A tale of two economic liberation movements

the Rainbow Nation’s economic pot endlessly stirred yet never nourishing their socio-economic beings?
During that Conference President Jacob Zuma warned of the danger lurking within South Africa’s economic disparity, that “If we continue in this way, our gains of democracy will be put at risk because those who feel the pain will say ‘Enough is enough’”.
I wrote, in The Herald June 26, 2012 that the ANC “. . . is a party no longer with itself, now lagging behind its people’s purpose, all to the pleasure of white economic interests.” Now that we hear the ANC speaking of “the need for a radical economic and social transformation programme”, being proved wrong is most welcome. After all it would be in Zimbabwe’s interest to have a neighbour pursuing radical economic transformation to remedy the historic economic deprivation of its own black majority.
An ANC genuinely pursuing its call for “radical economic and social transformation” must begin to empathise with Zanu-PF’s indigenisation policy, desire its successful implementation as precedent against forces opposing economic transformation.
Zanu-PF has long embarked upon economic transformation, first securing land for the indigenous majority and now guaranteeing them no less than 51 percent ownership of the economy. Yet in so doing Zanu-PF has often found itself the lone flame of economic enlightenment in a region whose black majorities share the same fate dictated by colonialism. Erstwhile liberation comrades have appeared intimidated from lending unreserved support to Zimbabwe’s economic endeavours, scared off by white economic interests threatening deterrent vengeance against any majority economic pursuits going against their entrenched economic privilege.
Can the threat of sanctions, which Zimbabweans have braved and overcome, be such a deterrent that intimidates comrades from uniting behind their people’s common economic liberation objectives?
President Zuma and the ANC now bemoan “the colonial, racial and sexist structure and character of (South Africa’s) economy and development”, acknowledging need for “a second phase of transition from apartheid to a true democratic society”. The critical question surely on the lips of the economically deprived black majority is, “How”. How, shall their liberation party in government fulfill an overdue promise at a time when white economic interests have embarked on an offensive to discredit the ANC and its leadership and ultimately what economic liberation endeavours they might embark upon?
The ANC is making bold assertions of their pursuit of radical economic transformation at a time when it has exiled those among it with the audacity to pursue such radical transformation.
Malema’s exiled voice was not among those whispering questions of the methodology to achieving economic democracy, nor could the ruffled Youth League speak boldly from the cold to which it has been relegated. All this is happening when the battle that lies ahead requires unity of purpose, requires the ANC to acknowledge that without a determined and rallied youth its pursuit of “radical” economic transformation will fail.
On the contrary, President Mugabe and Zanu-PF have heeded the potent aspirations of Zimbabwe’s youth, and have nurtured it. Zimbabwe’s youth, constituting 65 percent of the population, are being made direct beneficiaries of economic empowerment, to become the vanguard guaranteeing sustainability and irreversibility of economic emancipation. It is a master stroke the ANC need to take note of. Should Zuma survive Mangaung, or his successor, 2013 will have either presiding over the 100th anniversary of apartheid’s Native Land Act of 1913 which caused 87 percent of the land to be usurped from the black majority and bestowed upon a white minority.
It will be a glaring anniversary given that the ANC presides over a painstaking land redistribution exercise set to fail in achieving the targeted 30 percent redistributed land by 2014. Eighteen years into black majority rule and only 5 percent of land has been restored. The legacy of the Native Land Act is alive and well, sure to haunt the ANC’s revived economic endeavours.
Africa’s oldest liberation movement must know better, that it will take more than bold assertions to achieve radical economic transformation. Hard decisions, with their dire consequences, must be made and committed to.
Zanu-PF knows of such consequences, has been bold enough to make the commitment and not be deterred. It is a boldness that has already seen the land restored and new black farmers rising. However different the ANC’s methodology, its achieving success cannot ignore, indeed be divorced from Zanu-PF successfully implementing indigenisation and economic empowerment.
ANC cannot dare to doubt and hesitate, given the “residual Rhodesian and Apartheid forces” circling like vultures ready to consume any faltering attempt at economic transformation. These vultures must see life, must be scared off by its exuberance across the border as Zimbabwe’s black majority are fattened from the socio-economic fruits harvested from an equitable economy brought about by indigenisation. Failure by Zanu-PF will give such residual forces ammunition against any renewed economic transformation by liberation movements across the region.
The ANC’s President Zuma must remember this as he mediates in Zimbabwe. He must remember that the “crisis” in Zimbabwe is far more economic than it ever was political. This prioritisation of civil and political rights and democratic process is a last effort by Western economic interests to raise enough dust in Zimbabwe to cloud, distract and bring to an end the pursuit of economic emancipation. And so the ANC government best be wary of being manipulated into confrontation with a Zanu-PF government. The real crisis in Zimbabwe, Mr President Zuma Sir, is that of foreign economic interests scrambling to retain an economy now declared indigenous. Don’t be fooled otherwise.
But still, we are called upon to afford the ANC benefit of the doubt. They are only 18 years into the end of apartheid; and it took Zanu PF 20 years into its independence to boldly embark upon fast track land reform and another decade upon indigenisation and economic empowerment. Then there was the catalyst that hastened Zanu-PF’s intent, the ill-advised Western regime change agenda. We see similar provocation emerging don’t we, across the Limpopo. President Zuma’s “Spear” will tell you of it. If Zanu-PF is to be a precedent then the ANC is on course, though the odds against it appear greater.
Zanu-PF successfully implementing indigenisation may well be relief to the ANC’s radical economic endeavour. Interesting, the report that the ANC spurned the MDC’s efforts to gate crush its Policy Conference? We are told that the forceful guests were reminded that invitation was reserved for liberation movements. Remind us again what struggle for liberation the MDC has endured.
Answer without emotional outburst, least we are misguided by the nonsense that the parroting of Western defined norms of democracy, good governance and human rights amounts to an attempt at liberation.
Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard would want us to believe so, given her most recent statement to the MDC-T leader, Prime Minister Tsvangirai. She praised him a hero, stating, “Like Nelson Mandela . . . you are one of the remarkable figures of our times.” I will be silent, and let you be the judge on this one. But surely if Gillard was on point, would the ANC not have welcomed members of a party whose leader is said to be much like their dear Mandela? Or invited the man himself to share insights at such an important Conference to determine the economic destiny of Mandela’s people?
But there is an even more pertinent question. What do Mandela and Tsvangirai have in common that endears both to Western men, women and interests? Could it be any sympathy for and reprieve of Western economic interests? There is disenchantment isn’t there in the ANC’s South Africa, that too much was ceded to birth a Rainbow Nation. Even Winnie Mandela was caught off guard, alluding to helplessness over a kidnapped Mandela, to a feeling of betrayal simmering within a people cheated at the conception of a Rainbow Nation that did not guarantee them any socio-economic rebirth.
And so maybe that’s why the MDC was unwelcome at a conference where the ANC sought to redeem their people’s betrayed cause. What wise counsel would the MDC have offered the ANC’s courtship of radical economic emancipation, when at home they consistently demand that Zanu-PF divorce from an already set upon economic transformation now benefiting the black majority?
Oh, it is official then. The ANC’s own Nkosazana Dhlamini-Zuma has taken over the chair of the African Union Commission. Given South Africa’s, and through it, the ANC’s record on matters of African interest against Western aggression we pray she discerns well that Africa is being shaped by matters economic and not civil and political. In Tunisia it was a hungry youth who ignited flames of revolution while economic deprivation galvanised Egypt’s youth to set alight Tahrir Square.
Opportunistic Western greed caused Libya to be bombed for its oil wealth and aquifers; the ANC’s hand is smeared with that blood.
In Zimbabwe foreign economic interests seeking to preserve their privilege wreak civil and political havoc upon an entire people, all to rid of the advocate of indigenisation, Zanu-PF. Now the dimwits wish for an Arab kind “spring” to rescue their failing regime change agenda, forgetting what rallied and sustained such “Arabian spring” there. Here Zanu-PF addresses that catalyst, remedies economic deprivation by embarking government upon economic empowerment of the youthful majority. We can bet on no youthful spring from a youth whose aspirations are fast being met.
Yet we can fear for South Africa, for the ANC, whose majority youth grow restless, agitated and ready to spring, a spring driven by socio-economic impoverishment. They see no action from their party and government. The new AU Chair should have Africa remain alive to such realities, of Western economic interests that care less for the economic aspirations of Africa’s youth.
At home Ms Zuma may as well give such counsel to the ANC, and to the once consorted ear of President Zuma, who now wishes to embark upon radical economic transformation.
“Amandla” then, for what nostalgic liberation pursuits such cries might arouse, what daring and boldness that may be commanded and bonds might be reasserted. Let the camaraderie echo be “pamberi”, “alluta continua”.
The struggle for economic emancipation now raging on necessitates resort to “economic dictatorship”. That’s a discussion for another time?