Turning the Tide Challenges to Neoliberalism

Modiehi Khuele* reports on Annual Globalisation School hosted by ILRIG in September this year.

From the 29th of September to the 3rd of October 2003, the International Labour Research and Information Group (ILRIG) hosted its second Annual Globalisation School in Cape Town. The theme of the school was: Turning the tide – Challenges to neo-liberalism”. Activists attended the school from Cosatu affiliates, and social movements like the APF, the Anti-Eviction Campaign and the Community Networking Forum. Self Help Projects such as Lesotho Empowerment project for the Disabled were there, as were left Non-Governmental Organisations like Khanya College and AIDC. There were also a number of activists from the Southern Africa region.

The context of the School

The school took place in the context of the intensification of global neo-liberal capitalism and its ferocious impact on the working class, in our continent and internationally. This shaped the school’s aims in terms of attempting to provide space for consolidating anti-globalisation activists’ understanding of globalisation and its impact on the working class. This was done through exchanging views, experiences and ideas on how to challenge globalisation, as well as by building solidarity networks across social movements and trade unions.

In view of the fact our South African government is playing a fundamental role in facilitating the anchoring of neo-liberal capitalism, there was an acknowledgement from the majority of the participants that this was a direct attack on the working class and the poor. The privatisation of basic and public services was seen as a key element of this agenda, and as a denial of humanity’s survival on the continent. South Africa’s role in spearheading the implementation of NEPAD was seen as no different from the imperialist west’s agenda on the continent.

Policies such as NEPAD, Foreign Direct Investment, and the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) were the central themes of this workshop. The school’s focus on trade and investment in the context of neo-liberal capitalism equipped participants with tools of analysis that built on their understanding of how neo-liberalism functions, the impact it has on the working class, and in whose favour it operates. It also provided participants with a political and theoretical framework that enhanced their positions on globalisation. The school interrogated women’s struggles under globalisation as well as the struggles of the social movements and trade unions. These two aspects formed part of the sectoral classes that were part of the school.

Different perspectives

Throughout the school, there were sharp differences between the unions’ and social movements’ representatives in their approach on how to challenge globalisation. These differences were evident in the various plenary sessions, and were more intense in the social movements and trade unions’ sectoral class. From the social movements side, there was overt unhappiness over the government’s implementation of neo-liberal policies such as GEAR and privatisation. Such a position emanated from their experiences of rising unemployment, retrenchments, and cuts in government’s social expenditures on basic services. The fact that many of these services were now being privatised was also a source of unhappiness.

Activists from the social movements questioned the unions’ role in the tripartite alliance, and whether this will advance the interest of the working class. For some of the activists from the social movements, this was an alliance with the capitalist ruling class in South Africa. As a consequence of the prevalence of such problems, the social movements began questioning the relevance and the role of unions in the context of neo-liberal globalisation.

On the other hand, COSATU activists argued that there was a need to strengthen the alliance in order to defend the political gains and space achieved as a consequence of national liberation.

Furthermore, COSATU activists argued that as a result of the historical role the alliance partners; there was a need to engage the ANC and to participate within the ANC so as to bring about change in policy direction, as opposed to a termination of the alliance. On this note, some participants maintained that “COSATU is a spear and the ANC is a shield”. They also argue that the alliance partners “are key organs of people’s power”. Along with embracing the alliance, they acknowledged the flaws of globalisation, and the need to mobilise social power in order challenge globalisation COSATU activists also emphasised the importance of the federation by citing the size of the federation, and by noting that it was still the strongest formation within the working class. COSATU activists also criticised social movements as lacking in political direction, ideological and theoretical clarity and coherence. They pointed to the weakness of the structures, composition and organisational capacity of the movements. According to them, the movements lacked constitutions and policies.

Conclusion:

The school was shaped by intense and polarised debates. Both the social movement and the unions saw themselves as agents of social change, and both saw the working class and the poor of South Africa as their constituencies. What remained unresolved was the role of the unions in the current context of globalisation, and their future in the context of the increasingly negative effects of neo-liberal policies on the working class. Another issue that remained unresolved was the question of narrowing the differences between the two sides.

The task of narrowing these differences was, however, made more difficult by the fact that on the last day of the workshop, some of the COSATU activists walked out of the school. They argued that, firstly, ILRIG was polarising the working class, and secondly, that ILRG provided a platform for social movements to criticise COSATU.

On a positive note, the workshop played an important role in consolidating participants understanding of globalisation and how it functions. The workshop enhanced my understanding of how investment polices in the neo-liberal context are skewed and function to exploit the resources of under-developed countries.

*Modiehi Khuele works at Khanya College, Johannesburg.