There are dangerous notes of ideological rhetoric about race, economic benefits and the unacceptable level of inequality in South Africa today; to such an extent that it must be regarded as a major risk to the medium – to long-term economic and social stability of the country. What is even more disturbing about this, is the suspicions that this narrative was deliberately introduced in the national debate after the Constitutional Court’s judgement that confirmed the use of public funds for upgrades at Nkandla, the former President’s private residence in KwaZulu-Natal, and the subsequent “eruption” of rumours about the close relationship between the President and the Guptas family (and the impact thereof on the governance of South Africa) (popularly referred to as ‘state capture’), culminating in the 'State Capture Report' of the former Public Protector just before her leaving office.
If this was deliberately done as a strategy to mitigate risks associated with state capture by referring “guilt” for social-economical inequalities and poverty to White South Africans (expressed in freedom struggle terminology, the ‘traditional enemy’), it must be regarded as an extremely destructive and potentially explosive one, loaded with risk for the socioeconomic stability of the country.
The one risk associated with this type of rhetoric, is the possibility of an eruption of racial conflict. If the underlying assumptions entrenched in the argument is incorrect (or not entirely valid), a second risk could be the deliberate marginalisation and harming of the interests of certain sections of the South African population, mostly defined in terms of race (and what could be labelled as ‘collaborators’) - and mostly minority groups in the population. The third risk is that, regardless of the accuracy (and extend of accuracy) of the underlying assumptions incorporated in the argument; that is, economic policy in response to a perceived threat from ‘white monopoly capital,’ may fundamentally deter undespensible investments, which are desperately needed to growth the South African economy and promote sustainable development; especially since this type of ideologically-driven rhetoric often classifies foreign (and then specifically Western) investors as a natural extension of the term ‘white monopoly capital.’
It is a fact that the legacy of apartheid still impact severely on South African society today; including on the composition of the labour force in the economy, the ownership of assets, and the educational framework that allows for access to economic opportunities. These persistent deficiencies in the structure and ownership of the SA economy must be addressed as a matter of urgency.
However, the argument about white monopoly capital controlling the instruments of power in South Africa through their institutional networks and control over the means of production simply do not reflect the realities in the country’s political economic and even social fiber and systems. The ultimate manifestation of power and influence in society, and in any given Constitutional framework, is the exercising of state power. In South Africa state power is, and has been since 1994, exercised by a government that could not, by any conceivable stretch of the imagination, be regarded as belonging to ‘white monopoly capital.’
Image source: Pixabay
Comments