Thus many reasonably view this talk as akin to political opportunism not unlike that exhibited by its counterpart north of the border, when faced with similarly declining political fortunes more than two decades ago.
This language nevertheless strikes a visceral chord in the hearts of too many South Africans to take lightly. It is for precisely that reason that it is now being used.
Such an instrument in the hands of leaders with a demagogic bent is shown by history as highly hazardous. Akin to a fail-safe perennial lifeboat for their political survival albeit at an incalculable cost to the rest of society.
The problem is that this instrument will remain useful for such destructive ends, even if merely as a threat, until the root issues that give it a look of legitimacy are systematically dismantled. Chief of which are the chronic structural economic inequalities that make our society a curious global phenomenon.
Herein lies the price of the socioeconomic inequalities that some of us have bewailed for some time - they make for politically and socially unstable societies.
This in turn contributes to low levels of the very economic investment needed to salvage the situation, as is currently the case in South Africa. And thus we have the makings of a pernicious vicious circle that future analysts may use to account for our sharp economic reversals decades from now. Unless we do something about it.
The stalemate needs to be broken.
Fundamental restructuring of our economy is necessitated by this pressing need. This is what I understand to be the meaning of radical economic transformation. But it has to be done thoughtfully, equitably, sincerely and with malice toward none.
Sullied political regimes certainly have no business being anywhere near this process. The Zuma regime is a case in point. It has proven itself all but morally disqualified for this critical and delicate task.
In fact the problem many of us have with the Zuma administration is not that it is an advocate of economic transformation, as it misleadingly suggests, but that it is not sincere in its advocacy for it.
What we have seen from it instead is enough to conclude that it seeks to misuse this highly emotive and important discussion as a cover for more of the same patronage and ravenous looting that we have seen from it from the onset.
By co-opting the concept of “radical economic transformation”, Zuma thus serves as an obstacle to its genuine advancement by giving it an undeserved bad name by association.
And you can be sure that those on the cushy side of our skewed economic equation, by and large will scarcely be proponents of it. Not unsurprisingly, as it is not in their immediate economic interests to be so.
The desire to protect these short-term parochial interests lies behind the perennial refrain for organic and gradual economic change as our only sure path, as we have heard ad nauseam since 1994.
If we put all the pseudo-intellectual posturing aside what ultimately underpins the idea of trickle-down economics is clear: the conscious or unconscious quest for the preservation of historical privilege.
Though we might have been easily seducible in the 80s and 90s, the aftermath of the Financial Crisis has all but exposed it for its utter bankruptcy.
Not unlike cream, wealth simply refuses to trickle down to the poorest in society on its own accord. As Piketty and others have argued, the very structure of the present global economic system dictates that it doesn’t.
It must either be induced or the entire system must be changed. Since we still await a coherent alternative to the current system, our recourse for now remains the former.
More so in societies characterised by the sharp structural inequalities such as South Africa.
The sea of the multitudinous unemployed means that bargaining power is always heavily tilted toward owners of capital, such that the rate of return for them and the managerial class, their surrogates, always exceeds wage growth.
In recent times the multiples have become increasingly excessive, bordering on the obscene. Ever yawning socio-economic asymmetries have been the inevitable result.
In South Africa this has deep historical roots as the economy was designed in the interests of colonial hegemony. The role of natives was always clearly cut-out for them - that of hewers of wood and drawers of water within this economic framework.
This theme was and is still largely consistent across domestic, agricultural, mining, industrial and corporate systems.
Those for whom no use could be found, well, tough luck for them. Their lot was to eke out a meagre existence in the fringes of society.
The problem is that in South Africa, unlike in many other societies, this fringe constituted voluminous descendants of the historically dispossessed.
Though this pattern has been altered somewhat since 1994, the mould remains largely intact. That is why economic inequality is still generally colour-coded in South Africa.
Though demographics dictate that colour will inevitably change with time, the structural flaws risk remaining in perpetuity, along with the attendant socio-political instability, until the flawed structure is conclusively altered.
The democratically elected post-apartheid government, with its position as chief stewards of the country’s socio-economy through its legislative and executive power, must take primary responsibility for failing to do this. Laying the blame solely on so-called white monopoly capital is disingenuous.
Unless the country is radically disrupted from its noxious inequality trap, there is no reason to expect anything but a worsening of the situation over the decades and centuries, with commensurately dire socio-political implications. Precisely as history and the compounding dynamic of wealth instruct that inequality can only beget more inequality.
Structural economic reform is necessary to rescue the country from this historically determined path-dependent trajectory. If not for the demands of justice than certainly for the pragmatic quest for a stable, sustainable and prosperous social order.
Broadminded patriots have an ever diminishing opportunity to ensure that this process is managed peacefully.
The window of opportunity will not remain forever. As recent events highlight, it is highly susceptible to manipulation by demagogic political actors driven by their twisted interests, with ominous implications for all of us.
What we must consider next is how we can go about structurally reforming our socio-economy. Part 2 will tackle this question.
