Healing the black South African’s fragmented sense of self

“Behold, they are one people, and they all spoke the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them” Genesis 11:6 NASB

The formation and development of nation states is a long, bitter and usually bloody process. Scour the annals of any country and there you will find tales of war, bitter divisions, some of which continue to cast a distressing shadow over their contemporary social realities. Our young democracy is no different. 

America was born of revolution, nursed by the hands of slaves upon fields stained by the blood of natives. It was purified through the furnace of a bitter civil war that finally compelled the country to reckon with its founding principle that “all men are created equal”. It lives now through debilitating political divisions that add to the subterranean angst that its days of global leadership may yet be numbered. 

Modern France is the progeny of the idealistic French revolution and a subsequent Reign of terror. From this emerged the great Napoleon, whose continental conquests were to prove the greatest days of a country for which greatness became since then a claim rooted in nostalgia rather than contemporary experience. 

Germany was built on the foundation of the bloody Thirty years war that culminated in the epochal Peace of Westphalia of 1648. It was later chastened by the might of Napoleon and two ferocious world wars. It walks now with a limp that tames its enormous potential for both good and evil. 

South African socio-politico-economic realities are sometimes distressingly complex but they are hardly a novelty in human history. 

All of this reminds us that the trajectory of prosperous societies at peace with themselves and the world is never linear but is marked by frustrating detours and bitter conflicts. Indeed, even among the more well-adjusted societies, none can claim to have fully arrived at the illusive foot of this rainbow.

The difficulty of our task is compounded by the attempt to engraft together not merely multiple ethnic identities but two distinct civilisations into a single cohesive social formation. One, African in its orientation and historical character, diverse but united by largely common values and outlook. The other Eurocentric in its disposition, shaped by the history of its antecedents such as the Great Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. 

The initial confrontation of these two civilisations led to 300 years of strife, where one, owing to its technological advancement and imagined sense of superiority subjugated the other. 

It is a tragic reality of human history that an enduring peace is usually built on the foundation of an unambiguous military triumph of one of the feuding parties. The fact that this path was avoided was a historic achievement that nevertheless accounts for some of the difficulties that the new South Africa has confronted since inception. 

War is a dreadful thing and those who harbour romantic notions about it have simply not reflected enough on the subject. Its dark clouds gathered ominously during the twilight years of Apartheid. Both sides understood its costs and were eager to avoid them. The overwhelming priority became arriving at a peaceful settlement that could spare countless lives and preserve wealth accumulated over centuries. 

The capacity to arrive at a peaceful settlement reflected a maturity uncommon in the colourful and bloody catalogue of human history. Nevertheless a sustainable peace must fulfil a fundamental condition. Either the resolution of the major points of conflict for the parties involved or the unconditional surrender of one of groups. None of which was the case in the South African negotiated settlement. 

The major grievance for the African population had been the violent dispossession of its land that rendered it practical slaves and vagrants in the land of its forefathers. Those who say land is of no consequence must remember that capital is ultimately acquired on the basis of the accumulated fruit of labour and ingenuity, previously applied on natural agents, of which land is primary.

Without the dispossessed land, along with its fertility and minerals, ingenuity alone was insufficient to accumulate the capital amassed by South Africans of European descent. This is even without reference to the cheap labour enabled by the deliberate economic impoverishment of South Africans of African descent that was pursued precisely for that purpose. 

A postponed resolution of the land question would have surely ensured an uneasy peace. Mindful of this, the founders of the new dispensation conceived of an ingenious way of resolving the dilemma. Mindful that this could undermine the entire foundation of the nascent social order. 

The plan was the rapid assimilation of the African population into the existing white-owned economic structure as a means of advancing the cause of restitution, which alone could underwrite a harmonious start to the new South Africa. The scheme involved corporate equity transfers at favourable terms, as well as the creation of preferential career paths for those whose ethnic identity had precluded them from gainful economic participation.

It was understood that there would be a cost to the incumbent controllers of the economy but the cost was thought justified by the demands of restorative justice. Time would however betray the simplicity of the solution. 

What was termed Black Economic Empowerment turned out anything but that. Instead it became a means of procuring political favour for the incumbent capitalist class through the enrichment of a limited politically connected elite. Even they were not truly empowered, as the contemptible size of the equity stakes, acquired through complex and highly leveraged structures. The entire scheme hardly fulfilled popular hopes of economic justice.

The new political dispensation nevertheless facilitated the emergence of a new black middle class. This new economic class was the natural outcome of a normalised political situation, which opened the lid to a period of sustained economic growth last seen in the pre-1976 period. This segment could grow without the feared displacement of white employment seekers. 

The moral logic of affirmative action, however, never quite found general resonance among South Africans of European descent, who now claimed victimhood amid fears of a reversal of economic fortunes. These fears, however, found little statistical confirmation as both the wages, employment and wealth accumulation of this segment continued to comfortably outperform those of black South Africans in the post-apartheid era, even among the university educated. 

Despite statutory prescripts, anecdotal evidence pointed to the existence of a glass ceiling for the emerging black middle class. Their newly acquired status nevertheless made them a coveted prize for marketing practitioners owing to their high propensity for ostentation and lavish debt funded consumption, who promptly rewarded them with the coveted appellation, “black diamonds”. One they wore with an air of self-satisfaction, while the grateful retailers walked away with glee, all the way to the bank. The ethnic statistics of the senior managerial elite nonetheless continued to belie the underlying demographic context. 

The pace of economic transformation, considered glacial by an increasingly impatient black South African population, has begun to find political expression in the formation of radical if not misguided political formations that presage further polarisation in an already polarised society.

A growing frustration among those of European lineage is also perceptible. Some of whom never quite reconciled themselves to the realities of the post-apartheid dispensation, which created for them the dissonant picture of political power residing with those for whom deeply engrained historical conditioning had taught were intrinsically inferior and hopelessly inept. 

These persisting sentiments have in turn found a propitious alibi in an increasingly arrogant, unaccountable and corrupt government, lending a look of respectability to ideas that otherwise belong to the sewer of history. 

It is hardly surprising therefore that twenty years into the new political dispensation, social cohesion is at such a disconcertingly low ebb, with historical animosities and suspicions at their strongest since the advent of democracy. This parlous state of affairs hearkens for new pathways of thought in light of demonstrably ineffectual strategies.

It is self-evident that functional relationships are impossible without mutual respect. Mutual respect in turn is difficult without the self-respect of all parties involved. Flouting this principle has perhaps been at the core of the difficulties with the post `94 reconciliation[1] project. 

Among the unheralded and possibly the most devastating imprints of Colonialism and Apartheid has been the systematic decimation of black South Africans’ sense of worth, which in turn, has contributed to a modest sense of self-respect. 

The first recorded encounter of Europeans with black South Africans in 1687 tells an eloquent tale about the depredations that were to follow on their psyche and social structures. A journal of one of those who were on the shipwrecked Stavenisse, a Dutch ship, on the East Coast provides an enlightening description of those they encountered. 

Of the range of descriptions at his disposal, his specific choice of words is instructive, “among the finest specimens of the human race”. The description is doubtless not without a whiff of romanticism, nevertheless it is a far cry from the pitiful portrait that has come to prevail of what it means to be a black South African. 

A subsequent observer offers another affirmative account of pre-colonial Nguni society:

“they are very civil, polite and talkative….revenge has little or no sway among them…one may travel 200 or 300 miles through the country, without any cause of fear from men, provided you go naked, and without any iron or copper….their country was extremely fertile and incredibly populous, and full of cattle…It would be impossible to buy any slaves there, for they would not part with their children, or any of their connections for anything in the world, loving each other with a most remarkable strength of affection.”

The idyllic picture offers clues as to the comparative technological backwardness of pre-colonial black South Africans. Living thousands of miles away from the ravages of inhospitable climate, suffocating proximity to scores of bellicose nations in highly densely populated environments, offered inadequate necessity for the kind of technological leaps seen in East Asia and Western Europe. As it has been said, necessity is the mother of all invention. There was technological advancement for pre-colonial black South Africans, nevertheless it progressed according to the pressure of necessity they had to contend with, which was apparently minimal. 

The advent of democracy brought with it closure to the centuries’ long struggle for equality before the law of the land, bringing with it freedom of movement and trade as well as security of property rights. Privileges at the core of wealth creation, that were previously considered the birth right of South Africans of European descent for centuries. What it failed to secure, however, is the restoration of the crushed self-image of the black South African. 

The black South African is politically free but he has come to believe that his language, culture and heritage are inconsequential at best, if not downright primitive. So much so that he has come to look down on of his own people who have managed to maintain some connection to their cultural moorings. You will be hard-pressed to find a single successful people group anywhere in the world with a similarly self-defeating outlook. He continues nevertheless to live in a daze that robs him of the awareness of the true nature of his plight and this condemns him to an even more arduous path towards finding his long lost centre.

His political freedom, laudable as it is, has yet to rebuild the intricate and well developed social system that ensured that young boys were nurtured to be responsible self-respecting and economically active men, young women pillars of the home and the old men and women dignified sages to guide the next generation. A social system defined by its value of the intrinsic dignity of humanity. He has come to tragically internalise the damming dehumanised version of his identity that is constantly fed to him as the true depiction of himself. 

He languishes now as though a drunken man in an inhospitable and foreign milieu that looks upon him at best with veiled condescension if not a patronizing pathos, usually concealed under spurious grins. He must learn a language foreign to him, master cultural peculiarities at odds to his own. All of which may allow him some acceptance, though never quite complete, in a cultural milieu in which he will always be an outsider. This must be all done before the unyielding pressure to succeed in an economic environment that positively expects him to live up to its image of him – innately inept and therefore condemned to constant supervision from which he can rarely hope to graduate. 

The tragedy of this permanent ordeal is that the black South African must endure it with a fragmented sense of self that has surprisingly received little attention since the advent of democracy. With his severed roots as well as spatial, cultural and spiritual displacement and therefore a contemptible knowledge of who he is, the black South African continues to live as an effective destitute in the land of his forefathers. His inner resources unavoidably insufficient to withstand the multiplicity of unflattering definitions he must endure in the dominant and often hostile cultural environment in which he finds himself. 

He has come thus to tragically accept the correct view of himself as the one foisted on him by others. The fact that he is so susceptible to taking cue concerning his worth from external sources speaks volumes about his crisis of identity. This disposition poses greater problems for him than the largely unflattering views about himself that he oft complains about but nevertheless obsequiously imbibes from the socio-economic environment imposed on him by historical exigencies.

What is needed in building a true Rainbow Nation at peace with itself and the world has nothing to do with breaking down the white man but everything to do with building up the black man. Attention must be given not merely to his impoverished wallet but more crucially, his emaciated soul. The responsibility for this belongs to no one else but himself. 

To this end, a leaf can be borrowed from the contested legacy of Mao Zedong who nevertheless had the perception to see the need to take the country through a period of internal reconstruction, with methods that were at the very best questionable, to deal with what he saw as weaknesses that lay at the root of the so called “hundred years of humiliation”. The end does not justify the means as some of the means in this case were nothing less than tragic. That said, the re-emergence of China as a global power toward the end of his reign must at least vindicate his discernment in seeing the need to rebuild the confidence of what had become a desperate, weak and fragmented nation. 

This is certainly no call for the reconstruction of the pre-industrial idyll of lore. That is neither possible nor desirable as times have changed. In fact, a case can be made that pre-colonial black South African society carried weaknesses that rendered it vulnerable to its own “three hundred and fifty years of humiliation” at the hands of foreign powers. It is a call instead for the recognition of the damage that centuries of Colonialism and Apartheid have done to the black South African’s sense of self, which should lead to deliberate steps towards its reconstruction. 

A perilous narrative has been deeply embraced by black South Africans that equates progress to the necessary forsaking of everything African and embracing everything Western. This is precisely the mind-set that renders them perpetual strangers in their own homeland, condemning them to the endless search for answers about their own identity and value from sources other themselves. 

The time has come for black South Africans to define themselves for themselves. A new consensus must emerge of what it means to be a black South African in the 21st Century. This social movement must liberate us to express ourselves in a way that reaffirms the legitimacy of our dignity, humanity and perspective on life. 

There might be a misinterpretation of this as being another knee-jerk anti-western diatribe. That would be to miss the point entirely. Such a path would not only be morally problematic but it would be a self-defeating diversion of precious energy. I speak here of a needed development of a pro-African consciousness among black South Africans. The two are not synonymous. To be pro-African does not equate to being anti-West. This consciousness will confer the kind of rootedness required to confidently and positively engage with the outside world in our own terms, out of a deep assurance of our identity and worth.

A movement has gathered momentum for land restitution. There is certainly a case for this as the endorsement of the prescripts of the land act of 1913 was simply an unjust compromise. Nevertheless to make land restitution the centrepiece of the strategy to recover from the ravages of Colonialism and Apartheid carries something of an anachronistic ring. 

While land was central to the pre-1850 economy, the advances of subsequent decades rendered it less and less so. Knowledge and expertise have become the pre-eminent means of production in the modern economy and there is simply no escaping that. 

The land restitution process must be accompanied by the injection of capital into the agricultural and mining sectors which must raise the level of productivity for these primary sectors. To make them the cornerstone of our economic strategy, however, is to confine South Africa to a perpetual player in the lower leagues of the global economy as these sectors are notable for their comparatively lower rates of return, not to mention their tendency for cyclicality and high price volatility. Their importance, however, lies in building a capital base that can be used for diversification into higher yielding and more sustainable sectors. 

Even in the information age, manufacturing expertise remains crucial. The decimation of some of our manufacturing capacity over the past two decades, largely at the hands of cheaper Chinese imports, points to the need for different thinking when it comes to manufacturing. The lesson is there for all to see – an industrial strategy centred primarily on cost is unsustainable. Other competitive advantages must be developed, harnessed and maintained. This is how to compete sustainably in a global economic environment underpinned by divergent socioeconomic realities that necessitate that certain countries will always have lower labour costs than others. 

To recover some of their self-respect, black South Africans must eschew economic dependence on their white compatriots. This can only reinforce stubborn white-supremacist contempt and the maintenance of the deleterious belief we are incapable of self-advancement. 

There must be a concerted drive to develop a groundswell of black entrepreneurs. They will need government support as did their lighter hued compatriots but support is no synonym for dependence. The time has come to conceive of global businesses run by black South Africans, who must develop the confidence to open up new frontiers of knowledge, innovation and expertise to the global family of nations. 

This will require us to defy the counsel of our fears as well as countless opposing voices, mostly emanating from ourselves. We have the example of our Afrikaner compatriots to look to, who had the gumption to disregard their self-doubts to build what became leading global corporations. We must believe that God has endowed us with greatness as well. Success will create its own momentum, opening a whole new world of possibilities for others and future generations. A beneficent virtuous cycle must be precipitated. The time to begin is now[2]. 

[1] The popular term “reconciliation” is in fact a misnomer as it presupposes the previous existence of harmonious relations between black and white South Africans, something not borne out by historical evidence. My use of the term is according to its popular interpretation – conciliation. 

[2] It might seem strange that a discussion about building a cohesive society has focused primarily on black South Africans. This is premised on the idea that sustainable relational partnerships are partnerships of “equals”. A lack of self-respect afflicting one of the parties naturally breeds contempt by the other. This might explain why pleas for reconciliation have largely emanated from one side with the other side showing scarcely concealed disinterest. This is a natural and predicable outcome that will continue until such a time that both parties understand their own true value. Only then can the reconciliation between white and black South Africans, that has hitherto proven so elusive, begin in earnest. 

.

We cannot despair of reconciliation

A debate with troubling repercussions has recently emerged in sections of South Africa society. Its centrepiece are the merits and demerits of reconciling its historically divided people groups. To emphasise the implications of this debate, it is worth noting that it is really about the endurance of our social order.

After all a choice against reconciliation is to sow powerful seeds towards the ineluctable destruction of our social covenant. Let no one be misled by the time it takes for the fruit of such seeds to ripen.

One would be remiss to disregard those who have come to seriously contemplate such a path because it comes from a place of genuine disappointment. Building a nation is no easy task, more so one as wounded as South Africa.

A social contract that fails to adequately address social justice considerations nevertheless stands on a faulty foundation. Precisely as a unifying and sustainable social consensus requires a choice for the difficult path of continuing to deal with what divides us the most, the lingering remnants of our troubled history. 

This difficult but necessary path can only incrementally eat away at the enormous power the past continues to wield on us, owing to its ubiquitous imprints in our country.  Until we finally triumph over it we are condemned to carry it like a corpse whose putrid odour pervades much of our social, economic and political interactions. 

Contrary to popular opinion, it is precisely the cause of our future that is suffocated by our failure to resolve the lingering issues of our past. Ignoring them is hardly an effective way of handling them.

There are many reasons why the past has become such a divisive topic in South Africa. Not least its penchant for use as a weapon in dealing with a multiplicity of issues. Not all to which it is relevant. Its emotive power, however, makes it an irresistible trump-card that is often mischievously used.  

For others the past regrettably serves as a cheap explanation for failure. Even when poor application is responsible. This goes hand in hand with the false idea that there exists an alternative path to success other than knowledge, careful planning, astuteness, perseverance and good old fashioned hard work.  

These are among the many reasons why South Africans, especially the historical beneficiaries of colonialism and apartheid may sometimes squirm at discussions of the past. 

Among the more sensitive, it understandably evokes troubling memories of aspects of their heritage that elicit uncomfortable feelings of shame. Ubuntu obligates us to thread on these issues with due sensitivity as it serves no useful purpose “rubbing it in”.

Nevertheless, we do the cause of nation building no favours by failing to confront the ubiquitous imprints of the past that continue to bedevil us. Particarly as these pose a greater threat to the survival of our fragile social contract than the risk of stepping on a few toes.

Sadly the impatient eagerness to look forward has tended to morph into denialism among many, even when the evidence is barely disputable. Even so, the joke is on us if we think what we deny ceases to exist by virtue of our denial of it.

Persisting and increasingly unabashed racist attitudes and an economy that bears irrefutable imprints of the past, are constant reminders that the past is still a very real part of us. Those who feel the jarring sting of its realities come to despise being dismissed or lectured in a manner that suggests that the injustice of their present experiences either does not matter or that their personal assessment of them must be subordinated to those whose judgement is supposedly weightier.  

A failure to face up to our past and deal with its legacy head-on empowers it in countless pernicious ways. Not least a penchant to drive us into our respective laagers where resentment and myth deepen, inevitably manifesting in the political arena, where our choices have enormous power to shape the kind of society we become.

This tendency could hardly have been portrayed clearer than the last general elections. Leading up to which, countless South Africans spared no occasion to express their displeasure with how the country was being governed.

The contrasting story told by the results nevertheless confirms the tragic truth: many South Africans would sooner live with what they consider a corrupt, arrogant and incompetent government than risk giving power to those whom they believe take little care for the injustices which affect them so distressingly.

It must be understood that the truth and reconciliation commission was a commendable start, and nothing more. Because many naively or perhaps self-servingly saw its conclusion as a costless catharsis to centuries of injustice, it evidently achieved the logically and historically irreconcilable goal of assigning accountability for apartheid solely on a few National Party leaders.

This view gives the indefensible impression that an entire “democratic” society that was very functional and civilised according to its own perverted logic, that endured for centuries, cannot be justly required to pay some price in the ongoing process of restitutive justice.

That society not only gave birth and nurtured its political leaders, it also gave them the levers of power and ensured their sustainable hold on them. These leaders were not pursuing some obscure personal mission, they were acting according to a popular mandate given to them through the polls and regularly judge by the court of public opinion. This assessement was according to how well they served its collective needs and interests. Naturally at enormous, possibly irrevocable, cost to an entire demographic.

The consequence of the subsequent amnesia has led to interventions such as black economic empowerment and affirmative action, as poorly designed as they are, to be met with the kind of moral outrage that is truly astounding in terms of the extent of wilful ignorance it betrays. 

Those who live with the socio-economic wounds of apartheid, in turn, find this common response indicative of a superficial commitment to the principle of justice and a callous failure to appreciate the depth of the damage caused by the system that accounted for much of the racially tinged socio-economic inequalities.

The failure to come to terms with the historical realities that still explain a big part of the present socio economic travails for many, has done as much harm to the beneficiaries of apartheid as it has to its victims.  While the latter continue to wallow in the grossly disempowering epithet of victimhood and wilt in smouldering anger, the former are condemned to walk about with the unforgiving weight of shame which manifests as the common tendency to find refuge under the specious shade of denialism.

Indeed, we live before the looming shadow of the haunting spectre of the day that history instructs never fails to arrive. The day when the unresolved legacy of societal grievances gives birth to a skilful demagogue adept at manipulating the unfulfilled longing for justice. Usually leading to ruin much greater than the cost of resolving the issues.

This is no way to build an enduringly thriving social order. After all, a society built on a foundation of injustice is inherently unstable.

It is worth distinguishing punitive from restitutive justice. The former seeks to punish the responsible party for their misdeeds. Restitutive justice on the hand is a mutual recognition of the harm done by the actions of the responsible party as well as the agreement to restore the affected party.

Among the reasons Nelson Mandela came to be mentioned among the great men of the 20^th century was his choice for constructive restitutive justice. It promised a propitious platform to begin the work of building a sustainable society.

This is in stark contrast to the path taken by the victorious Allied Powers against Germany at the conclusion of WWI in 1919. The consequence of the punitive terms of the peace of Versailles have become the reference case of how not to pursue international justice.

We can nevertheless learn much from the courage and the presence of mind so honourably displayed by German society following the shameful chapter of Nazi rule, which came about as a result of the failure to heed the lesson of addressing felt societal injustice following the disastrous peace of Versailles.

That society has now become a wonderful model of how to deal with societal baggage. It is streets ahead in its journey of national healing precisely for the difficult but pragmatic choices it took decades ago, among which was to confront its unpleasant past.

It is to the credit of the character of German people that even after so many years, that society continues to handle issues of its dark past with remarkable sensitivity and humility. It is small wonder that various surveys reflect Germany as among the most widely admired countries in the world.

It took Germany two punitive world wars to learn its lessons. What will it take South Africa?

This delicate task of healing the wounds of the past, must be done in the same spirit that a surgeon might. Not out of vengeful or vindictive intent. Instead out of the sober realisation that a wound left unattended, as the past 20 years have amply demonstrated, soon becomes infected and with time, occasions the risk of spreading the infection until the survival of the body can no longer be possible. 

At best, the failure to deal with our past condemns our posterity to more of the same simmering interracial tensions we are becoming used to, which time seems to be accentuating rather than ameliorating. A study of other societies with similarly troubled pasts, instruct that the passage of time alone, rather than heal, hardens and entrenches societal animosities that are not timeously and effectively attended to.

What does this dealing with the past entail? Huge pay-outs of money? Countless teary apologies for apartheid? Hardly. Sure, there is a place for restitution and honourable contrition but the biggest problems South Africans encounter in their interaction with each other are present and not in the past.

I am convinced that the greatest progress we can make in our quest for genuine reconciliation will be through the simple practice of empathetically listening to each other. Listening in order to understand our unique stories. This can develop awareness and sensitivity to occurrences around us that we might otherwise remain oblivious to.

History has consigned us into a narrative many of us wish was differently scripted. But we are who we are and this was shaped by historical forces that cannot be wished away.

Whatever we do now creates its own realities. This journey will surely severely test us as the past twenty years have shown and will continue to do so. The depth of our collective woundedness offers no other alternative. But this is no time to lose heart.

We must continue to ratify the exemplary choice taken by Mandela, who saw mutual hostility for what it is - an untenable dead-end. Let us follow him on the difficult but propitious path of national reconciliation. After all, it's not as though we have the luxury of choice.

Of Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy

Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy are three of the defining ideas of the modern era. They are so deeply entrenched in contemporary consciousness that it is sometimes difficult to comprehend that they have been with us a little more than 200 years.

Joseph Schumpeter in his eponymous tome does a masterly job of assessing these ideas during a time of unimaginable turbulence in world history. The Second World War, The Great Depression and the rise of Marxist Leninism had so shaken the intricate lattice that had delicately underscored Western Civilization that by the time of his authorship of the book in 1941, these three pillars all hung precariously, with no certainty as to which would prevail. 

As a Fabian Socialist, Schumpeter criticizes Marx sharply, derisively likening him to a prophet. This is somewhat disingenuous, particularly as in the final analysis he comes to concur with the Marxian idea of the “inevitability” of socialism, even if through different means.  Herein lies the necessary convergence of Marxian and Fabian Socialism. 

The two only diverge in the means of achieving what is otherwise a commonly shared view of the desirable end.  The former advances the cause of utopian society by expropriating property through raw coercion while the latter uses the subtler form of tax law, underpinned by the not so subtle threat of imprisonment. In 2014 the jury is still out as to the supposed inevitability of socialism.

In reading this book I found myself reflecting on my own views. Despite my serious misgivings with contemporary Capitalism, I find it difficult to agree with his conclusion. Socialism conflicts irreconcilably from what seems to be the natural order of the world. I simply cannot accept what is the unavoidable violation of the fundamental principle of the sacrosanctity of individual choice that the socialist utopian society necessarily implies.

Though I can scarcely be considered a Libertarian, to me the idea of choice and liberty are inviolably intertwined with being a human being. I also think history is on my side in that societies generally prosper much more when individuals are free to exercise their choice. Pragmatism aside, it is the inherent justice attached to freedom of choice that accounts for the cry for freedom, the echo of which can be heard reverberating across the corridors of human existence.

The individual’s freedom to choose is indissoluble from the process of individual maturation and by extension that of societies.  This is because exercising choice allows individuals to develop as they test their beliefs and ideas in a harsh world with no ideologically biases. Personal growth thus occurs even if through the proverbial school of hard knocks for those who choose to adapt themselves to reality. The reign of the freedom of individual choice lends itself to the development of self-governed and empowered citizens without which orderly and cohesive societies can only remain a chimera.

This differs markedly to socialism, where the government takes it upon itself to supervise individual economic decisions, thus robbing the individual of the invaluable wisdom offered by the process of learning from mistakes.  This usually culminates at best in the economically untenable "nanny state" or at worst totalitarianism in its various guises.

The irony of the welfare state is that it ultimately only serves to empower the state while disempowering the very "masses" it purports to help. It achieves this by fostering the pernicious mindset that places the primary responsibility for personal economic welfare on the hands of another, in this case the state.

The sanctity of individual choice is the same reason that I agree with the intrinsic logic behind democracy, which seeks to find a consensus of preferences of those whom individuals would prefer to be governed by. Modern democracy has flaws but its nobility consists in its attempt to champion individual choice. I say this even as I am aware of the frustrating inefficiencies of political gridlock that have hamstrung the effective functioning of the US Congress. 

The necessity of reform in the US political system, however, should not be misconstrued as conceding to the idea of governance by the people for the people as fundamentally flawed. Reform must be pursued to the extent of ensuring that the intricate system of necessary checks and balances does not undermine the primary purpose of government, which is to govern.

I do not think there is necessity for a new socio-economic ideology.  Only significant structural improvements to the status quo. Capitalism simply needs serious realigning with its putative ideal of the free market.  It must respond to the credible claim that it has come to be free only by name.

The rising spectre of inequality has emerged as a formidable threat to the sustainability of the free market.  There are plausible reasons to believe that injustice accounts for this phenomenon more than natural differentials in human talent. Many have thus come to associate the free market with a system that advances only the interests of the rich and powerful.

Perhaps a distinction is necessary between the free market and Capitalism. The latter referring to the freedom and ability of individuals to participate in enterprises of their choice while the latter implies the preponderance of those with Capital, in other words the dictatorship of economic insiders.

It is a reasonable proposition that individuals and communities should never be denied the expression of that primal impulse to proceed unhindered with the business of pursuing their dreams and exercising their multifarious talents and convictions as they see fit. With as little interference from the state as possible.  This is the idea that was foundational to the formation of the United States of America and central to its emergence as a global political and economic powerhouse. It is an idea worth preserving.

The necessity for collective governance, however, is in dealing with injustice, a ubiquitous feature of social interaction from time immemorial.  There is nothing more corrosive to the tender chords of any social contract than the unchallenged reign of injustice. It is for this reason that dealing with injustice is the raison d'etre of the state.  

Perhaps there is some irony in the fact that the free market is best safe-guarded by effective public governance that is committed to socio-economic justice. Governance that not only underwrites effective socio-economic infrastructure and public institutions but one that acts as a deterrent to the inevitable attempts by powerful economic players from undermining new economic entrants, thus turning the free market into a perilous zero-sum-game.  

This necessarily implies dealing with the issue of externalities, which is also a matter of justice. Private benefits do not always match public costs in contemporary Capitalist societies.  The recent financial crisis is a case in point, where the generous private gains of bankers from their speculative dabblings in high risk derivative instruments, were patently asymmetrical with the costs that were eventually borne by society for their reckless actions. Collective leadership has the crucial responsibility of ensuring that private benefits are effectively balanced with public costs.

The cause of socio-economic justice requires the government to also play a leading role in establishing and maintaining the highest standards of economic (broadband, roads etc.) and social infrastructure (healthcare, education etc.).  The monopolisation and the inaccessibility of which can only accentuate gross societal inequalities that can only undermine social stability and ultimately the sustainability of a harmonious social order.

Every new generation should have a fair chance of success regardless of the socio-economic status of its forbears. In the context of a pervasively fractured and fracturing filial social safety net and the enduring impact of historical injustice, I can think of few better ways of ensuring this than the availability and accessibility to high quality public education that prepares citizens for the demands and opportunities of the modern economy. The high cost is justifiable in view of the significantly higher socio-economic costs of the economic exclusion of vast numbers of youths whose energy must otherwise find an outlet at a potentially unbearable price for the rest of society.

Capitalism’s battle with Fabian socialism continues to rage, with the end as yet nowhere in sight.  The fall of the Berlin wall came with the global dispersion of the ideas of freedom of choice, speech, trade and movement. Europe continued in its typical characterisation by the difficult truce between the two ideologies, with the two hundred year old roots of Fabian socialism deeply entrenched. The US is perhaps where the battle is at its fiercest and it continues unabated, its brutality matched only by its capacity to polarise.

The global consensus post the fall of Berlin, which has been skewed notably towards the free market, came with the fruits of unprecedented and welcome economic growth. Nevertheless, all across the world fissures are beginning to manifest in a way that can no longer be ignored, mostly in the form of grossly destabilising and yawning socio-economic disparities.

I want to be clear about my conviction that there is nothing inevitable about the global triumph of Socialism as long as freedom remains the abiding cry of the human heart.  I submit that this is nowhere better safe-guarded than in a free market economic system.  If Socialism emerges triumphant over Capitalism, it will not be due to its logical or moral superiority. It is neither of these things. It would certainly not be a confirmation of the Hegelian notion of historical determinism.  What I fear can ultimately account for its capitulation is the tragic short-sightedness of the economic insiders of today, who fail to realize that enabling wider economic participation is in fact their most rational choice in ensuring the triumph of their own long-term interests and values.

In defence of the right of conscience

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2011-09-05-beware-of-divine-judgment/#.U5GSql1ZpLg

In response to Gareth Cliff’s piece (see link above): “Beware of divine judgement”, it is important to emphasise that I have no particular predilection to Justice Mogoeng. What I want to discuss here has therefore nothing to do with the merits of his appointment as the Chief Justice of the country. In fact it’s worth mentioning that had the choice been mine to make, it is very likely that it would have differed to that of President Zuma, which was nevertheless unanimously ratified by the JSC. What I have a fundamental problem with is the affront to Chief Justice Mogoeng’s constitutionally enshrined right of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion, that Mr Cliff’s polemic amounts to.

Immediately following his assertion that his piece was not “another attack on general organised religion” and “strongly-held beliefs”, what I find surprising is that Mr Cliff hastens to do the exactly that. His first attack is to make an unsubstantiated but very common allegation that a negligible number among those who operate in arenas of “intellect, reason, analysis and discovery” are people of faith. 

I should remind Mr Cliff that the scientific method that he supposedly holds in high regard requires rigorous testing of evidence before conclusions are arrived at. I wonder whether he has any sample data to show us to substantiate so bold a claim. Particularly if his own statement is be believed that many people of faith, some of whom must fulfil a multiplicity of important functions in society, simply keep their faith a “private matter”.

Further, I wonder whether Mr Cliff realises the extent to which modern science is indebted to those who are supposedly inimical to “rational thought”. Incidentally, this list, that is far from exhaustive, includes men of such stature in the scientific community as: Copernicus; Kepler; Galileo; Brahe; Descartes; Boyle; Newton; Leibniz; Gassendi; Pascal; Mersenne; Cuvier; Harvey; Dalton; Faraday; Herschel; Joule; Lyell; Lavoisier; Priestly; Kelvin; Ohm; Ampere; Steno; Pasteur; Maxwell; Planck; and Mendel, many of whom were not only believers but clergymen! 

Among other statements, Mr Cliff then proceeds to speculate that religion upholds the “supposition that faith is more meritorious than rational thought”, suggesting that faith is necessarily in conflict with rationality. Perhaps it might help for Mr Cliff to be enlightened that Christianity is founded on a soundly rational basis that is supported by the simple mathematical logic that "nothing" cannot produce "something". Zero times anything always produces zero! It is therefore only logically consistent to assume something or Someone rather than nothing is the originator of space, time and matter. 

The constitution, rather than defining morality, is a social contract burdened with the impossible task of synthesising and codifying with the compromises necessitated by the plurality of our culture, the diverse ways that our rainbow nation understands morality. It cannot be the source but merely an approximation of the complex web of underlying societal moral values. Nevertheless holders of public office, in their capacity as public officials, are compelled to subjugate their personal views to those of the social contract that gave rise to their office. A principle that Justice Mogoeng has expressed on many occasions a clear appreciation of.

Any lingering doubt regarding Mr Cliff’s scarcely concealed contempt for Justice Mogoeng’s personal beliefs is betrayed by his assertion: 

“Judges would never admit evidence on hearsay, or speculate about unscientific things like a virgin birth or miracle, unless they wished to be laughed out of court, and the profession. Yet all of this is what Mogoeng Mogoeng admits as one of his basic tenets”

It might be of profound benefit for Mr Cliff and others who share his views to revisit Chapter 2, section 15 and subsection (2) of the constitution of the Republic of South Africa. There they would learn that a public observance of religious conviction is a right that is protected by the constitution even for public officials. Furthermore, it is unclear why any judge, in their capacity as a judge, would venture to pronounce on the “virgin birth or miracle” unless it was directly pertinent to the case at hand. 

While it must be accepted that our opinions on such contentious issues as the selection of the Chief Justice will always differ, a distinction must be drawn between our assessment of the competence of candidates and their constitutionally protected right of conscience. While the former is to be expected, the latter goes against the very spirit and letter of our constitution. A failure to appreciate and respect this distinction is a slippery slope that leads us to the dreaded Orwellian society where the disturbing notion of `thought crime` reigns supreme. 

All South Africans, including Mr Cliff, understand the world through a conscious or unconscious set of presuppositions. To be denied the right to choose these presuppositions is to be robbed of what ultimately makes us human. Justice Mogoeng has chosen his to be the Biblical Christian worldview that presupposes a created universe and a Creator from whom all life, truth and morality flows. His freedom to hold and express such convictions, as should be for everyone else, must be protected.

Tales of inexorable doom

There is a perennial debate about the extent to which we are products of our formative experiences or as William Ernest Henley put it, “masters of our fates”.  I have always wondered whether the truth is not to be found somewhere in between these polar standpoints.  Nevertheless, I can never deny how profoundly indebted my view of the world is to the events surrounding the improbable transition of my country, South Africa. A transition from that much-maligned pariah state to an enduring symbol that there are other ways of navigating disruptive societal change than the well-trodden path of needless bloodshed.

I was twelve years old when Nelson Mandela was released from prison, amid a palpable air of triumph and jubilant expectation, all of which was inspiring and perplexing, all at once.  You see when I grew up, the name “Mandela” was akin to a swear word, always mentioned in hushed tones as if the very walls were co-conspirators in the sinister web of the Apartheid intelligence apparatus.  One thus had a sketchy picture of who this man was, let alone what it was that qualified him for such notoriety.

Upon his release I stood as before an entirely new world to be discovered.

The journey of discovery would be interposed between a sudden interest in the opposite sex, typical of the infamous period where childhood intersects adulthood, and a cavernous period in my country’s history. Thus the fanciful pursuits of budding adulthood were for me amid the backdrop of a forbidding cloud of uncertainty that hung forebodingly over my country, bringing with it intermittent rumours of inexorable doom.

With time it became clear why such oppressive anxiety had engulfed us. The events of human history had formed a credible picture in our collective consciousness, of what awaits generations who bear the unenviable responsibility of navigating such treacherous terrain. No less when that path is before a backdrop of a history draped in murderous blood as ours was.

Let me not regale you with how we transitioned from the appearance of ineluctable disaster to a difficult era of national reconciliation we must now navigate.  I will leave that to the countless commentaries, movies and books that do an expert job of it.  What I will tell you, is what they never can, how growing up in such historic times of so troubled a land, came to shape the prism through which I see the world and the path I would choose for myself in it.

I cannot tell you whether my idealism is a matter of nature or nurture. What I know is the enormous debt I owe to a pantheon of nameless indefatigable idealists who splatter the pages of my country’s troubled history, of whom Nelson Mandela is but one recognisable figure.  The triumphant jubilation that greeted my coming of age was perhaps an unsuspecting tribute to these heroes and heroines who eschewed the well-worn path of self-preservation and self-interest to give themselves instead to a cause bigger than their own lives. Their lives heroically adorned “ubuntu”, the South African idea that to be truly human is possible only in community with other people. Many of them would pay the ultimate price for the liberties I’m now tempted to take for granted.

I have thus come to see my life as an indivisible part of a social whole that transcends both space and time. I was born into a story that predated my life by years without number. A story that will continue untroubled after I meet the fate of every man. History will remember me less for my personal achievements and accumulation of countless artefacts and more for how I contribute toward the tangible improvement of the lives of my fellow sojourners on this fleeting journey.

My country’s transition into the democratic era was a summit of centuries of a long upward climb and so deserved every bit of the adulation it received. What was nonetheless less clear then and jarringly obvious now, is the extent of the work that awaits a nation that must build upon the ruins of centuries of devastation.  It is within this story that I locate my existence.  I am a child of these ground shaking historical events.

Deconstructing Capitalism

There was a time in my own lifetime when it was “common knowledge” that Communism was evil and Capitalism was good. History, it seemed, vindicated this narrative when the Berlin wall fell in 1989, ending with it a bitter geopolitical contest that lasted more than 70 years. Arguably the greatest financial crisis in history came to remind us thirty years later that things are not quite as simple. 

With the benefit of hindsight, one wonders whether the struggle ought not to have been seen rather as the bad versus the worse. Six years after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the world still staggers as if seeking for the certainty it once knew, even if unfolding events have proven that the erstwhile certainty was in fact spurious. Nevertheless the question must still be answered – is there an alternative to capitalism as we have come to know it?

The question is weighty and will surely be answered by the great minds that occasionally grace the stage of history. Meanwhile I will be content to reflect on some of the flaws of capitalism that were unmasked so brutally by the Financial Crisis, along with its ubiquitous and lamentable tendency to exacerbate the gap between the rich and the poor. This might help in thinking clearer about how to construct a more sure economic foundation. 

Capitalism won the battle of ideologies for no reason other than the simple fact of it being considerably more aligned to reality than Marxism. The basic flaw of the latter consists in its idealistic conception of human nature evidenced in the absence of in-built incentives for personal initiative, industry and innovation. The Great Russian famine of 1921 effectively sealed the fate of the incipient project, replacing it with Marxist-Leninism, a system much more egregious than anything Capitalism could be accused of. Its collapse in 1989 was truly one of the great human triumphs of the 20th century. 

Although Adam Smith is regarded as the father of what came to be called capitalism, his immortalised tome, “An inquiry into nature and causes of the wealth of nations”, was essentially a codification of his observations of practices in societies that were wealthy relative to those that were not. His great contribution was not so much the invention of the free market system as much as a genius to define a system that had already differentiated certain societies from others. Modern Capitalism’s roots are traceable to the mercantile system developed by Dutch traders who predated Smith’s work by well over a century. In fact one could even go back as far as the Middle Ages. Adam Smith’s thesis on the merits of the division of labour was revolutionary in its promotion of specialization that led to greater efficiency in production and the possibility for greater depth in skill and innovation. 

The real problems emerged with the economic system that took shape with the advent of the industrial revolution in late 19th century England, that became the ugly face of human depravity, where exploitation of the weak was the order of the day. This economic system came to be called Capitalism by Karl Marx. Indeed, the birth of Marxism a century later was but a misguided response to the injustices that he and his contemporaries observed in the appalling social conditions that emerged in many European cities following the outbreak of the Industrial Revolution. Although some of the earlier inhumane practices were significantly alleviated in the West, its rise across the world has never failed to be associated with a trail of similar social outcries, from China, to Vietnam, to Bangladesh. Some of its flaws, not least its tendency to accentuate economic inequality, contain seeds that might one day account for its eventual downfall. 

Among the intellectual pillars of Capitalism is the Rational Choice Theory, which takes it for granted that human beings are rational. What worries more than the disputable factuality of that presupposition is the problematic way in which the theory came to redefine rationality. Its assimilation into Western popular thought coincided with the reinterpretation of rationality to refer to the human proclivity towards narrow self-interest. What was always known to be a social vice was effectively sanctified into something akin to a virtue. To be selfish thus came to be accepted as not only rational but socially acceptable and even desirable if not laudable. 

The idea that to be rational is to be selfish defines much of what is wrong with Capitalism. The financial services sector for example, one that is characterised by the spirit of modern capitalism in its most avaricious, is known to be highly financially rewarding not least for its lucrative bonus incentive culture. Predictably it draws to itself the best brains in society as gnats to light. The societal imbalances created by this inordinate concentration of society’s most talented in one-sector are a subject for another time. The focus now is the entrancing allure of the bonus that is known to blur the moral consciousness of people across the corporate hierarchy. The generous financial reward becomes the overarching imperative that invariably leads to a flouting of responsibility to fellow human beings both within and without the organisation, a mindset that is reinforced by what we have come to accept as a normal order of business – the unbridled pursuit of self-interest. 

It is no coincidence that capitalism usually coincides with yawning economic inequalities. Precisely because it cannot exist without them. According to the Capitalist worldview, economic profit is the primary pursuit and usually the quicker it is earned the better. Anything, including human beings, must be sacrificed to this insatiable idol. Thus people become nothing more than a line item on the financial statement, a factor of production or an easily expendable cost that must be lowered as far as possible. Indeed, there is no stopping insatiable Capital on its global expedition from one corner of the globe to the next, seeking the lowest labour “costs”. Accordingly, we have come to accept it as a matter of fact that unless we lower our labour costs, we will fail to attract or retain the Capital we need for “higher economic growth”, the content of which is not always specified. And thus society has come to be ensnared by the specious promises of Capitalism.

The reality is that for this “high economic growth” to occur people must necessarily earn low wages, sometimes pitifully low wages, along with a multiplicity of untold indignities while the owners of capital and the managerial elite live large and make a killing. This effectively defines the socially untenable economic inequalities we have come to see, without which Capitalism, as we have come to know it, cannot survive. Something must surely be amiss in a system that depends on the perpetuation of injustice for its survival. The proponents of capitalism, in other words its beneficiaries, are nevertheless at pains to convince us that this should be accepted as the workings of a normal society.

Our challenge is not so much to change human nature as much as to design a socio-economic structure that rewards what is good and disincentivises what is socially undesirable. The current orthodoxy of Capitalism certainly leaves much to be desired in this regard. It creates a parallel universe with values that are many times at odds with what is known to be right, just and decent by the common person. The interests of posterity are gleefully sacrificed at the shrine of short-term gain.

Among the primary causes of this is the typically impersonal ownership structure inherent in what is known as the “public ownership” of shares. Where the owners are numerous anonymous individuals and professional fund managers whose sole concern is the extent to which the share price will rise and usually nothing more. Managers are appointed on the basis of this narrow measure and are rewarded and punished according to the extent of their success in fulfilling it. They, in turn, soon learn how to dance to the tune of the multitude of faceless investors. The environment is thus created that promotes an inordinate preoccupation with short-term profitability. This is can only be the inevitable result when managers possess minimal long-term ties to the companies they manage. The system abets the untenable incentive systems I have referred to, along with famously Darwinian corporate cultures characterized by a fear of failure that is ultimately inimical to true innovation. 

The answer must surely lie in the de-emphasis of the public ownership model, which is the driver of much of the ills of Capitalism. Some of its touted advantages such as the supposed efficiency in the allocation of financial resources are overstated if not overshadowed by its glaring weaknesses that render it fundamentally unstable. Among these flaws is a typically inordinate reliance on debt, which is a natural outcome of a system that belligerently demands short-term results. The diminution of the public share ownership system could be achieved in a number of ways including gradually raising the tax rates of some of these corporate behemoths until they become unsustainable. The funds could then be channelled into the promotion of small to medium family owned enterprises. 

The advantage of family-owned small to medium enterprises is their inherent multigenerational scope. Because of their association with family honour and close family management, the values that govern them are much more likely to be aligned with universal virtues such as the promotion of what is right, just, equitable and decent. This lends itself to business principles that uphold the interests of the communities in which they function. A company that seeks to exist in a 100 years, as family businesses are inclined to, will surely prize a good reputation and act accordingly. 

Thus an alignment will result between corporate and community values and interests, which are usually mismatched in a Capitalistic system. The long-term perspective is also associated with low financial gearing where growth is financed by savings from profits rather than debt. The resulting low debt culture can create the added advantage of de-financialising the economy, reducing the power of far-flung unscrupulous financiers to destabilise our lives and ensures the distribution of talent across the economic sectors for balanced socio-economic development. The low debt environment would also counterbalance the pressure to pursue unsustainably high and inequitable growth rates, usually at the behest of rapacious bankers, which serve to corrupt the corporate culture and contribute to accelerated environmental damage as natural resources are consumed unsustainably. 

It can never be denied that the cause of the creation of wealth and the achievement of general socioeconomic progress are much better served by the free market than a centrally planned economy ever could. The verdict of 1989 could hardly have sent a clearer message to ages. It should be clear, however, that capitalism is no synonym for the free market. The need to find an alternative to it should ultimately be driven by its incompatibility with the ideal of a sustainably free market. From the industrial revolution until now, capitalism has been consistently associated with yawning economic asymmetries where the powerful invariably use their dominant market position to obstruct the development of a more sustainable spread of wealth. The socio-economic inequalities that result come with the looming threat of revolution and tyranny along with untenable, speculative and highly costly socio-economic experiments like Marxist-Leninism. All of which render capitalism fundamentally unstable, unsustainable and self-defeating.