Another case of ‘hurry up’ and miss
Doubts over viability of initiative touted as silver bullet for development
OPERATION Phakisa, from the Sesotho word meaning “hurry up”, has been touted by the government as the silver bullet which will “fasttrack implementation of solutions on critical development issues”.
Few would argue the need for urgent solutions to the myriad historical and contemporarily selfinflicted developmental challenges South Africa faces.
In a recent meeting between the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation, Mining Affected Communities United in Action ( Macua) and ActionAid South Africa (AASA) to consider how communities could participate in the Phakisa project, the planning department reiterated the process was aimed at bringing together an “alliance of the willing” to focus on the “implementation” of “confident projects” that were “constructive, pragmatic and viable”.
To their credit, the Phakisa planning team admitted that they faced a tough challenge in that, besides the historical antagonism between the key stakeholders, the process was also complicated by the intractable policy dif ferences between the parties.
They were, however, at pains to emphasise that the Phakisa process was not about policy but about processes and implementation.
It was at this point that the Macua leadership, once again, pointed out the absurdity of a sector of powerful players who ignore the insights and inputs of communities, at the peril of inclusive and sustainable solutions.
Matthews Hlabane, a Macua leader from Mpumalanga, pointed out to the planning department team that despite the claims that mining-affected communities were stakeholders, “they are a stakeholder without a stake, they are not stakeholders, they are victims”.
This crucial difference in emphasis sits at the heart of the brewing discontent among miningaffected communities and, as Macua national co-ordinator Meshack Mbangula said, “communities are angry, are ready to explode, and the government ignores communities at the cost of greater social conflict”.
Macua leaders questioned Phakisa’s intentions and pointed out that mining-affected communities have only experienced the worst effects of mining and that the push to “hurry up” – phakisa – without broader and proper consultation could only mean the alliance of government, business and labour would seek to expedite the continued exclusion, pollution and environmental destruction with which mining has come to be associated.
Instead, they argued that, considering the bloody, destructive and contentious nature of mining in South Africa, it would be wise instead to engage in an Operation Bhekisisa – “look closely” – instead of Operation Phakisa.
What the industry needed was a considered, mature and inclusive discussion on what the real issues are that face South Africa and through such deliberations to reach lasting and sustainable solutions.
The One Million Climate Jobs Campaign, which demonstrates it would be possible to create 1 million jobs, while greening our environment and rehabilitating the worst excesses of environmental destruction from mining, was highlighted as a case in point.
It was pointed out to the planning department that Macua, as part of the One Million Climate Jobs Campaign, had delivered more than 100 000 signatures to the department calling on it to include the campaign in its planning. The campaign has yet to receive a response from the department.
It is ironic that, while acknowledging the key stakeholders in the sector are not only antagonistic but deeply entrenched in their own positions, the department itself seems unwilling to move beyond its scripted path to engage in real conversations about solutions.
But to be fair, the members of Phakisa’s planning commission are merely functionaries, who are trying to navigate a path that could bring together an “alliance of the willing” and, in their own words, “break the paralysis” in the sector.
Given the nature of the engagements with Operation Phakisa to date, it would be fair to say that the government’s – the Department of Mineral Resources – own intransigence and its continued refusal to acknowledge, let alone meet with, mining-af fected communities, remains the biggest obstacle to an inclusive solution.
The failure to build inclusive platforms and find inclusive solutions is what allows business to hold the country to ransom.
It is what allows business leaders to issue demands that if they are “not satisfied with the way the Phakisa goes, then we will withdraw our dele gation after four days”, signalling to the Phakisa team that you will do it our way, or we take the highway.
The government and business have to understand any quick-fix, fast-tracked solutions are doomed to fail and that the only “viable, constructive and pragmatic” way forward, is an inclusive one.
Bring on Operation Bhekisisa.
Christopher Rutledge is mining and extractives co-ordinator for ActionAid South Africa and convenor of the Coalition on the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA).