Does SA have scope for just redistribution?

for managing problems of social cohesion in a world of differences.

It could be useful to institutionalise consensus-building as part of the social cohesion programme consistent with the spirit of the political settlement.

The persistence of violent protests on the land question suggests an urgent need for a large, well-resourced consensus-building mechanism to help prevent and resolve them.

If the resources needed for a large-scale effort of this kind can be generated, there is at least the hope that it can begin to tackle the problem of land grabs that has plagued the government for some time.

The surge of democratic struggles in recent years seems to indicate society is at present in the midst of a major ideological readjustment, brought about by a deteriorating quality of life, the explosive growth of inequality and myriad other social ills.

Land grabs, without condoning its violence, are significant in revealing growing discontent and anger about the impact of neoliberal land policies, which have had a harsh effect on the masses while undermining participatory democracy and enriching and empowering a tiny minority, largely in financial industries that have a dubious, if not harmful, role in the economy.

Responding to these democratic struggles, Ramaphosa and his cabinet are making land redistributive justice and human dignity major themes of the programme for radical transformation.

Is this trend likely to continue after the next national elections or will the momentum for radical transformation fade away?

That’s up to us, especially those who have been mobilised by the historic struggle for freedom and justice, and the president and cabinet.

Progressive opposition parties have an obligation and a public duty to take part in the common pursuit of justice and human dignity.

The energy and commitment could fade away. Or they could become a continuing and growing force that is not focused on electoral extravaganzas. That will be a critical choice, for all of us, in the coming months.

A problem facing today’s left in almost all of the countries that have achieved independence through political settlement is that, for complex reasons beyond the reach of this article, they have tended to capitulate in no time to capitalist forces and become immersed in the practices of corruption and pursuit of power for the sake of power and material gain.

The causes may vary, but the results are destructive. Although there have been achievements, opportunities have been squandered as elites joined global forces to sink into cesspools of corruption.

Why, then, should we be optimistic? While it is true that humans are social beings and thus our behaviour depends on the social, economic, and political arrangements in our lives, there is such a thing as a common good for all.

This transcends aspirations that include a need for better food, accommodation and transport, and more effective protection from violence.

Although the state of the nation has been distorted by neoliberal doctrines in the assault on human dignity for the majority, these can be reversed, and there is ample evidence of courage, public integrity, hope and renewed confidence in the presidency and cabinet.

There is no reason to suppose that poor service delivery and corruption are graven in stone.

All in all, they are the product of particular circumstances and specific human decisions that have been well studied.

These can be reversed and there is ample evidence of resistance in democratic struggles which the consensus-building mechanism can help grow to be a powerful force if there is to be hope for us.

We have two choices. We can be cynical, give up and help ensure that the violation of human dignity deepens, or we can be optimistic, grasp the opportunities for consensus-building that surely exist, and help make South Africa a better place.

The failure to institutionalise land redistribution justice and human dignity has never been an invitation to capitulation, but rather to a refinement of strategies and tactics.

It is to this possibility that collaborative action and public ethics are called to give not a final solution but a consensus-driven response aimed at making creative disagreements productive; in other words, at continuing the work of the liberation struggle in thought, feeling and action.

Nkondo is a policy analyst, member of the Freedom Park Council and the Council of Unisa. He writes in his personal capacity.