Developments in Numsa continue to attract a great deal of attention in the media, in political commentary and amongst political and union figures. The reasons for this focus are diverse.
Much of the media attention is on the implications for the ANC, that the largest union in Cosatu has withdrawn support and may contest elections as a workers’ party.
My understanding is Numsa has concluded that the ANC no longer serves the interests of workers, especially since the adoption of Gear (the growth, employment and redistribution plan).
They depict the current Cosatu and SACP leadership as colluding in the negation of workers’ interests.
They believe that another vehicle is needed to represent the political interests of the working class.
Over 10 months ago, Numsa announced it would not campaign or contribute towards the ANC’s efforts in this year’s election. At the same time, it committed itself to establishing a united front, referring to the experiences of the United Democratic Front of the 1980s.
It would also take steps to establish a movement for socialism and a workers’ party. These would provide a home for those who believe the SACP no longer fulfills a “vanguard” role, and would reverse current “neoliberal” policies.
From the outset it has been unclear precisely what Numsa envisages from its call for a united front and how this relates to the establishment of a workers’ party and a movement for socialism. Is the front merely of instrumental significance, a stepping-stone leading to that which really matters, the workers’ party, or is the united front important in itself?
If the united front is important in its own right, what are its founding goals, the common vision intended to be the basis on which those who form its components are united? How does it conceive the organisational base? To what extent does this differ from the working class base of the potential workers’ party? Insofar as it is different, how broadly will it seek organisational affiliation in order to create backing for the demands that motivate the front?
Numsa have been in no rush to clarify these questions, sometimes implying little difference between the two main goals, worker political representation and a united front, or presenting them as interlinked.
It may be that Numsa’s position is unsettled or that there is contestation within the union.
Certainly, interlinkage may be important, but the composition and goals of a united front ought presumably to be much wider than that of a workers party, which by definition orientates itself primarily to one section of the population – the working class.
It appears that Numsa has carried out consultations with communities, although it is unclear how widely these have been conducted and behind what potential programme. The launch of regional formations of the united front in recent weeks is significant, although it remains unclear how these formations are composed.
Are they to comprise organisations and, if so, of what character? If they have an organisational foundation, to what extent do these organisations have a definite membership base? To what extent will they be primarily left-orientated organisations and to what extent is there room for those with other tendencies, which simply seek a political home in order to resist oppressive conditions?
To what extent will the united front welcome NGOs that assist social movements and unions in gaining capacity or providing other specialised assistance, but who are without their own membership base?
NGOs, through their human and material resources, can play a significant role in strengthening organisations that may form part of any potential front. Such assistance can be a decisive factor in the survival or collapse of organisational structures. Consequently, there needs to be clarity about the basis on which their resources are allocated.
It will be important to know which organisations or potential organisations will benefit and which will be left to sink or swim.
In a sense, such assistance may well play a significant role in determining which organisations ultimately become part of such a front.
We also do not know to what extent the envisaged united front will draw on potential or existing social movements, which these are, around what issues they are organised, what criteria will be used to decide who to include and who to exclude – and who is being consulted and who is outside of consideration.
In short, who has been part of the consultations and who has been asked to become part of planning the character of the united front?
I focus on the united front because my sense is that the character of current political developments affects a wide range of communities in a range of sectors of society.
Workers suffer, but so do those who are unemployed, some of whom have never had work. Many live in dehumanised conditions and their children do not receive decent education or live in a safe environment. Many are homeless and have their shacks demolished. Many experience violence at the hands of the police or the ANC itself.
Combined action by these and other forces that have reason to combat corrupt and violent rule could be an effective force in re-establishing a thriving democratic order – a necessary condition for bettering the lives of all.
Professor Raymond Suttner is attached to Rhodes University and Unisa. He is a former political prisoner and was in the leadership of the ANC-led alliance in the 1990s. This article first appeared on Creamer Media’s polity.org.za
Truly united front could reignite SA democracy
Much of the media attention is on the implications for the ANC, that the largest union in Cosatu has withdrawn support and may contest elections as a workers’ party.
My understanding is Numsa has concluded that the ANC no longer serves the interests of workers, especially since the adoption of Gear (the growth, employment and redistribution plan).
They depict the current Cosatu and SACP leadership as colluding in the negation of workers’ interests.
They believe that another vehicle is needed to represent the political interests of the working class.
Over 10 months ago, Numsa announced it would not campaign or contribute towards the ANC’s efforts in this year’s election. At the same time, it committed itself to establishing a united front, referring to the experiences of the United Democratic Front of the 1980s.
It would also take steps to establish a movement for socialism and a workers’ party. These would provide a home for those who believe the SACP no longer fulfills a “vanguard” role, and would reverse current “neoliberal” policies.
From the outset it has been unclear precisely what Numsa envisages from its call for a united front and how this relates to the establishment of a workers’ party and a movement for socialism. Is the front merely of instrumental significance, a stepping-stone leading to that which really matters, the workers’ party, or is the united front important in itself?
If the united front is important in its own right, what are its founding goals, the common vision intended to be the basis on which those who form its components are united? How does it conceive the organisational base? To what extent does this differ from the working class base of the potential workers’ party? Insofar as it is different, how broadly will it seek organisational affiliation in order to create backing for the demands that motivate the front?
Numsa have been in no rush to clarify these questions, sometimes implying little difference between the two main goals, worker political representation and a united front, or presenting them as interlinked.
It may be that Numsa’s position is unsettled or that there is contestation within the union.
Certainly, interlinkage may be important, but the composition and goals of a united front ought presumably to be much wider than that of a workers party, which by definition orientates itself primarily to one section of the population – the working class.
It appears that Numsa has carried out consultations with communities, although it is unclear how widely these have been conducted and behind what potential programme. The launch of regional formations of the united front in recent weeks is significant, although it remains unclear how these formations are composed.
Are they to comprise organisations and, if so, of what character? If they have an organisational foundation, to what extent do these organisations have a definite membership base? To what extent will they be primarily left-orientated organisations and to what extent is there room for those with other tendencies, which simply seek a political home in order to resist oppressive conditions?
To what extent will the united front welcome NGOs that assist social movements and unions in gaining capacity or providing other specialised assistance, but who are without their own membership base?
NGOs, through their human and material resources, can play a significant role in strengthening organisations that may form part of any potential front. Such assistance can be a decisive factor in the survival or collapse of organisational structures. Consequently, there needs to be clarity about the basis on which their resources are allocated.
It will be important to know which organisations or potential organisations will benefit and which will be left to sink or swim.
In a sense, such assistance may well play a significant role in determining which organisations ultimately become part of such a front.
We also do not know to what extent the envisaged united front will draw on potential or existing social movements, which these are, around what issues they are organised, what criteria will be used to decide who to include and who to exclude – and who is being consulted and who is outside of consideration.
In short, who has been part of the consultations and who has been asked to become part of planning the character of the united front?
I focus on the united front because my sense is that the character of current political developments affects a wide range of communities in a range of sectors of society.
Workers suffer, but so do those who are unemployed, some of whom have never had work. Many live in dehumanised conditions and their children do not receive decent education or live in a safe environment. Many are homeless and have their shacks demolished. Many experience violence at the hands of the police or the ANC itself.
Combined action by these and other forces that have reason to combat corrupt and violent rule could be an effective force in re-establishing a thriving democratic order – a necessary condition for bettering the lives of all.
Professor Raymond Suttner is attached to Rhodes University and Unisa. He is a former political prisoner and was in the leadership of the ANC-led alliance in the 1990s. This article first appeared on Creamer Media’s polity.org.za
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