Deputy Finance Minister Mcebisi Jonas has made an interesting contribution to the economic debate in the latest edition of African Communist, the SACP journal, trying to define the different interpretations of the phrase “radical economic transformation”.
It’s easy to be put off by the context, not to mention the title, “Radical economic transformation: towards synthesis and praxis”.
Tell me you don’t get a sinking feeling you’re about to be accosted by meandering old catch-phrases when you read that? But actually, it is refreshing and important, given the SACP’s cabinet dominance.
The article calls for moving towards “more nuanced and pragmatic approaches to the respective roles of the state and markets”. Well, amen to that and welcome to the 21st century.
Jonas’ broad aim is to identify the strands of thinking about what constitutes “radical economic transformation”. He then attempts to take something from each to propose a kind of amalgamation. The attempt is rooted in the notion of “pragmatism”.
Jonas distinguishes between at least five different interpretations of “radical economic transformation”. They are: government official; Cosatu; populist; mainstream Left; and “creative pragmatist”.
He likes the comprehensiveness of government’s view, with all its documents and position papers, but asks: “If the government official version is as comprehensive in practice as it is on paper, why are we not seeing more impact?”
A very good question.
Cosatu’s version is built on expanding labour market regulations, social programmes and the “jobs bloodbath” associated with de-industrialisation, as you might expect.
But Jonas suggests: “Cosatu needs to be more intensely engaged on how a jobs-intensive growth strategy can be driven, especially in the context of the low skills base in the country.
“Cosatu also needs to be further engaged on issues of industrial competitiveness, the efficacy of the collective bargaining machinery, the rise of new unions in the workplace, as well as the future of corporatist institutions such as the National Economic Development and Labour Council.” Too right.
The populist view is criticised for being, well, populist.
The mainstream Left’s approach seeks “de-coupling” from the international economy but Jonas notes, correctly, international experience shows the opposite is necessary.
And so “creative pragmatism” is the way forward. But what is that?
“To navigate the turbulent global and national currents requires a unique mix of pragmatism, opportunism and innovation, while remaining true to our ideological commitment to restore socioeconomic justice,” he writes.
Great, but how much further does that really take us?
My view, in this short space, is that South African politicians, almost across the board, struggle to understand how economies actually work, and consequently how to make them work well.
The key is really appreciating the full glory of freedom. Freedom to transact, freedom to create, freedom to adapt, freedom to generate a price point through supply and demand.
It’s significant that even Jonas’s “creative pragmatism” never mentions freedom, which is regarded as sort of irrelevant.
But it’s not. Jonas notes: “State-owned enterprises, which are the frontline forces of the developmental state, are afflicted by governance and going concern issues.”
Well, that’s pretty obvious. But that they are “frontline forces of the developmental state” is just assumed.
For example, Eskom has a monopoly of electricity distribution. It may be necessary or it may not. However, lots of countries have hundreds of power providers. Eskom’s monopoly is a huge restriction on the freedom to transact.
Freedom, on the other hand, is what makes economies vibrate. Missing that point tells you a hard truth about South Africa’s politics: there is much less pragmatism in “pragmatism” than pragmatists claim.
Tim Cohen is editor of the Financial Mail
The full article “Radical economic transformation: towards synthesis and praxis” is on
http://www.sacp.org.za/pubs/acommunist/2015/issue188.pdf
Jonas nuanced, pragmatic on radical transformation
It’s easy to be put off by the context, not to mention the title, “Radical economic transformation: towards synthesis and praxis”.
Tell me you don’t get a sinking feeling you’re about to be accosted by meandering old catch-phrases when you read that? But actually, it is refreshing and important, given the SACP’s cabinet dominance.
The article calls for moving towards “more nuanced and pragmatic approaches to the respective roles of the state and markets”. Well, amen to that and welcome to the 21st century.
Jonas’ broad aim is to identify the strands of thinking about what constitutes “radical economic transformation”. He then attempts to take something from each to propose a kind of amalgamation. The attempt is rooted in the notion of “pragmatism”.
Jonas distinguishes between at least five different interpretations of “radical economic transformation”. They are: government official; Cosatu; populist; mainstream Left; and “creative pragmatist”.
He likes the comprehensiveness of government’s view, with all its documents and position papers, but asks: “If the government official version is as comprehensive in practice as it is on paper, why are we not seeing more impact?”
A very good question.
Cosatu’s version is built on expanding labour market regulations, social programmes and the “jobs bloodbath” associated with de-industrialisation, as you might expect.
But Jonas suggests: “Cosatu needs to be more intensely engaged on how a jobs-intensive growth strategy can be driven, especially in the context of the low skills base in the country.
“Cosatu also needs to be further engaged on issues of industrial competitiveness, the efficacy of the collective bargaining machinery, the rise of new unions in the workplace, as well as the future of corporatist institutions such as the National Economic Development and Labour Council.” Too right.
The populist view is criticised for being, well, populist.
The mainstream Left’s approach seeks “de-coupling” from the international economy but Jonas notes, correctly, international experience shows the opposite is necessary.
And so “creative pragmatism” is the way forward. But what is that?
“To navigate the turbulent global and national currents requires a unique mix of pragmatism, opportunism and innovation, while remaining true to our ideological commitment to restore socioeconomic justice,” he writes.
Great, but how much further does that really take us?
My view, in this short space, is that South African politicians, almost across the board, struggle to understand how economies actually work, and consequently how to make them work well.
The key is really appreciating the full glory of freedom. Freedom to transact, freedom to create, freedom to adapt, freedom to generate a price point through supply and demand.
It’s significant that even Jonas’s “creative pragmatism” never mentions freedom, which is regarded as sort of irrelevant.
But it’s not. Jonas notes: “State-owned enterprises, which are the frontline forces of the developmental state, are afflicted by governance and going concern issues.”
Well, that’s pretty obvious. But that they are “frontline forces of the developmental state” is just assumed.
For example, Eskom has a monopoly of electricity distribution. It may be necessary or it may not. However, lots of countries have hundreds of power providers. Eskom’s monopoly is a huge restriction on the freedom to transact.
Freedom, on the other hand, is what makes economies vibrate. Missing that point tells you a hard truth about South Africa’s politics: there is much less pragmatism in “pragmatism” than pragmatists claim.
Tim Cohen is editor of the Financial Mail
The full article “Radical economic transformation: towards synthesis and praxis” is on
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos