Johannesburg 26 October, 1999
Comrades, the SACP has decided to join you in this March because we believe that the transformation of local government is a very central question in defending and deepening the National Democratic Revolution. It is this sphere of government that is closest to the people and is tasked with enormous responsibilities to facilitate a people-driven and people-centred delivery and transformation. In addition the SACP is of the view that big metropolitan cities like Johannesburg are national institutions and assets, given the fact that they are critical for economic growth and development of our country. For this reason the transformation of Johannesburg and iGoli 2002 cannot be narrowly seen as a local or provincial matter, but it is a matter of national concern.
Our starting point as the SACP is that local government transformation must be guided by the Alliance commitment to building a developmental state. Key features of such a state is that it must be people-driven and centred; aim at the most thorough democratisation and transformation of power in society; that it must be aimed at addressing the basic needs of the overwhelming majority of the working class and the poor; and must implement the basic principles of the RDP. Much more importantly our transformation programmes and processes must be inclusive and aim to seek maximum possible consensus including all the key stakeholders.
Again as the SACP and the Alliance we are all agreed that we inherited from the apartheid regime distorted state structures that must be transformed in all spheres of government. Even the iGoli 2002 document does recognise, at least on paper, all these factors. But the critical question is whether the content and the manner in which this plan is being implemented are consistent with this approach. This is where the SACP at national, provincial and branch level here in Johannesburg is seriously concerned about.
First of all some of the language in the iGoli 2002 documents is not consistent with this overall strategic framework of the Alliance. Firstly, it talks largely about customers instead of active citizens who must fully participate in the transformation of their own localities. Customers are completely different from participants in the sense that customers are merely buyers of services. As the SACP we are concerned that even the route of creating autonomous utilities and agencies is more informed by this customer approach than by a people-driven and centred approach. Our aim as the SACP and the Alliance is that residents must be active participants in taking key decisions about the options available for transformation.
Our concerns are also informed by the fact that it is important that in the transformation processes we do not only protect jobs, but also enhance opportunities for job creation. We would like to say it upfront that much as iGoli 2002 commits itself to retaining workers’ jobs, this cannot be done without making sure that workers themselves are made to feel that they are part of the process. The fact that workers are marching today against the plan and have declared a dispute with the Council is a serious indicator that there have not been adequate consultations with the workers. As the SACP we would like to put it categorically that no development or transformation plan can be sustainable at any level of government if workers are alienated. It is also important to say that inadequate consultation with workers plays directly into the hands of the bosses and all those who today tell us that workers are an obstacle to economic growth and development.
As the SACP we are also concerned about the increasing tendency of dismissing workers’ concerns as selfish, narrow concerns. But we do not hear similar sentiments being expressed in business platforms that their own concerns are dangerously narrow and only concerned about profits and not the interests of the majority of the working people and the poor of this country. For instance the iGoli 2002 document states, amongst other things, that Metro Gas needs to be sold to the private sector because “it is also plagued by problems of unaccounted for gas that is growing, non-payment, inadequate management capacity and growing competition”. For us as the SACP the question is why is there non-payment and gas that is unaccounted for, since this gas is predominantly used by business and better off sections of our society? If we say the council therefore does not have the capacity to manage this, where then are we going to get capacity to manage any other thing in this city?
As the SACP our approach is also informed by the fact that there is a job loss bloodbath underway in our country. It therefore becomes important and it is necessary for workers and unions to struggle to defend their jobs. For workers to defend their jobs is a duty of every trade union. This is a perfectly legitimate struggle and concern, and no union worth its salt can stand on the sidelines if its members jobs are seen to be at stake. We are not by any means suggesting that unions should not be concerned about broader issues of transformation and service delivery, but it is wrong to want to attain service delivery by sacrificing workers’ jobs, or for that matter wily nily wanting to use privatisation as the only option for dealing with crisis areas. Those who say workers should not fight to defend their jobs must also go and tell the bosses that they should not fight to protect and increase their profits!
Related to the above is the fact that it must not only be the workers who must bear the brunt of restructuring and be sacrificed in order to deal with problems facing us. For instance we are deeply disturbed about the reasons for the sale of Johannesburg stadium. According to the iGoli 2002 document, “The Jhb stadium was originally meant to be built at a cost of R97 million rands (but) eventually cost us R140 million after Council paid R23 million for a claim by the contractor and R17 million in legal fees”. This means R40 million more was spent ostensibly due to a serious management error. Now it is the workers who must pay for this and therefore the stadium must be sold. We have very serious problems about this.
IGoli 2002 document does not tell us whether other forms of partnerships, like public-public partnerships, as well as partnerships with NGOs and communities have been fully explored. If these have been undertaken we need to be told what the shortcomings of these are, and who undertook that investigation, and were communities and workers involved in exploring these alternatives. As the SACP, just like the national framework agreement says, we believe that privatisation and corporatisation should not be the first option. It is simply wrong and untrue that the private sector is a better provider of social services. In a country like ours, it is the state that should play a leading and interventionist role in the provision of basic social services. The capitalist market is not the solution. To think so is economic fundamentalism of the worst kind.
The biggest shortcoming of the iGoli 2002 is precisely the fact that by whatever criteria we use, there has not been adequate consultation with all the stakeholders. It is not adequate to consult after the fact as this creates unnecessary problems and tensions, which we have now.
What are we saying then as the SACP about a way forward in order that these matters are dealt with amicably? Our starting point is that we are not dealing with an enemy Council, but it is an ANC council, which is elected by us and is ours. And comrades we should not lose sight of this fact, no matter what problems we have, that our approach should be informed by the fact that we are dealing with our own comrades and our own structures. It is for this reason that we expect Council to deal with the problems of the unions in this comradely way and not think that we can bulldoze our way by sidelining workers, as if they are an opposition.
It is for this reason as well that the Alliance needs to take up this matter as a matter of urgency as we believe that a way has to be found to resolve these problems in a manner consistent with our own political approaches and commitments. We are also calling for the reopening of the consultative processes as well as effectively consult with workers in a manner consistent with the national framework agreement. In doing so we must fully explore all alternatives, including all forms of partnership and not limit ourselves to privatisation and corporatisation. When we raise the question of alternatives we are sometimes told that we do not have alternatives. This language must now come to an end, as it usually is a cover for presenting privatisation as the only alternative. Alternatives are as good as how far one wants to go in finding these. Together we can find a way forward and mutually acceptable alternative.
Blade Nzimande
General Secretary