The Subconscious acceptance of poverty and underdevelopment by South Africans

In his award-winning book: Development as Freedom, Amartya Sen eloquently argues for a paradigm shift in the economic development school of thought when he writes: “[D]espite unprecedented increases in overall opulence, the contemporary world denies elementary freedoms to vast numbers – perhaps even the majority – of people. Sometimes lack of substantive freedoms relates directly to economic poverty, which robs people of freedom to satisfy hunger or to achieve sufficient nutrition, or to obtain remedies for treatable illness, or the opportunity to be adequately clothed or sheltered, or to enjoy clean water or sanitary facilities.”
Sen’s views are very relevant when one explores the state of the contemporary Afrika in general and South Africa in particular, which, as recently declared by United Nations is the most unequal society in the world.
This predicament of perpetual poverty and underdevelopment (coexisting with opulence) to which most Afrikan people of this country have been subjected, has become a way of life and an accepted lifestyle to many South Africans – both by the elite living in opulence as well as the economic downtrodden who experience major economic and social unfreedoms.
The coexistence of this “overall opulence” and the plight of underdevelopment and poverty in this country is not a new phenomenon; it didn’t start in the post-colonial era.

This subconscious acceptance of perpetual poverty by the downtrodden themselves has been, partly, caused by the fact that the elite living in opulence in our society have been enjoying this opulent living ever since the inception of the Union of South Africa in 1910.
To them, this has become the prototype of how life is meant to be – Afrikan (“black”) means poor and European (“white”) means rich!
Of course, the ruling elite have - ever since our attainment or political freedoms in 1994 - done little to reverse this. This is evident if we look at the quality of public services accessible to those living in perpetual poverty relative to those living is absolute opulence. Being it schools, healthcare, infrastructure and security services – 14 years later!
This acceptance of their state of perpetual poverty by the downtrodden is party due to the continued disrespect of their rights to better living conditions, spiritual, psychological and physiological development, better healthcare, basic education – among other things. The disrespect did not only exist during the period of colonialism and racial segregation in this country, it also continued after decolonization and is still happening. My conclusion for this continued disrespect and disregard of elementary rights is that, even the ruling elite has been indoctrinated by the neo-colonial tendencies in accepting that those in perpetual poverty were, inherently created for such living conditions and that those who have been – ever since the inception of this country - (and still) living in absolute and relative opulence were, inherently created for such living conditions.
In Afrika, particularly in South Africa, the neo-colonial indoctrination has entrenched itself beyond economics and policy making. Those of us living in perpetual poverty are – wittingly or unwittingly venerating languages, religions and/or cultures of the dominant elite living in opulence and absolute economic and social freedoms.
Furthermore, this point reminds me of the shock I had when I visited Germany. My first encounter of the working class there was rather strange. The gardens, waiters and waitresses, road construction workers, city cleaners etc, were “white”!! Being a South African who has been conditioned differently and who has never see, a “white” person sweeping the urban roads, it is not difficult to see why my experience was eccentric. That’s a neo-colonial indoctrination (a belief that a certain race is inherently superior that the other) at its best! I’d like to think.
Of course, it would be ignorant not to site the conscious (and subconscious) existence of superiority complexes – in terms of culture, languages and religion and the presupposition of inherent and ordained opulent living standards by the elite living in general opulence, who - in fact are in minority.
The continued insistence of the status quo by this section of the society serves as evidence to these superiority complexes. The continued elevation of the cultures, languages and religions of those living in general opulence at the expense of languages and religions of those economically downtrodden in every quarter of our country’s intellectual space, serve as evidence to this conscious (and subconscious) superiority complexes.
There is a plethora of examples that serve as evidence to this presupposition of inherent and ordained superiority and opulent living standards by this section of our society. Recently, the “Expropriation Bill” was withdrawn from Parliament for further deliberation after immense pressure from various interest groups – all emanating from the section of our society I have just referred to. One of the few corrective measures that seek to restore the dignity and rights of those living in perpetual poverty is “Employment Equity Act”. Some within this section of our society continue to resist this important corrective measure. Their argument is simply that it is racism in reverse. Now, in the plight of the abject inequality that the recent United Nations report elided to, I’d be forgiven to conclude that the section of our society that is opposed to this corrective measure, is merely suffering from the conscious (and subconscious) superiority and a further belief that, they were inherently created for opulent living standards while those who continue living in abject underdevelopment and poverty were inherently created for such conditions.

The point I am trying to make is, the improvement of the majority of people’s mortalities and quality of lives have been virtually postponed, mainly in order to pursue the “Washington Consensus” that ensures that the status quo of economic neo-colonialism is maintained.

However, It must be pointed out, that arguments for the “Washington Consensus” are very compelling and difficult to dismiss.
The “Washington Consensus” policy framework is meant to achieve economic growth through, inter alia, the attraction of foreign direct investments, which would later ensure higher GNP per capita. Therefore, it stands to reason that the blatant rejection of this policy framework mainly on the basis that it ensures the maintenance of the economic neo-colonial status quo would be a huge mistake.
But, what is very difficult to justify is the postponement of the provision of social services that would ensure that the economic downtrodden has improved mortality rates, access to quality health care, basic education and security services.
Countries like Taiwan and South Korea have achieved higher life expectancy levels through passionate and well coordinated provision of social services, this during the times when their economies were growing at very low pace relative to countries like Brazil and South Africa which, mind you, had relatively higher economic growth levels (and higher GNP per capita) but performed dismally is their human development and social upliftment.
The empirical evidence of this would be found in statistics conducted by the World Bank in 1994. The countries like South Africa and Brazil had higher GNP per capita but relatively lower life expectancy levels at birth. Countries like Taiwan and South Korea had very low GNP per capita but very high life expectancy levels at birth!
This provides a very interesting analytical perspective regarding the causal relationship between economic growth and human development.

For now the continued acceptance of poverty continues. The dream remains deferred. It continues to sag like a heavy load. Hopefully it does not explode like the one Langston Hughes imagined centuries ago!

Afrophobia and Language

In the plight of the recent Afrophobic (I prefer this term as opposed to xenophobia - for obvious reasons) attacks and the current animosity towards our fellow Afrikan mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, it perhaps would be apt to explore this issue.

Let's start with the degrading word that some of us on this forum use to demean ourselves: amaKwerekwere! A friend of mine once asked a question some time ago: "Why would we call our fellow Afrikan PSL players amaKwerekwere and call (then Sundown's) Jose Torrielba as South American?" I continually cite the fact that we carry on demean ourselves by calling Afrikan visionaries like Nkwame Nkrumah and Mutumwa Mawere amaKwerekwere!!

Someone once attributed the word to the fact that the languages that are spoken by our fellow Afrikans are different, thus strange. (i.e. the word comes from the fact that they are kwerezing (whatever that means) when they talk. As you see, this is sheer ignorance.

So, is the language an issue here? I don’t know…. But if it is, would it be inappropriate for the Afrikan leaders to start with this issue (language) in an attempt to unite Afrika and Afrikan people? We are very happy to use the European languages (notably English, French, German and Portuguese) to trade with each other and with the world. Why then don’t we have a common “business” language for us in the Sub-Saharan Afrika? I am thinking Kiswahili (Swahili) here! The language is spoken in 8 Afrikan countries (and in Oman)… Why don’t we extend it to the rest of the continent? Would it not be liberating to visit Chad or Benin and know that you’ll be communicating in an Afrikan language with your hosts? Development Economists in Afrika and the rest of the word have identified intra-Afrika trade as one of the answers to the development of this continent, so, when this happens at a rapid scale (I have no doubts about its subsequent occurrence), will we still use European languages for us to understand each other?

I am tempted to believe that if we were to have one Afrikan language that we’d all understand, the self-hate that currently prevail amongst us, would be reduced dramatically.

Aluta Continua!

Is a suitable socialist influence possible post Polokwane?

The victories of the so called Polokwane revolution provide a very exciting and rather challenging political and economic juncture in our country. Exciting because it is common knowledge that the victors are precisely the victors due to the unflinching desire for change and we know that change is good. Sometimes change is necessary.
I use the word “challenging” because of the difficult policy decisions that will soon face the current ANC leadership.

Undoubtedly, the Polokwane Revolution provides the space for those who were (are) allegedly sidelined by the Mbeki government as a result of his so called centralization of power. Apparently, the platform for more socialist biased influences within the policy making and interpretation space is more suitable now than ever. Effectively, the “true patrons for the poor” are now - more than ever – able to entrench their victory through implementation of policy positions that they’ve been preaching ever since GEAR policy was “forced” down on them. And these policies are meant to be the silver bullet to the challenges we face, as the nation.

Although some of those policy positions - emanating from the Polokwane Resolutions - are noble and necessary to create a more developmental state (e.g. a Rural development policy) and will probably result in the improved materiel lives of our people – if wisely implemented - a word of caution will, however, be apt.
It is easy for anyone not to overlook the possibility of macroeconomic populism in this country, especially after next year’s elections. Now that the propagators of the more interventionist and socialist state are effectively in power, the temptations of implementing the less stabilizing economic policies and spearheading the more populist policies will be high. This mainly will be driven by the current global economic turndown, higher inflation, hence resulting to a protracted tightening monetary policy stance.
It is highly unlikely that the ANC leadership will continue supporting the current neoliberal economic policies (particularly fiscal and monetary policies) while its alliance partners are busy marching against escalating inflation (which means less buying power for members of its alliance partner, Cosatu) and pushing for a review of the current monetary policy framework (inflation targeting).
If indeed it does not continue with such policies (at least partially), it might create an even more unequal society as that would lead to more inflationary pressures.
In my view, if the current ANC leadership realizes the need to depart from the current economic policies, it has to do that very carefully. Although the more interventionist and more socialist policies are, indeed necessary (and/or inevitable) to enhance the rapid fight against poverty in this country, it is my view that they need to be implemented parallel to the current “stabilizing” policies – at least to a certain extent - given our vulnerability to the world economic events.
Furthermore, I tend to support Jeremy Cronin’s view that this country needs to invigorate its Agricultural policy and perhaps split the Agricultural and the Land Affairs departments into two different entities, especially in the light of the exogenous causes of the rising food prices and the importance (and delicacy) of the land issue in this country.

Therefore, for socialist policy influence to have sustainable impact in the contemporary South Africa, I believe that the propagators thereof need to appreciate the intricacies and trade-offs that accompany policy decisions. This will be a better approach as opposed to playing with the feelings of the poor people of our country by making them believe that there’s a silver bullet to the challenges of relative and absolute poverty we’re currently facing.

Superfluous Reward

I must admit, I do not always agree with Mr. Barney Mthombothi -
especially on his views about the kind of a political society our nation
and/or continent aught to be, but on his last week's piece (Editor's
note: Know when to go), he rightfully expressed skepticism about the
relevance of the "prize of good behavior" awarded to deserving Afrikan
leaders to encourage, inter alia, good governance in our continent.
"it's difficult, I'd humbly suggest, to justify giving so much money to
one individual, no matter how noble the cause, in a continent where
millions of its people are displaced by wars, dying from preventable
diseases, and dependent on foreign hand-outs to keep body and souls
together", writes Mthombothi.

No only this reward entrenches the unfortunate stereotypes about
Afrikans (mostly leaders) and their unscrupulousness, but it also serves
as a living proof of such stereotypes.

Neo-colonial views and western political philosophy are resolute in the
emphasis on their definition of democracy. Democracy through
their lens is the superior democracy. If for instance, the ruling
party of any Afrikan state decides to democratically re-elect its leader
for a third or forth term, this will be undemocratic and will be a
further justification of the unscrupulousness of Afrikan leaders...
However, when a certain leader from a European country is
democratically re-elected for the third or forth term - this will be
perfectly fine.
The choice of a leader by Afrikans in an Afrikan state is viewed as
undemocratic if it's not aligned with the neo-colonial constituency's
aspirations! Hence we need some sort of a "reward" to influence such an
individual's decision to accept or not to accept such a responsibility.
Besides, Afrikans (mostly leaders) are innately unscrupulousness; it
would be a challenge for them not to channel their efforts in getting
such a "reward"....
Mo Ibrahim Foundation deserves to be praised for such a great
innovation, I albeit I think their definition of "welfare" is a stuff of
nightmares, to say the least.

Is the Free Market Monster, a Monster, After all?

Most of the South African propagators of Socialism normally question the validity of the current economic system in our country – the free market economy. In their view, it is a monster that does nothing but promotes the income disparities between the haves and have nots – thus, the descendant Europeans and Afrikans. Although they’re not entirely wrong, I normally get a sense that they’re not aware of the basic fundamentals of the free market economy. Here’re the few:

- In a country, property rights for citizens are ensured.

- The allocation of recourses – mainly goods and services is left in the hands of private individuals other than government.

- The above ensures that prices of the goods and services are determined by the forces of supply and demand. (If there’s high demand or low supply for a product, the price will increase – the opposite of this is true.)

- Government intervention in the allocation of resources should be limited. The exception is made in the Strategic Industries like: Electricity (Eskom), Water (Umngeni Water), Arms Manufacturing (Denel) and other SOE’s. It is believed that private individuals are incapable of running such industries – due to their magnitude and because mostly, these are public goods.

- Monopolists are discouraged because they retard economic growth, thus, competition is encouraged to promote, inter alia, innovation which ensures that more goods and services are produced, which in turn will promote economic welfare and economic growth.

- Promotion of Foreign Direct Investments to ensure the transfer of capital, skills and technology.

The World Bank and the IMF have proposed several Macroeconomic fundamentals that should be maintain to ensure that the FME function smoothly – the so called Washington Consensus: Inter alia, trade liberalization, low inflation, and lower budget deficits. And much of the debate is deeply entrenched on the blanket promotion of this Washington Consensus to every country, regardless of the divergent development challenges and historical dynamics.

Thus, it’s an economic system that ensures private ownership of property.

It is not a perfect system – as we have seen in SA (albeit this statement can be contested), but, the alternative systems (e.g. Command Economy where government is solely responsible for all the above) have failed tremendously and Free Market Economy is the only system that has created more social welfare in recent history.

What can be said about SA?

Was this a right choice (FME) for SA?

Would it have helped if the government nationalized all the private companies and run them itself (As it is the case in Eritrea, North Korea and Cuba)?

I do not know – if you’d ask me!

What do I think is the solution?

- We should promote education – free education is the only thing that comes to mind.

- We should have social medical security system which will ensure that even poor people access superior medical assistance (The so called private hospitals)

- Government should at least protect infant industries (like Clothes manufacturing) from imports – so that we ensure the growth of our own industry before we can complete globally.

- Government should at least own a 2 Gold Mines and 2 Platinum Mines (Commodity prices are high) to ensure that Afrikan people run the mines (Skills transfer) and the proceeds to contribute on the fiscus – I am thinking Free Education here.

Let’s do all these in the free Market Economy – A more developmental state, so to speak.

Although the above will require higher taxation (say higher taxation from the rich) to ensure income redistribution, history tells us that taxation is not always redistributive. Let me make an example: The VAT: Most goods that are subject to VAT are consumed by the poor because the more individuals; income increase, the less they consume these goods.

Corporate Taxes are normally passed on to consumers (in the form of price increases).

So, should we have done things differently after 1994? I do not know. But I do not think (my view) that an alternative economic system would have helped. The country is now well placed into the growth path. The international community (with which we trade) has more confidence in our abilities than they did 13 years ago.

In my view, as we move forward, our country is now ready for a more developmental state than it did, 13 years ago.