June 1997
Where
have all the jobs gone?
South Africa is in a dilemma. The government has admitted that GEAR
has been wholly unable to meet even its minimal job creation targets and
business arrogantly marches on in its pursuit of profits through massive
retrenchments. The SACP calls for a clear industrial policy in which job
creation is a key component, and a renewed commitment to a transformed
and interventionist public sector capable of implementing a mass-driven
job creation programme.
The best-kept
secret in South Africa is out of the closet GEAR's projected job
creation has not materialised despite limited growth in the economy. The
latest figures reveal that in the first quarter of 1997, South Africa's
gross domestic product (GDP) fell 0.8%, with a forecasted growth rate for
1997 below 2,5%. The SACP had previously warned about such jobless growth,
clearly stating that any economic policy relying heavily on the private
sector for job creation was headed for failure. The job creation 'partnership'
between government and business is now in serious trouble.
GEAR has failed to create jobs precisely because job policy formulation
is hostage to GEAR's over-reliance on the private sector and obsession
with deficit reduction. When policy is driven primarily by market-related
financial concerns that favour those who already possess resources, it
severely limits the ability of all levels of government to spur job creation
programmes that favour the majority of our people. GEAR's emphasis on privatising
public infrastructure and services makes the provision of basic needs hostage
to the whims of the market.
Business, in its pursuit of profit, does not find it profitable to play
a concrete role in addressing the stark economic and social inequalities
in our country. As COSATU President, cde. John Gomomo recently stated:
"There is a vast difference between programming a computer to project
on jobs and the real thing. Predicting that business will invest in jobs
is a far cry from getting them to invest. All they do is ask for more."
A macro-economic strategy GEARed to prioritising private sector investment
in the search for job creation, is simply an unrealistic means of tackling
the lack of job opportunities for the majority.
It is clearer than ever that we need a dynamic partnership for job creation
between a progressive state and the democratic movement, as set out in
the RDP. We are not talking about a top-down, bureaucratic process that
dictates job policy and programmes. Rather, we are saying that the state,
in conjunction with our movement and progressive community structures,
must forge a clear and binding strategic programme for job creation.
Such a programme would require the identification of specific means
of financing, the prioritisation of needs, time frames for implementation
and above all, the active, mandated involvement of the masses. Among the
inter-related components of this programme would be:
- a clear industrial policy grounded in spurring domestic production
for job creation - the popularisation and empowerment of community-based public works
programmes - the implementation of labour intensive public works projects (work
brigades) - a sustained focus on the provision of basic services to the most underprivileged
sectors of our society - the provision, through the public works programmes, of waged employment
to the most vulnerable sectors of communities - the establishment of a public works strategic policy unit
Job creation is the key to the reconstruction and development of South
Africa's distorted political economy. It is a committed, progressive and
democratised public sector in partnership with the majority of our people
hat can and should lead this challenge!
People before Profits!
Turmoil
on the right
The left remains coherent and strong
Recent events have seen increasing confusion and disarray amongst
the political forces of the right. While this comes as little surprise,
and is to be welcomed by the Left, we should continue to guard against
the desperate kicks of the dying horse that is the National Party. Our
insurance is a strong Alliance that serves the interests of the majority
of people in our country.
Over the last weeks,
there has been growing turmoil inside of the National Party. One of the
NP's younger leading lights, Roelf Meyer has walked out of the party and
many who remain in the NP are keen to leave. This follows a similar side-lining
of the more imaginative and younger leadership of the IFP, centred around
Ziba Jiyane.
Both processes have similar origins. The IFP and the NP are, in electoral
terms, largely ethnic parties, each with a relative majority in one of
our nine provinces. Both are products of our apartheid past. The dilemma
that both party's face is: should they transform into "normal",
non-ethnic, centre-right formations and thus stand some theoretical chance
of winning national elections in the distant future? Or should they at
least hold on to their core base?
The first option, the direction in which Meyer and Jiyane were trying
to travel, risks losing even the core base in exchange for nothing very
certain. The second option, holding on to an ethnic base, is a strategy
without dynamic prospects - since it depends on fears and grudges, and
it is rooted in constituencies that are diminishing numerically.
Roelf Meyer is not necessarily more enlightened than FW De Klerk - Meyer
was, after all, a key architect of the NP's brutal National Security Management
System in the second half of the 1980s. Meyer (like Jiyane) simply represents
one strategic option as opposed to another in attempting to defend a conservative
agenda in our country.
F De Klerk's problems are even more complex than this. In the first
half of the 1990s, De Klerk was happy to present himself as the De Klerk
of February 2, 1990, as the architect of the negotiated settlement (as
if he wasn't being pushed from below all the way). It is, therefore, interesting
to note how it was that De Klerk presented himself to the TRC in May this
year. By his own account he was no longer De Klerk of February 1990. Instead
he presented himself as in the tradition of PW Botha. He and PW, he claims,
were not responsible for apartheid, they were both reforming it!
This is FW trying to conserve his old NP constituency. But even on this
tack he is less than convincing. He has failed to assume responsibility
for the thousands of Third Force operations, leaving many of his own security
force personnel to swim for themselves.
If there are internal dilemmas for our political opponents on the right,
these have only be worsened by the unity of the ANC and its alliance. FW
De Klerk and Roelf Meyer entered the negotiations process back in 1990
with the advice of Washington-based think-tanks in their pockets. This
US advice, based on so-called "negotiated transitions" theory,
counselled that relatively successful negotiated transitions involve the
"centrists" of the incumbent forces and the opposition forces
"finding each other". In the process the right and the left are
shed away.
Much to the frustration of FW De Klerk, Roelf Meyer and Tony Leon, the
left within the broad ANC-led alliance has not peeled away. No wonder Tony
Leon was whingeing in Parliament at the end of May, during Minister of
Labour, cde Tito Mboweni's budget debate. Leon has tried to incite the
ANC and government to break its alliance with COSATU, calling COSATU "a
powerful organisation which could have a disruptive and destructive influence."
Leon is correct about one thing. COSATU and the left in general within
our country remain powerful and well connected. We have not withered away.
And we have no intention of abandoning our alliance with the ANC.
COSATU policy
conference
Mobilise for social equity and job creation
Kim Jurgensen, COSATU Communications Officer, discusses the main
issues raised at the recent COSATU Policy Conference. While making it clear
its opposition to GEAR as the programmatic basis for socio-economic transformation,
COSATU has called for the state and workers to play a much more proactive
role in ensuring the delivery of social equity and job creation.
COSATU recently held
a Policy Conference to look at a broad range of issues based on the theme
"Burying Apartheid Poverty". One of the key areas we looked at
was that of employment creation. As is common knowledge, the three economic
strategy documents (Social Equity, Growth for All and GEAR) all claim to
be able to create a large number of jobs.
The "Growth for All" document never mentioned job creation
and proposed many dangerous features for the working class such as privatisation,
low wages and a dual labour market system.The "Social Equity and Job
Creation" document contained concrete proposals around a programme
of job creation, redistributive fiscal policies, breaking-up economic concentration,
promoting worker rights and industrial democracy.
Based on the ANC's rejection of the "Growth for All" strategy,
it was surprising to see the government produce a similar but differently
packaged document under a new name GEAR.When comrade Trevor Manuel
presented it to parliament, he stated that "the major challenge facing
our country is the creation of jobs (GEAR) will make a significant difference
to the ability of this economy to address this fundamental challenge."
Less than a year after these famous words, evidence shows that GEAR
is not living up to its own expectations. A senior official in the Finance
Department recently stated that the "government is on track to meet
all its other commitments in terms of GEAR", but was "less confident
about job creation targets". This is exactly what COSATU warned in
its initial response to GEAR. We said that GEAR would be judged, first
and foremost, by its impact on the working class and that rather than creating
the envisaged 400 000 new jobs annually would increase the gap between
the poor and the rich and condemn the homeless and jobless into extreme
levels of poverty.
COSATU has, more than once, stated that the best way to create jobs
is to engage in massive public works programmes for roads, houses, infrastructure
etc. There must be a clear and defined role for the state in the creation
of jobs and infrastructural development, particularly in rural poor areas.
The budget must therefore be a tool of the government to implement policies
that ensure the redistribution of resources.
Conference argued that there is a need to move away from GEAR because
it stifles both employment and economic growth and condemns the poor and
unemployed to perpetual poverty. We also affirmed the need for a social
wage to alleviate poverty and provide support for the unemployed. Furthermore,
the government needs to take responsibility for developing industrial and
economic policies that promote employment creation and advance the RDP.
On the proposed Job Summit, Conference re-stated COSATU's position that
such a summit must not be rushed into. Government's GEAR, and Business's
"Growth for All" are sure recipes for a deadlocked summit. Rather,
the Alliance needs to hold a series of meetings to discuss this issue,
which will then result in a conference on employment creation. As the Alliance,
we need to define the positions and responsibilities of all the parties.
This then must become the guiding input for any other forum on this issue.
COSATU believes that the real debates must take place in NEDLAC, and NEDLAC
must use its structures to find agreement and solutions to the unemployment
crisis.
Conference also noted that the labour movement must take responsibility
for areas where we have failed in terms of socio-economic policies. As
an example, we proposed a 4% payroll levy be introduced for larger companies,
to finance the training of workers. This 4% target should be reached by
October 1998. However, we have done nothing to campaign around this proposal
as yet.
COSATU needs to vehemently mobilise workers around the Social Equity
and Job Creation document and recommit ourselves to the proposals we made
there.
Letter
to the EDITOR
Rape is Violence!
Dear Comrade
Cde. Jenny Schreiner's challenging input on the crime of rape in Umsebenzi
(February) should be welcomed. In a recent rape case of a Mrs. "T"
in the Jhb. Magistrate Court, the public defender (Mr. H. Horn) was reported
to have argued, in mitigation of sentence, that Mrs. "T" had
not been seriously injured during the rape. The magistrate, Mr. L. Van
der Schyff, imposed a 5 year sentence, saying it was lighter than usual
due to lack of physical injuries.
The realisation that rape is a violent act has clearly not dawned on
these insensitive and sexist court officials. Why do women have to be physically
injured before stiffer sentences can be imposed? What about the psychological
and emotional injuries suffered? A 5 year sentence for Mr. Saptoe is unacceptably
light, there should be a minimum sentence of 15-20 years!
We can no longer tolerate rapists. Let us all join in the struggle to
defeat the war being waged against women and children in our homes and
on the streets!
Hope Papo
SACP Gauteng Provincial Organisor
Political Education
The Basics of Historical Materialism
Umsebenzi completes its three-part series on the basics of marxism
with an outline of the core components of historical materialism. An understanding
of this concept serves to ground our revolutionary struggle in the ever-dynamic
realities of class struggle and the need for revolutionary political organisation
and leadership.
Tied to both the philosophy
and economics of Marxism - and combining both of them - is Marx's concept
of historical materialism. Marx shows us that history is made by humans,
not by some so-called 'destiny' or supernatural entity. Simply put, history
is the life of people and within the dialectical materialist understanding
it is also the history of class struggle.
Over time, social and economic relations evolved, characterised by a
relationship of exploiters and exploited and the development of specific
classes and relations of production between them. It is the combination
of these relations of production and the productive forces (i.e.
units of production) that Marx called the mode of production.
The successive appearance and disappearance of certain modes of production
eventually gave us the capitalist mode of production. Marx shows us how
the laws of historical development (as mentioned above) determines
the sequence of modes of production (i.e. from primitive to slavery, from
feudalism to capitalism).
Even though this sequence is logical, history does not make humankind,
but humans make history and thus it is necessary for humans (specifically
the proletariat) to struggle for change, for socialist revolution, for
power. It is the proletariat - due to its relationship to capital - that
is the social force capable of overthrowing capitalism. But it can only
do so through unity, organisation and collective power (the working
class as an organised class).
We can grasp, from a historical materialist approach, the neccessity
of revolutionary action and organisation. It is through such struggle
that the strategic necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat
becomes a possibility.
In order to realise such a struggle there must be the development of
a class consciousness (i.e., understanding the conditions and relations
under which that class lives and 'one's' place therein). In turn, such
consciousness allows a politicisation to take place among the workers.
This requires not only an organised working class but a political formation
(a party, a union) capable of politicising that class consciousness, of
preparing for revolutionary class struggle.
It is ultimately though, the workers who will free themselves. The ultimate
character of this struggle depends on human initiative, on understanding
the tasks, and the efficiency of leadership.
PROVINCIAL FOCUS
The right and crime in the N. Province
Justice Piitso. Northern Province PEC member and Chairperson of the
SACP Sekhukhune Central District, discusses the various ways in which right-wing
forces in the province are attempting to destabilise the efforts of the
democratic movement. Decisive initiatives need to be taken to deal with
this growing menace.
Despite visible delivery
of essential services to the rural poor in the country since the April
1994 breakthrough, it has become clear that anti-transformational forces
remain active. Even though this is a national problem, these forces are
earmarking the Northern Province in particular, a densely populated region
that voted overwhelming for the ANC in 1994.
While our movement is faced with the challenge of overcoming the devastating
socio- economic legacy left behind by apartheid, the agenda of the right-wing
forces is to desatbilise our efforts. Their immediate aim is to identify
the most burning issues in the communities and then to create the impression
that the progressive forces in the province are both unwilling and unable
to address them.
Specifically, the National Party is most certainly behind the 'deployment'
of vigilante groups whose stated aim is to "combat crime'. For example,
the "Mapogo a mathamaga" (a vigilante group associated with certain
business leaders), are undermining the legitimacy of our new democracy
by taking the law into their own hands. In recent months, these vigilantes,
in the name of 'keeping law and order', have conducted numerous assaults
on targeted individuals and refused co-operation with the police.
We must not be fooled by these so-called 'enforcers of the law'. Crime
is an issue that involves social relations and our democratic movement
needs to strengthen our structures so as to effectively deal with the root
causes. The movement must come out with a specific vision and programme
of action for community policing forums instead of going out and merely
making these structures part of an electioneering problem.
The right-wing forces are also attempting to use governmental structures
as tools to foment crime. In our province public funds are being stolen
to finance the vigilante groups and corrupt bureaucrats facilitate the
operation of crime syndicates within the government itself.
It is the public sector that must drive the process of our reconstruction
and development efforts to liberate the workers and poor. The right-wing
forces want to disrupt these efforts.
We should not hesitate to stamp out such criminal elements and activities
as a way of striving for a crime-free community and an efficient public
administration.
Back
to basics
Do we need a fresh approach to the ABC's?
David Makhura, NEHAWU National Education Secretary, argues for a
re-think in our approach to the ABCs of revolutionary struggle in our transition.
In doing so, we must understand the need for a comprehensive cadreship
development programme that speaks to the new circumstances and challenges.
In recent months,
Alliance partners have made very important interventions at the level of
public debate through the release of discussion documents. From this ongoing
process, two strategic observations can be made:
- the discussions have restored, at least for now, a culture of open,
frank and fearless debate that was beginning to fade - a clear difference about what exactly constitutes the ABCs of our NDR
today. For example, if
GEAR becomes a key component of ANC cadreship development, the cadre
produced would be different from those of its alliance partners who are
disputing the strategic thrust of GEAR.
If it is true that we need to go "back to basics", which basics
are we talking about? What type of cadres do we need today and for what
should we be building cadres?
We can no longer assume that we share the same basics, the same vision
and the same strategic objective for transformation.
We must remind ourselves that we are striving for fundamental, socialist
transformation of society. We want to build socialist cadres in the current
transition. This means at least four things:
1. At the level of delivery of public services and goods, our cadre
needs to adopt a socialist work ethic by being operationally efficient
and delivering quality service to members of the public, as well as striving
to link workers' problems with those of the wider working class communities.
2. At the organisational level, this new cadre will need to take seriously
the challenge of running a working class organisation in a professional
and systematic manner. There is nothing revolutionary about being haphazard
and disorganised.
3. At the more strategic and broader political level, our cadre needs
to fight for the defence of the public domain as opposed to the market,
the socialisation of the state rather than its marketisation. We must defend
our values of collectivity, social equity and socio- economic justice against
the capitalist 'dog-eat-dog' ideology.
4. In all the above-mentioned levels, our new cadre needs to grasp the
complexity of the relationship between class and gender struggle. We need
to break with that component of our marxist theoretical legacy that treats
gender simply as a function of class and understand the historical specificity
of gender oppression.
We need an all-round cadreship development programme in order to produce
all-round cadres. This cadre will be prepared for a multiplicity of tasks
in unions, other working class organisations and in a working class-led
democratic state. In this context, a "back to basics" call is
not some pre-occupation with the good old days. It is an understanding
of the need to do solid on-going political education under new conditions,
facing new challenges.
Repression
in Indonesia
No friend of South Africa's Workers and poor
Indonesian dictator Suharto, and his military thugs, continue to
intensify their campaign of terror against their own population and the
people of East Timor. Physical extermination of 'state enemies', imprisonment
of political dissidents, banning of union activity and rigged elections
these are the staple diet of Indonesia's and East Timor's long-suffering
people. And yet, in the face of such ongoing repression, our government
continues to pursue political and economic ties with this neo-fascist state.
Since the 1965 slaughter
of hundreds of thousands of communists by President Suharto's military-backed
dictatorship (assisted by the USA), Indonesia has been a one-party dictatorship.
For the last three decades, Suharto and his cronies have ruled the country
with an iron fist and since 1975 have illegally occupied the island of
East Timor.
In spite of Suharto's reign of terror, progressives and the organised
Left in Indonesia and East Timor continue to engage in their struggle for
freedom. Students and workers remain at the forefront of the people's struggles
to introduce democracy and basic human rights in a country which is praised
by international capitalists for its 'pro-western' stance and 'sound' economic
policies. No doubt, these capitalists were overjoyed with the pre-determined
outcome of the recent national elections, held on 29 May. Suharto's political
organisation GOLKAR was once again returned to power. Like
most dictatorships, no real political opposition or activity is allowed,
with two other 'approved' political parties giving the sham appearance
of democratic choice. The only real political opposition comes from the
outlawed People's
Democratic Party (PRD) and from the majority section of the Indonesian
Democracy Party (PDI) whose leader, Megawati Sukarnoputra, was ousted before
the elections took place. Both the PRD and Megawati called for a successful
boycott of the election in spite of massive intimidation and violence by
Suharto's regime. Not content with rigging the elections, Suharto's regime
has sentenced the leader of the PRD, Budiman Sujatmiko, to 13 years imprisonment
and locked up a host of other opposition political and worker activists
on trumped-up charges. In East Timor, the leader of the East Timorese liberation
movement, Xanana Gusmao, is serving a 20 year prison sentence.
Despite the repression in Indonesia and East Timor, the South African
government continues to forge political and economic ties with the Suharto
regime. This, in spite of repeated calls by the internal mass opposition
movements and internationally to sever ties with the dictatorship. The
argument for a 'constructive engagement' with the Suharto dictatorship
is nothing more than an excuse for the failure to act on our own political
principles and to express concrete solidarity with those struggling for
freedom. Indeed, it must surely remind many South Africans of the same
justification for the USA's own 'constructive engagement' with the apartheid
regime.
In light of our own movement's struggle against repression and stated
commitment to human rights and democracy, it is imperative that there be
unequivocal support for the freedom fighters of Indonesia and East Timor.
The principles of our own struggle, specifically internationalist solidarity,
must not be sacrificed on the altar of economic expediency and so-called
political 'pragmatism'.
DOWN WITH THE SUHARTO DICTATORSHIP!
SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF INDONESIA & EAST TIMOR!
United
Kingdom
Labour Party Landslide and the left
The landslide victory
of the Labour Party in the British general elections on May 1 is a sharp
rejection of neo-liberal austerity, writes Jeremy Cronin. The very policies
that Business SA wants to foist on us here in South Africa, have now met
with massive rejection in one of the heart-lands of capitalism itself.
The results of the British election should neither be under-rated, nor
exaggerated. Those who argue that there is "no difference" between
a Labour and a Conservative majority are profoundly wrong. At the very
least, the result reflects a huge popular groundswell of anger against
years of hard-nosed capitalist rule.
Over some two decades, Thatcher and Major, in the name of "freeing
the market", have dismantled the welfare system, sold off major public
utilities, and generally fostered a society of growing inequality in which
self-enrichment is the core morality. But the platform of 'New' Labour
is itself vague. New Labour is certainly not committed to a return to full-blooded
welfarism, nor will it seek to re-nationalise privatised public utilities.
While a minority of the party leadership speak of socialism, the majority
leadership has quietly let the idea slip. New Labour is calling for a "stake-
holder" capitalism. It puts little emphasis on changing private ownership,
but rather on greater regulation of capital, and on increasing, through
pension funds and other means, the stake of workers in the capitalist economy.
Against the back-ground of years of neglect, New Labour is putting a
great deal of emphasis on improved education, arguing that greater "fairness"
in education, will actually produce a more "competitive", a more
"productive" economy.
Herein lies the greatest vagueness in the platform of New Labour. Basically
it is a platform that seeks to "square the circle". It wants
more fairness, more equity, more sense of community. But it wants to argue
that these are, in any case, always more efficient from a market and capitalist
point of view.
This is only partly true. More equity might result in higher productivity.
But it is not just workers, or future workers, who are entitled to greater
equity, or more community. The old, the sick, the unemployed are also entitled
to a life of dignity, regardless of "market-place" logic.
For the moment, New Labour wants the best of both worlds. Sooner or
later it, and the people of Britain, will encounter hard choices. Without
an agenda for the progressive weakening of capitalist rule, the aspirations
that millions of Britons voted for on May 1 will be undermined.
Italy
The left searchers for a new pact
Yunus Carrim, SACP Central Committee member and National MP, recently
attended the Second National Congress of the Italian PDS (Democratic Party
of the Left) on behalf of the SACP. He reports on the debates and decisions
at the Congress.
"Integration"
was the theme of the PDS Congress integration of the Left, integration
of Italy and integration into Europe. It was debates around this
essentially, around the nature of the new identity being forged for the
Left and for Italy that the Congress revolved.
The Congress, which was held in Rome from 20-23 February, drew just
over 1000 delegates and several thousand observers. It was the first Congress
since the founding of the PDA in 1991 and the victory of the centre-left
"Olive Tree" coalition in the general elections of April 1996
(45% of the vote). The PDS is the main core of the former Italian Communist
Party (dissolved in 1991) and is the largest party in the Olive Tree coalition.
The coalition includes
the Social Populists, Left Socialists and Greens, supported by the Refoundation
Communist Party (RCP) and the small Unitarian Communists A key concern
of the Congress was to receive a mandate to pursue greater unity within
the coalition and possibly dissolve the PDS to make way for a new, broader
Social Democratic- type party. The RCP rejected being a part of the proposed
new party, arguing that such a party could only be based on the abandonment
of marxism altogether, and the adoption of a neo-liberal agenda. The major
trade union federation linked to the PDS, CGIL, also expressed severe reservations
about the direction being taken by the PDS.
Underlying the Congress was a recognition that the Italian state and
society have to be modernised against the background of globalisation and
a united Europe. In the debates about the restructuring of the "welfare
state" the majority view was that there is a need for a new "social
pact" between the citizens and the state. It was argued that the present
"pact" (in place since the Second World War) is based on the
"privileged position of the adult male worker" and does not benefit
large disadvantaged sectors of society.
The Congress endorsed the need for a "new reunification of Italy",
through new forms of integrating the richer northern and poorer southern
regions, with the aim of moving to a more "federal" state with
greater power for regional and local government. Many other issues, such
as the electoral system are up for review as part of the new thinking.
The PDS sees state reform as being linked to the search for a new economic
policy that provides growth and development with jobs. Discussions have
begun with the trade unions about a reduction in working hours and greater
labour flexibility. Integration into Europe on the basis of the Maastricht
Treaty poses enormous challenges for the PDS as it seriously limits options
outside a neo-liberal framework.
Essentially, the PDS believes there has to be a strong united new party
of the Left. Both in its pursuit of this new pact and new party the PDS
seems to be increasingly shedding its marxist legacy.
At the end of the Congress, after a moving rendition of the Internationale
by some 10 000 people in a red-carpeted hall against a hammer and sickle
background, a foreign delegate remarked: "Well, that's the last time
we sing this at a PDS Congress " He is probably right!
It's
|
TOWARDS
A WOMEN'S MOVEMENT
Thenjiwe Mtintso, SACP Central Committee member and head of the National
Gender Commission, argues for a Women's Movement (WM) structured through
women united in struggle and solidarity. Such a movement must be part of
the overall struggles for a non-patriarchal, non-racial and non-capitalist
society.
"The SACP must
help to build a broad progressive women's movement in South Africa to assume
a leading role, in the present phase of the NDR, in underlining the profound
interconnections between class, national and women's oppression. The struggle
against patriarchy requires both an independent focus and integration into
the immediate tasks of the day - the advance, deepening and defense of
the democratic breakthrough." This is a statement contained in the
SACP's Strategic Perspectives adopted at the 1995 Congress.
Prior to that, the SACP had proposed a "package" to include
numerous gender structures at all levels of government as well as independent
gender and women's structures. Its emphasis was on "a strong WM"
as a prerequisite for the effectiveness of those structures. This "package
of women structures'' has since been translated by government and parliament
into a "national machinery" consisting of numerous bodies both
at national and provincial levels. This then begs the question - what about
the "strong WM"?
There has not been, either within or outside the Alliance an earnest
debate on the different understandings of what this is, whether it can
be "formed" and if so, by whom? While the SACP and COSATU gender
desks have engaged in serious debate and discussion, the ANC NEC has never
discussed the matter. At its Conference in April 1997, the ANCWL referred
to the need for WM in passing without debating their understanding of the
real meaning. The May 1997 Women's National Coalition, also referred to
the need for a WM without unraveling its meaning.
In attempting to forge a working class perspective of a WM we need to
understand that women are not a homogenous entity with constant and consistent,
all-time common interests, needs and struggles. There are fundamental divisions
amongst SA women (e.g., class & race) which determine and impact on
their interests, experiences and objectives. At that level there can not
be any universal "women's struggles" of all time.
But because of the dominant power relations in favour of men in our
society viz patriarchy, all women experience varying degrees of oppression
and domination, and may have common interests. These are the moments of
"sisterhood", common cause, solidarity and struggle.
The SACP does not propagate notions of class before gender or gender
before class. It realises the complex patterns of power, social relations
and the existence of one construct in the other. It is crucial for our
movement to understand these complexities so as to work-out strategic moments
of common cause with other sisters and moments of difference and even opposition
to each other.
From this perspective, we cannot view the WM in structural terms of
a national body uniting all women at all times, or merely as struggles
around "women's issues" as an end. Rather, we must see a WM as
women united in struggles around those issues, as part of the overall struggles
for the transformation of society. Women must be organised into groups
and formations around their specific needs, interests and expectations.
Such organisations must be strengthened wherever they are by all means
available. Women in every corner of the country must be able to effectively
struggle for those things that affect them directly. They must be empowered
to speak out for themselves.
A WM means the coming together of women in joint actions, united demands,
coordinated campaigns and supportive cooperation around areas of common
interest. Each must have and be given space when disagreeing with others
without cutting links for future cooperation. This recognises that there
are things around which women can agree and struggle (e.g. rape) and areas
around which they cannot agree (e.g. the lock out clause), because of class
interest. A strong WM would, amongst other things, strengthen the voice
of women, advance gender struggles, empower the disempowered groups and
facilitate the distribution of resources for the overall strategic objective
of eradicating oppressive gender relations.
A WM cannot be an event that occurs on a particular day when it is being
launched. It is a process entailing building networks and relationships
across all sectors. It means coordinated efforts and struggles around specific
issues. Above all it means giving women a Voice whenever they are, enabling
them to articulate their needs. Some women's groups, because of their resources,
have to assist others and act as "enablers" rather than advocates
for those women who cannot speak for themselves. For such a WM to be strong
we need the efforts of the broad democratic movement particularly gender
and women's structures therein to be the driving force.
The working class has to play a key role as it is in its interests to
remove patriarchy and all other forms of domination as part of the class
struggle. COSATU and the SACP, as champions of the struggles of the working
class, have to lead in the strengthening of the women's movement. For the
SACP, socialism is not possible without the eradication of patriarchy.
The WM is but one of the tools to be used in the struggle for socialism.
