 |
| Steven Friedman |
The
Durban strikes of 1973 empowered workers and helped destroy
apartheid.
This
month 40 years ago, South Africa learned an important truth which
shaped our future - that people without power can challenge those who
have it, but only if they act together.
The
lesson was taught by the Durban strikes of 1973; they began a process
which shifted power to working people and played an important role in
defeating apartheid.
First,
the strikes triggered the formation of unions which fought long
battles with a few employers to win the right to negotiate. These
unions became the core of the Federation of SA Trade Unions which
combined with other unions to form Cosatu in the mid-1980s. So they
were, in a sense, the beginning of today's union movement.
Second,
while many histories see the 1976 Soweto uprising against Afrikaans
as the beginning of the end for apartheid, the Durban strikes may
have been the turning point.
Previous
strikes by black workers had been crushed - the 1973 strikes led to
wage increases. Instead of relying only on force, the state tried to
use reforms to appease workers. Firms had begun to rely on black
workers to do semi-skilled work previously reserved for whites
because there were not enough white workers to go around. Because
black workers had more skills, they could not be replaced easily.
The
government's plan was to allow blacks a voice but no power:
committees in the factories could discuss their grievances - it hoped
this would avoid the need to deal with unions with a right to strike.
But the reforms simply opened new avenues for resistance - by the end
of the 1970s the government extended bargaining rights to unions.
While
these rights came with restrictions which were meant to hamper
strikes and political activity, the new union movement became a
centre of militancy which soon joined the fight against apartheid.
This
pattern soon spread. In the face of growing anti-apartheid militancy,
the government tried reforms which aimed to soften apartheid's
effects while keeping white political domination in place.
But
each reform opened up more avenues for resistance and weakened
apartheid further. The migrants who refused to live in single-sex
hostels in the Western Cape and erected shacks in the townships
helped to end the pass laws which barred black workers from living
with their families in the cities, while student and township
militancy in the 1980s ensured that reforms weakened apartheid. And,
as the last battle of the apartheid era was waged in townships and
shack settlements, the union movement was a key source of support to
the fight for change. In many townships, some of the methods used by
unions inspired activists and influenced their fight for rights.
So
the events this month 40 years ago in Durban changed the face of
South Africa - the democratic Constitution achieved in 1994 was a
consequence of processes set in motion then: they began a government
retreat and helped build the organisations and style of organising
which turned that retreat into a defeat.
In
the process, unionism gave working people a voice and built a social
movement. The more people without power work together to gain small
changes, the more confident they become and the more likely are they
to feel strong enough to demand bigger changes. The union movement is
evidence - surveys show that union members tend to expect more change
than other citizens.
Why
all this history? It has become fashionable to insist that our
current realities show that the promise of empowering people, forged
in the struggle against apartheid and enshrined in the Constitution,
has not been realised.
The
Western Cape farm strikes and the Marikana shootings are quoted as
examples which prove how little progress we have made. But the
history of the union movement places this in perspective.
Developments
in the workplace since 1994 have not disappointed the hopes which
were kindled by the 1973 strikes. Working people who belong to unions
today have a voice and their conditions are far better than those
against which the Durban strikers rebelled.
The
union movement has made many mistakes and has fallen prey to the same
temptations as the ANC - union posts are often a route into the
middle class, not a means to serve workers. But the movement remains
the largest and most influential in the country today. As the surveys
mentioned earlier show, the early strikers and unionists also built a
social movement in which people have distinct attitudes which make
them more likely to insist on their rights.
Our
problem today is not that the union movement failed. It is, rather,
that the organisation which enabled people to act together to change
their lives is not yet deep or broad enough.
Its
lack of depth means that, in some industries, union members do not
have the power over their organisation which many others do - this
caused the conflict which led to Marikana. Its lack of breadth means
that farm and domestic workers, for example, still lack the
organisation which those in the factories, shops and offices enjoy -
this is one cause of the troubles on the farms.
It
means also that the organisation which workers enjoy is not available
to many outside the workplace - in townships and shacks and rural
areas.
This
is why the voice of the poor is not heard in our debates and why, for
the past nine years, people have been taking to the streets in
townships and shack settlements to express their frustrations.
Organising
people in neighbourhoods needs different methods to those the unions
use.
But the principle remains the same - when people find ways to
get together to gain a voice and to win small changes in their lives,
big things can begin to happen.
The
history which began in Durban 40 years ago should inspire us - to
find ways in which everyone can enjoy the power to organise
effectively.
