Maria Van Driel argues that the social dialogue, which is the policy of the main South African trade unions, cannot advance the interest of the working class under conditions of neoliberalism
In South Africa’s first ten years of democracy, the praise-singers have sung of the ”negotiations miracle” and the achievement of a society based on social dialogue. Most of the trade unions in South Africa support social dialogue as the means to achieve social change for working people. Institutions such as the National Economic and Labour Council (NEDLAC), provide for the participation of all social partners, namely government, labour and civil society. Yet, the past ten years have seen unemployment and poverty increase, and the general living standards of working people decline. While there have been important political changes in South Africa, this raises important questions about the nature and effectiveness of democracy and social dialogue in the current period. Is social dialogue possible under the current conditions of neoliberalism; and is it therefore the path to achieve substantive social justice?
Social dialogue and its Origins
Social dialogue refers to a particular way in which social relations between different classes in a society are maintained and reproduced, socially, economically and politically. Social dialogue varies through different historical periods, and depends on the level of struggles between the social classes in society.
This balance of social forces affects all aspects of social, economic and political life. This includes the individual citizen and his/her location and social interaction within the community, the home, the workplace and the broad public domain. Social dialogue reflects the particular ‘culture and norms’ within the broad public sphere, within the nation state and internationally. It also reflects people’s democratic participation in different spheres of life. While this might be uneven and is not mechanical, (given that there might be periodic shifts in the balance of class forces), social dialogue needs to be understood broadly. It cannot be reduced to particular institutions -whether government, labour or civil society – or inclusive of all stake- holders. Social dialogue includes and shapes these institutions.
The term social dialogue has its roots in the post war (1945) period in Europe. For more than 30 years this period was characterised by the general lack of (open) hostility between the different social classes, especially between the working class and the capitalist class. This was a period of relative stability and prosperity within a capitalist framework; the economy of the major capitalist countries grew at a steady pace and all the classes benefited out of this growth.
Post 1945 Europe
World War Two had devastated all aspects
of European life. The working class emerged politically strong as a result of its participation
in the popular resistance to Nazism and fascism. This also accounted for the relative strength of the working class parties, the social democrats and the communists. The capitalists on the other hand, were economically strong, but politically weak. Neither class was able to defeat the other, and this was the basis for the social equilibrium. Through this strength, the working class and its allies were able to secure broad social reforms.
Other important factors
Additional pressure on the European capitalists was the colonial struggles in Asia and Africa. The European colonisers could not afford social conflict amongst their own social classes at home while having to deal with the colonies. The capitalists’ compromise with their working classes at home was facilitated by, and at the expense of, the colonised people.
The economist, John Keynes, whose ideas informed the dominant policies of post-1945
Europe, believed that capitalism needed to be regulated in the interests of capitalism itself. Keynes believed that an unregulated and unchecked market had led to the war. Unregulated capitalism leads to major social inequality. An important aspect of Keynesianism was ”to manage or stimulate demand” to prevent crises. Keynes proposed that the state intervene in the economy and stimulate demand. (In South Africa, the Macro Economic Research Group Report (1993) and the Reconstruction and Development Programme (1993) were policy initiatives based on Keynesian models.)
An important issue in this context was how the social wealth produced would be distributed amongst the social classes. This was not confined to narrow ‘wages’ but included all aspects of social life such as education, housing, healthcare and social benefits.
State Intervention & Social Democracy The Marshall Plan, financed by the United States, facilitated the reconstruction of Europe, under the guidance of interventionist states. Historically, only the state has been able to undertake reconstruction of this nature and magnitude. The reconstruction was initially based on cheap, and often skilled, labour. Much of the profits generated were later reinvested and steadily the working class became stronger organisationally.
The social democratic parties emerged dominant in most of post war Europe. Social dialogue was expressed in parliamentary democracy and basic freedoms, full employment and strong welfare states aimed at providing universal public services ensuring the economic and social interests of all social classes. The state provided basic services and specific social provision to people with special needs or specific interest groups such as women, children, the aged and people who were (physically or mentally) unable to work. Through the provision of universal public services, the state provided the ‘social wage’ and compensated workers for their wages while capitalists continued to make profits (for themselves). In this way the potential conflict between the social classes was avoided. This social dialogue included recognition, co-operation and negotiations with trade unions and organs of civil society.
The social dialogue of the period indicates important levels of democracy and accountability, human rights for the individuals and the collective, and the public good. Social dialogue in this period developed a culture or norm of ‘human entitlement’, or basic human rights that includes ‘economic and social human rights’, (and is not limited to the right to vote). This was an important historic development in terms of human progress. It was in this context that the United Nations’ Universal Declaration on Human Rights was written in 1949, which was extremely radical in the context of anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles. For almost 30 years these policies led to the ‘Golden’ period of capitalism’ in Europe. Economic growth was accompanied by generalised stability and prosperity for all social classes,
Social Dialogue and South Africa
In 1996 South Africa adopted neoliberal policy called the Growth, Employment and Redistribution
(GEAR). Despite opposition from civil society and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), the Mandela and Mbeki governments have maintained the GEAR strategy.
The social and economic impact of neoliberalism internationally is well documented, and South Africa is no exception. In general the South African state reflects the particular social balance of classes, the organisational and political strength of the capitalistsrelative to the weakness of the working classes. According to Sampie Terreblanche the top
15 million people, (the black and white elite), access about 85 percent of the country’s total income while the 15 million people at the bottom only access 5 percent of this income. The 2003 UNDP Report, confirms that about 37,7 percent of South African households, affecting about 18 million people, still did not have four out of six basic services in
- This is due to the state’s privatisation of basic services. Today company tax has been reduced to 29 percent, from the 45 percent it was under the National Party. This is consistent with neoliberalism, which transfers wealth from the poor to the rich.
The National Economic Development and
Labour Council (NEDLAC)
The NEDLAC is a forum for stakeholders, which includes business, labour, government and communities. According to the Minister of Labour NEDLAC is ‘a model of social dialogue’ and has reached over 80 agreements in the areas of labour and social economic policy’. Despite the existence and the composition of the NEDLAC, the South African government has continued with its implementation of the GEAR, which has devastated working people. More than one million jobs have been lost, despite numerous Job Summits and Annual Summits. The textile and leather industries have been particularly affected by retrenchments and factory closures. The privatisation of basic services continues, giving rise to community struggles. Black women, and especially those in the manufacturing industry, experience continuing exploitation and erosion of their rights. Women bear the burden of privatisation of basic services. The impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic together with the crisis in the health sector, have worsened living conditions. Increasingly women bear the burden of caring for the infected at home. Recently there have been popular struggles at some of the universities
(Kwazulu Natal and Wits), opposing the exclusion of students as a result of increasing tuition fees.
The working class and its organisations have been considerably weakened under neoliberalism. The NEDLAC reflects the social balance of class forces – a strong capitalist class on the one hand, and a weak working class, on the other. That is why institutions like NEDLAC have not been able to stem the tide of the retrenchment and impoverishment of the working class after 1994.
Social dialogue cannot take place under conditions of neoliberalism, because it requires a “level playing field”, a particular level of human development and social and economic rights. Only once people’s basic rights are achieved can they participate in social dialogue. Moreover, it is only when the working class is relatively strong, as was the case in Europe after the war, is it able to effectively engage in social dialogue and elicit important social and economic reforms from the capitalists. Social dialogue cannot take place in a context where the working class and its organisations are weak, and particularly under neoliberalism, which consistently weakens the working class. Social inequity is a characteristic feature of neoliberalism and inherently undermines social dialogue as it developed in Europe after the war. While resistance has and is taking place in South Africa, the working classs basic struggle for survival mitigates its ability to defend further encroachments on its remaining conditions of life. In the context where they are consumed with daily survival, working people have been unable to exert political pressure. This also reflects the relative disempowerment of working people and the limitations of the right to vote.
In the face of this imbalance of social forces decidedly in favour of the (financial) capitalists, the stubborn support on the part of many of the trade unions for social dialogue as the path to achieve meaningful social change is foolhardy and disarms the working class organisationally, politically and ideologically.
Maria van Driel is a unionist. This article is based on a paper presented to the Public Sector Co-ordinating Bargaining Council of South Africa.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.