Opinion/business Life
SA will have to change direction to transform
SOUTH Africa’s economic policy choices on socio-economic transformation have not yet yielded desirable outcomes: Pursuing the current version of radical socio-economic transformation with some glaring weaknesses may not deliver the expected fundamental changes in economic ideology, economic system, economic structure and economic institutions as desirable.
So after everything is done in the name of radical socio-economic transformation the nature, texture and the fabric of the superstructure and sub-structure is likely to remain intact.
Thus so-called radical socio-economic transformation may not result in a policy outcome of inclusive economic growth.
By definition inclusive economic growth refers to decentralised and de-concentrated economic growth that happens in spatial areas where poor people live, in places where poor people work, participate in the generation of economic activities and in poor communities where the means of production owned by poor people are used in the production of goods and services for the development of the poor areas.
It should be acknowledged that inclusive economic growth should distribute benefits equitably and proportionally to all the citizens of South Africa as a matter of human rights that poor people deserve to enjoy; yet they are denied.
Under such circumstances where the majority of poor people are excluded from the benefits of the mainstream economy, the state has to make means to ensure all citizens enjoy the fruits of inclusive economic growth.
Unfortunately, these shortfalls of substantive transformation happen in the institutions where blacks are at the top management and leadership of those institutions.
Therefore, this leads one to justifiably make an inference that there is no sincere commitment to transformation among leaders who were mandated to accelerate transformation.
The core responsibility of substantive transformation is placed in the hands of leadership to ensure its success by addressing poverty, inequality and unemployment. This responsibility cannot be expected to be done by white leadership which historically became the greatest beneficiaries of racially discriminatory policies of apartheid government and who continue to harvest the privileges of the past racialist political order at the expense of the poor black majority. This unfair condition perpetuates itself and militates against socio economic transformation.
Based on the observation of all dimensions and sectors of the economy in South African, it appears the decisive leadership to expedite transformation is in chronic short supply.
The economy of our country is in an unfavourable state after 23 years of freedom, partly due to policy choices and decisions that the leadership made and continue to make, which do not bring about the fundamental socio-economic changes that accord with the legitimate expectations of the majority of black South Africans. The historically deprived black majority is the primary target group of the socio-economic transformation outcomes.
By adopting only a mechanistic-reformist approach rather than a radically balanced approach, characterised by the confluence of both organic and mechanistic approaches, wherein the public sector and private sector have to demonstrate beyond doubt complete commitment in action and zeal to pursue the goal of inclusive economic growth as the outcome of transformation.
Model
Without being pessimistic it seems highly likely that the transformation model adopted by South Africa will not be able to yield on the expectations that are prompted by misleading rhetorical promises and pronouncements of the leadership in the public sector.
Currently unfavourable economic circumstances are not helpful to collective efforts of the government to expedite and advance the frontiers of socio-economic transformation to deliver the long awaited economic and financial capital outcomes.
In some quarters socio-economic transformation is incorrectly misconstrued as an antithesis of progressive efforts and strategies to paddle forward responsive policy intentions to realise inclusive economic growth.
The pseudo radical socio-economic transformation without economic substance created manipulative small black elites, who always pretend to be the genuine representatives of the downtrodden poor black majority; while in essence they indulge in self-enrichment in the name of codified BBBEE transformation.
This artificially created black elite is unable to influence white capital control of the economy. Some of these black elites were elevated by the government tenderpreneurship deals to become instant millionaires and billionaires who largely share the same interests and resources with white elites.
They have lost credibility and the respect of the people and can no longer claim to have legitimate connections with the black majority; hence they cannot provide credible leadership in black communities now.
If social economic transformation in our country remains an unsuccessful experiment, there is a potential for social instability and public disillusion. The few back elite beneficiaries of transformation remain not apologetic about recycling and monopolising the benefits arising from the BBBEE deals at the expense of the poor black majority who remain trapped in poverty without hope.
It has become clear after 22 years of democracy and freedom that South Africa cannot completely transform without de-racialisation of the economy to be inclusive in ownership, management and control of the commanding heights of our economy.
This may lead to untangling of economic ownership monopoly by the few rich elites and expedite required equitable economic redistribution and de-concentration of ownership, management and control of means of economic production from the monopolistic few rich white males who are said to occupy about 70 percent of management and control in the private sector, especially at the tertiary sector of the economy.
There is over sensitively to the myth that says economic transformation is the antithesis of economic growth. If transformation remains substantively unaddressed at our own peril, then the South African economy will not be able to absorb battalions of unemployed black people for a long time. It is a reckless error for the leadership, especially in public and private institutions, as well as in the public entities, to squarely entrust the responsibility of socio-economic transformation generally in the hands of white leadership who have never demonstrated an interest to accelerate the pace of transformation without resistance.
Instead, it has been resisting transformation by parading excuses that preserve their privileges and monopoly of economic resources ownership.
If black leadership allows prolongation of the failure of transformation to continue the way it does then poverty, unemployment and inequality will remain intact in our country. An opportunity exists and resources are at the disposal of the leadership to lead radical socio-economic transformation in all fronts of society.
When our leadership fails in its duty, it cannot turn around to blame anyone except for itself. The leadership should provide credible accountability for failure to lead successful socio-economic transformation, instead of making endless excuses.
The conditions and responsibilities attached to the positions occupied by leaders, is that they have to be capable and trustworthy to lead, transform the economy to benefit the poor black majority who voted them to powerful positions of influence and authority.
If the leadership cannot use political power and constitutional authority to the advantage of the poor people, they must give way to the capable and competent ones to deliver socio economic transformation to rescue over-prolonged scourge of deprivation amongst the black majority.
There seem to be no hope that the leadership heading powerful public institutions will succeed in completely eradicating poverty unemployment and income and racial inequities and inequality without de-racialisation of the South African economy.
For radical socio economic transformation to succeed in achieving its strategic policy objectives, it should be conceived, defined and managed by its rightful radicalists who have a progressive vision.
By contrast, liberal socio-economic transformers neither have a legitimate mandate to lead the radical economic transformation to propel forward the entire agenda of transformation to the benefit of the poor citizens of the country.
Genuine radical socio-economic transformation has to effect change to the social order and economic structural arrangement with the main focus on the fundamental change of the economic system’s structures, policies, laws, socio-economic power relations among its citizens in society.
For one to engage in the debate on radical socio-economic transformation, he/she first has to make a presumption that both the social order and economic order is inherently exclusive, marginalising large section of the population to the periphery; thus not transformed at all. The economy displays multiple features of inequities and inequalities of unparalleled scale, notwithstanding having a democratised political system of the state.
Subsequent to the above presumption is the notion that engaging in genuine radical social economic transformation should imply fundamental changes at high order superstructure and substructure level. Radical socio-economic transformation is not liberal reformation that seeks to contain the potential social unrest in the country.
The crucial point here is that genuine radical social economic transformation cannot be driven and be left in the hands of the liberal thinkers who define and unilaterally champion its substantive character.
Indeed, genuine socio-economic transformation seeks to effect equitisation and equalisation of all domains of society, inclusive of social and economic domains and their concomitant sub-domains.
Question
The pertinent question in the case is: what is really radical in the substance of the so-called radical socio economic transformation?
Can the country pursue radical socio-economic transformation without having radical leaders, radical policies, ideologically radical programmes, institutional arrangements and structures amenable to implement radical programmes? That type of honest and ethical leadership which is driven by the national consciousness to overthrow the inheritance of the colonial social order and inequitable economic system that constraints the South African state and government from breaking down a historically constructed quagmire of social economic deprivation.
For radical socio-economic transformation to realise its strategic policy objectives, it has to be defined and managed by its rightful radical thinkers and custodians with a popular mandate of the poor masses who are regarded as legitimate beneficiaries.
This situation has to change through acceleration of transformation. Failure to transform the economy is equivalent to undermining and betrayal of the collective trust of the masses of the vulnerable black people. The success of transformation will partly facilitate public participation in the economic policy decision-making process and management of public and private institutions.