The ANC took a policy decision years ago to limit the export of what it called “strategic minerals” for beneficiation locally. This was meant to be followed by legislation for implementation, which doesn’t seem to have happened.
There is also telecommunications. Everyone agrees that telecommunication is critical for economic activity. Yet South Africa probably charges the highest rates for cell-phone use and data bundles.
This is prohibitive and it is surely within government’s regulatory reach to influence. The debate has just been going on for too long. Government must act.
We cannot remain a stable society simply by maintaining the status quo. Doing so is counterproductive. The status quo is gradually stoking unhappiness. Future prosperity lies in reconfiguring the South African economy. The state must exercise its power to save the future.
Of course, there will be some disgruntlement from business. That’s immaterial. There’s already unhappiness in South Africa’s countryside and townships. The unemployed and poor are getting increasingly restless. We need to do something now, otherwise sawufa singalwanga – we’ll perish without a fight!
If the ruling party continues to be timid, it becomes difficult to refute claims that it has been captured by business. Why else, if it’s not benefiting from the status quo, would it not pursue making meaningful change?
Mcebisi Ndletyana is an associate professor of politics at the University of Johannesburg.