Second Transition? There wasn’t a first one!

Since we are still flirting with the IMF ... we are far from economic transformation, writes MADALA THEPA

WITH its socio-political connotations and almost astute observations on the state of the nation, the Second Transition discussion document of the ANC is still an abstract capitalist-pleasing document.

It is a work in progress but its contents still pander to the idea that the whites are holding the economy hostage and the African child will be in bondage until they relent.

On paper the document sounds “revolutionary” but it’s too late to be relevant after the organisation failed to fix what they call the fault lines of

“poverty, unemployment and inequality” during the first transition.

Land itself is an all-time classic case and we’re willing to wager that the ANC won’t win it in the Second Transition or even the 100th.

But the questions are: was there a first transition in the first place?

And was the ANC in power in the first transition or did it continue where apartheid left off, neglecting the fault lines and playing into capitalists hands, such as the World Bank and IMF’s economic austerity programmes in the developing world?

And since we are still flirting with the IMF sending it “loans” and calling them

“firewall funds” intended for rainy days, we are far from economic transformation.

This is the same IMF that charges a high rate of interest for business loans and forces developing countries to open free trade.

So does this Second Transition come with a revolutionary disclaimer that says, “F… you IMF!” or does it come with the same painful chains of economic austerity programmes?

How will the Second Transition get us out of the enslaving hands of capitalist institutions?

The document focuses on the social and economic transformation of South Africa and states that economic freedom should be achievable in the next 30 to 50 years.

This is revolution postponed and unachievable, considering that in 30 to 50 years from now the ANC will be struggling for relevancy.

For the real transition to take effect, the ANC will have to enter that alpha state of mind where they have to change tenor – perhaps look to the Burkinabé revolution under Thomas Sankara for motivation.

Demba Moussa Dembele, based with African Forum on Alternatives in Dakar, writes: The Burkinabé

“Revolution was an unprecedented experiment in profound economic, social and political change.

“[ It] was a bold experiment in endogenous development, with the construction of infrastructure (dams, railways, schools, roads, etc.), through the intense mobilisation of the masses powered by the principle of self-reliance.”

This, mind you, was achieved a few years before Sankara was assassinated. He didn’t wait to eat and dine, to be in the middle of things, enjoying the semi-spin-offs of capitalism to question it later.

In South Africa we’re in the post-puberty stage, yet we still talk about fault lines – the basics that should have been dealt with in the first transition.

The ANC government is failing to get the basics right, such as giving this country a name – yet they talk about Second Transition when the first one failed.

When Sankara took over, his country of birth was called Upper Delta and he renamed it Burkina Faso (land of upright men).

He didn’t conceptualise a Second Transition in 30 to 50 years, when Nirvana shall be had by the masses.

This document is betrayal in the making and a kick in the Adam’s apple of the masses.

The ANC itself concedes that “our first transition was characterised by a framework and a national consensus that may have been appropriate for a political transition, but has proven inadequate and even inappropriate for a social and economic transformation phase.”

So what will make the Second Transition workable?

What makes it revolutionary when the basics aren’t right?