It’s not just about a failure to deliver
Only when ordinary people have more say will they enjoy equality and prosperity, writes Christopher Rutledge
DAVID Hume famously wrote that “force is always on the side of the governed”. It is the governed who have the power and so the rulers have to find ways to keep them from using that power. Or, as Walter Lippman, a famous 20th-century public intellectual once said, we have to protect the responsible men, the intelligent minority, from the “trampling and roar of the bewildered herd”. Or, more to the point, as Janan Ganesh recently wrote in the Financial Times: “The poor will always outnumber the rich. Technocracy can protect the rich from the poor.”
In modern society this includes the use of “democratic” systems which create sufficient appearance of public control but which concentrate and maintains power among the “responsible men and intelligent minority”.
It is on this foundation, behind the scenes, away from the scrutiny of public involvement that the schemes of corruption and deception are allowed to spread and mutate like the cancer they are and that the seeds of inequality are nurtured and grown.
It was in one such behind-the-scenes exercise of power that the proclamation by the minister of mineral resources of the third mining charter was made. While the proclamation drew the immediate ire of the Chamber of Mines and precipitated a stand-off between the chamber and the minister, it also inadvertently opened the door to the possibility of advancing a deeper, more structural political solution to the mining question.
For decades, if not centuries, the governance of the sector, which has become synonymous with the inequality that manifests in broader society, has been the preserve of the political, economic and labour elites. It can thus be no surprise that only these elites have been the main beneficiaries of a mining regime that continues to leave massive destruction and poverty in its wake.
The mining sector is itself a useful prism through which to understand the problems of inequality in broader society and the inability of both the state and business to address the historical injustices of the past while creating opportunities for the future.
At the heart of the failure to transform the sector from one which has historically benefited the colonial elites to one which benefits society in general is the mistaken notion that only a few responsible men and the intellectual minority, engaged in back room deals, have the answers to our complex problems.
This popular notion among business and political elites is cynically at variance with the basic demands of the South African struggle for liberation as well as the growing sentiment across the globe for greater inclusion and more just outcomes. This elitism also now increasingly appears to be an anachronistic mode of governance that has no place in the future.
Historically, the anti-apartheid struggle had at its core the demand for the inclusion of the majority in the regulation and governance of society. The constitution, while acknowledging this central require- ment of any future society and while the Constitutional Court has approved this notion of broad participation as being central to a society based on human dignity, the state and organised business have, more often than not, tried to circumvent this foundational principle of our new democracy.
Even as we venture into the 21st century, the age-old wisdom and historical demand for the inclusive governance for which all people have strived are finding new and innovative ways to make its case.
Take blockchain technology as one example of how the universal wisdom of inclusive, open and transparent governance helps to reduce corruption and secures more equitable outcomes.
Blockchain’s main innovation is a public transaction record of integrity without central authority. The technology offers everyone the opportunity to participate in secure contracts, but without being able to avoid a record of what was agreed at any time. Fraud is prevented through block validation.
The blockchain does not require a central authority or trusted third party to co-ordinate interactions or validate transactions. A full copy of the blockchain contains every transaction ever executed, making information on the value belong- ing to every active address (account) accessible at any point in history.
The essence of blockchain technology employs the same essence of a democracy where open, transparent participation of all users /citizens guarantees corruption-less transactions and outcomes.
The Pew Research Centre recently published a global survey of attitudes towards democracy and even in the West, the home of liberal democracy, fully 70% of those surveyed wanted a democracy where “citizens, not elected officials, vote directly on major national issues to decide what becomes law”.
This global reaction to the growing inequality in the world and what is increasingly perceived as a lack of democracy should serve as a siren warning to us that, in a country where inequality is particularly severe, repeating the patterns of dominance imbibed from the apartheid state cannot lead to more just outcomes than the apartheid state delivered.
The seminal mistake we make in preferring elite technocratic responses to what is generally a lack of democratic participation by the people in their own governance is informed by mistaken notions such as Frederik van Zyl Slabbert’s claim that “apartheid self-destructed because of a massive crisis of delivery”.
This approach to governance, which suggests that all a government has to do is deliver services to keep the citizens docile and contained in their townships and villages, is similar to the current approach by the democratic state which seeks to downplay the political claims of citizens to inclusion by reducing it to a paternalistic matter of delivery.
The application by Mining Affected Communities United in Action (Macua) to the Pretoria High Court as part of the case seeking to have the proclamation of the mining charter reviewed is thus more than a plea by desperately poor communities for service delivery.
It is, at its core, their claim to their constitutional right to be included in their own governance.
Hopefully the courts will provide clarity and certainty to the government and the Chamber of Mines on the constitutional right of communities to be consulted on matters that directly affect them and put a stop to the doublespeak of token consultations and the cynical exclusion which has been the bedrock of the most unequal society in the world.
Christopher Rutledge is the natural resources manager for ActionAid South Africa. He writes in his personal capacity