Jurisprudence / (LL.D.)

Nationalisation involves putting any section of the economy under the control and ownership of a government. Nationalisation is not new to South Africa. The governments of the past and especially the Nationalist Party have nationalised a number of industries in the South African economy. Today almost 54% of the productive assets in the country are in the hands of the government. Transport, electricity, post office, are a few examples. Nationalisation in the past has been used to benefit only the whites, by providing them with jobs and services.

Jurisprudence / (LL.D.)

“It should not be forgotten that this ideological contribution impacted itself in a very real way on the whole national and democratic movement. It helped transform the ANC from its early beginnings of petition politics into a revolutionary nationalist movement.” Joe Slovo (in a speech delivered at the University of the Western Cape to mark the 70th anniversary of the SACP, 19 July 1991) At the time that the late Joe Slovo, former secretary of the South African Communist Party and former Minister of Housing in the first Government of national unity, made the speech the former party had about a year of legal existence inside the country after President FW de Klerk had unbanned all previously banned political parties in February 1990. Indeed the unbanning of political parties in South Africa was preceded by cataclysmic events in both Soviet Russia and Eastern Europe. General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev who was leader of the Soviet Communist Party was at the helm in Moscow. He introduced a number of policies whose main objective was to democratize Soviet society and do away with some of the undemocratic practices that were always associated with the policy of communism. Consequently, there was much talk about glasnost (openness) and perestroika during the period of President Gorbachev’s rule of Soviet Russia. The two policies were the main feature of his quest to modernize Soviet Russia and gradually move away from communism. The collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the fall of Nicolai Ceausescu in Romania and the disintegration of other East European countries like Yugoslavia signalled a death knell for East European socialism. The foregoing events also implied that the era of the Cold War between the West (led by USA, Britain, and West Germany et al) and East (led by the USSR, Poland, and East Germany et al) was over. The Cold War was a period of tremendous tension as Soviet Russia sought to spread its system of communism to Third World countries in Africa and South America. The West for its part tried to counteract by supporting forces which were opposed to communism in these countries. One can cite the example of Angola where Soviet Russia supported the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) led by Augustinho Neto which had adopted the system at the independence of the country in 1975. Jonas Savimbi led the Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) which was opposed to communism and was supported by South Africa and other Western countries which were also opposed to the system of communism. In essence the Cold War was a contest between the West and the East in gaining converts to their respective belief systems. The collapse of communism was viewed by the West as triumph of its own belief system and the confirmation of the failure of communism. It is against the backdrop of these foregoing events that the South African Communist Party was unbanned together with other erstwhile banned on the 2nd of February 1990.The SACP which had much influence in the ANC in the late 1950s and early 1960s and much of the time the parties were in exile was unbanned against the backdrop of the foregoing events. Of interest to observers was whether the party after it was unbanned would be able to exert the same influence it did on the ANC during the time in exile. Would the SACP take over from the ANC after the democratic transition and impose a socialist state in South Africa even if globally the trend was to move away from communism/socialism? Would the ANC itself follow a system which had been shown to lack the ability to confront the challenges of the 20th century? Some political commentators viewed the relationship between the ANC and the SACP as that of a metaphorical rider (the latter) and donkey (the former). In essence they argued that the SACP was the one determining the general trajectory of the liberation movement and its economic policies in particular. This dissertation will show that the influence of the SACP within the Tripartite Alliance in general and the ANC government in particular swings like a pendulum. It depends on who is in charge as president of the ANC. Before and during the exile years as the ANC was led by the late Oliver Tambo, the party enjoyed relatively better influence within the former organizations. The two organizations co-operated well in many ventures like the Defiance campaign, drafting of the Freedom Charter and the establishment of Umkhonto Wesizwe in 1961. During the presidency of Nelson Mandela most SACP members were in the first democratic cabinet though they did not exert as much influence as would be desirable. The main economic policy that the ruling ANC advocated was under the umbrella of what was termed the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) and was not even the brainchild of the SACP but of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU). In 1996 Thabo Mbeki, then deputy president to Nelson Mandela, came with the neo-liberal policy of Growth, Employment and Redistribution to try and salvage the South African economy which at the time was not performing at its best. Not only was GEAR unashamedly neo-liberal, it was also done without consultation of the SACP by its alliance partner the ANC. This engendered palpable tension within the alliance and led to name-calling from the party which derogatively referred to all the advocates of GEAR as the ‘Class of 1996’. The tension between the SACP and the ANC continued until former President Thabo Mbeki and his ‘Class of 1996’ were ousted from office in the 2007 ANC Polokwane elective conference. After the Polokwane conference, Jacob Zuma who had been Thabo Mbeki’s deputy president in both government and the ANC, assumed power. Zuma did not deviate much from the policies that were adopted by his predecessor though the SACP had played a significant role in bringing him to power. Just like Mbeki and Mandela before him, he had a number of SACP members in his cabinet and, in his case, some of them in key cabinet posts like Ebrahim Patel (a member of the SACP) who serves as Minister of Economic Development. Though he has these staunch members of the party in his cabinet, the Zuma administration has been able to adopt a neo-liberal economic policy which it has termed: National Development Plan which has been criticized by communists as no better than GEAR. This dissertation will show how the party sometimes struggle and sometimes wins that struggle to influence government policy.

Until a few years ago, it was widely held that, ‘apartheid cannot be reformed, it can only be destroyed’. Today, all participants in the negotiation process are agreed that one fundamental characteristic of the social order must be preserved: the new South Africa is to be a capitalist society; the productive wealth of the country will be the private property of a small number of capitalists, and the vast majority will try to sell their labour for a wage to capitalists who will buy it only when that labour can contribute to their profits. There is still disagreement about how small or large the number of capitalists will be; about the colour of their skins; about who they will appoint to manage their mines, banks, factories and farms for them; about the rules that will govern disputes over wages; and above all about the use that the state will make of the taxes paid from their profits. There is also disagreement about the extent to which capitalism can afford to meet popular needs. But all of these disagreements take place within the framework of a common belief that the future is capitalist. The aim of this seminar series, held by the Marxist Theory Seminar at the University of the Western Cape in April/May 1993, was to pose the question: What are the limits of social reform in a capitalist South Africa? Can the fundamental needs and aspirations of the vast majority of South Africans be met within a capitalist framework? Very often these questions are brushed aside with the argument that, given the present balance of local and international forces, there is no alternative to capitalism in SA today. Even if this argument is correct, it still remains necessary to ask what can be achieved within the framework of the capitalist society to which there is no alternative. If that question is not posed in the most rigorous way, all kinds of illusions will be created about what the future holds in store for us. The question of the limits of capitalist reform in SA is posed as it concerns five different areas; democracy, education, economic growth and employment, land and the oppression of women. What will democracy mean in a new SA which depends on foreign investment and capitalist profitability? Can the education crisis be resolved while meeting the needs of capitalist growth? Will economic growth take place in a capitalist SA, and will this lead to the creation of jobs and a higher standard of living for the majority? Can land be restored to the dispossessed, the virtual slavery of millions of farm workers ended, and land used in a way that produces food for all? What are the prospects of ending the oppression of women in a capitalist South Africa? MTS does not believe that there are simple answers to these questions. Certainly, these questions cannot be answered by a general condemnation of the inequality and inhumanity of capitalism. In each case, it is necessary to give clear answers to such questions as: Has capitalism served historically to support the struggle for democracy or to oppose it? How has it affected education in SA? What are the present interests of the capitalists in solving the land question, or giving women control of their lives? To what extent can capitalism be forced to make concessions - to provide jobs, for example - by the struggles of the oppressed? In the past, capitalism has shown itself to be much more flexible than its critics have supposed. That does not mean that capitalism can do anything it likes, nor that the working class can force it to meet whatever demands it has. One of the indispensable insights of Marxism is that processes of social change are not determined by the intentions or integrity of political leaders, but rather by the fundamental relationships of society and the ability of the major classes to pursue their interests created by these relationships. We hope that the publication of this seminar series contributes to making this insight available to a wider audience. / Marxist theory seminar

The struggle reaches back to the days of the first white settlement in our country. In this chapter we will look at some of these traditions of our struggle. We will learn more about the people who were in South Africa when the settlers came, and how they fought bravely to live in peace on their land. We will also read about the many changes that happened, particularly after diamonds and gold were discovered and how people continued to struggle against the new conditions that made their lives even harder. / “We call the farmers of the reserves and trust lands. Let us speak of the wide land, and the narrow strips on which we toil. Let us speak of brothers without land, and of children without schooling. Let us speak of taxes and of cattle, and of famine. LET US SPEAK OF FREEDOM.”