Steven Friedman, Business Day
HAVE millions of citizens
found a voice — or are we about to see the birth of yet another movement that
will speak about these citizens but never listen to them?
In theory, the United
Front, which was initiated by the National Union of Metalworkers of SA (Numsa),
and which met last month to prepare for its launch, should fill an important
gap in our politics — the fact that millions have a vote but no voice.
Democracy here is loud
and vigorous — but only for the minority who are organised and therefore able
to speak. The rest, most of whom live in poverty, are spoken about endlessly
but never speak themselves, except perhaps when they vote.
Because democracy works
for only some, the pressure on the state to serve those who elected it is much
less. That means not only a weaker democracy, but poorer government performance
— governments work best when citizens are organised and strong enough to ensure
they serve the people. If millions lack a means to force the government to
serve them, they will be denied the public service to which democracy entitles them.
If the United Front is to
make a difference, this is the problem it needs to address. The real question
raised by Numsa’s initiative is not the one on which commentary has fixated —
whether it will be a political party or a social movement — but whether it can
challenge the voicelessness of most citizens.
A frequent criticism of
the labour movement over the past two decades is that it has spoken loudly for
people in formal jobs but not those outside them — critics have urged unions to
change this by working with social movements who represent people outside the
formal workplace. As these movements are often small and weak, unions have also
been urged to work to build an organised vehicle for the millions who cannot
find work.
If, then, the United Front
is to change this society, it will need to accept this challenge by putting
down strong roots in the townships and shack settlements where the poor live.
This would broaden and deepen democracy as the concerns of people who are
ignored between elections become part of the national debate.
Whether that is what it
really will achieve is very much in doubt. While it is far too early to judge
an organisation that has not yet even been launched, last month’s meeting
seemed to bring together familiar individuals and organisations on the left
rather than some new voices. Social movements did not flock to the meeting and
it is not clear whether the United Front’s organisers have forged links with
organisations and people who can bring new energies to the task of offering
those millions a voice.
Part of the problem,
according to critics, is attitude — the belief by some organised insiders that,
because their politics are left-wing, they understand the needs of the poor and
can speak for them. Rhodes University academic Richard Pithouse warned after
the meeting against seeing "trickle-down" politics as a cure for
"trickle-down" economics. Just as conservative economics insists the
wealthy’s power automatically benefits the poor, so some on the left believed,
he argued, that control of the poor by an academic and activist elite could do
the same.
Even if the United
Front’s founders do want to reach out to the unorganised poor, success is
hardly guaranteed. The world of insiders here — anyone organised enough to be heard
— is very different from that of most citizens. Rules, often unspoken, about
what can be said and done, are honoured and so those who want to speak can do
so.
The reality is very
different for millions who lack the resources to be heard — except in street
protests which, because they are not launched by democratic organisations, do
not change much. Those who the United Front must reach also often find it far
more difficult to speak because they are up against local power holders who
want to ensure anyone who threatens them remains silent.
So Numsa’s initiative is
a test for those insiders who really do want a voice for the poor — it will
show whether they are able to move out of the relatively comfortable world of
insider politics and reach out to people whose lives are very different from
theirs.
A willingness to listen,
look and learn will obviously be crucial — just as it was for activists in the
early days of the union movement, who had to discover that there was a huge gap
between their theories and the lives of working people.
If the United Front fails
to do this, it will repeat the key weakness of pro-poor politics here — a
tendency to reduce the poor to ideas to be debated rather than people with a
voice. And that will ensure continued powerlessness for those who champion
change. If it wants to give democracy a much-needed boost, it will have to
shrug off the attitudes that have excluded many from the debate and find a way
of building an organisation that fits the real world of poor people.
