However the thrust of the position of SACP general secretary Blade Nzimande is against privatisation and neo-liberalism, as this article shows:
Chris Burford
London
______________
Article Written by: Dr. Blade Nzimande on Privatisation
One of the most intense ideological onslaughts in the current period is that privatisation is the only, and indeed preferable, route to economic growth and social development for South Africa. This has been punted as if it were the gospel truth. Yet all available evidence, particularly in developing countries, clearly points to the contrary.
A classic example of the real intentions and effects of privatisation is the current squabble between the IMF and the Zimbabwean government. The IMF is threatening not to release a US$200 million loan to Zimbabwe on the grounds that government cannot go ahead with price controls in order to make mealie-meal (a staple food for the mass of the people!) accessible to its population.
In Zambia, the World Bank is only going to release funds on the basis that the largest mining corporation is now to be privatised and sold off to Anglo-American. Of the estimated 280 state enterprises to be sold off, 229 are already. Between 1992 and 1995, 61 000 jobs were lost, 6 000 of which as a direct result of privatisation. Conclusions from virtually all studies, including by the IMF and the World Bank, are that privatisation and liberalisation have not worked. But these institutions say the reason why these do not succeed is because these countries have not done more of privatisation. It is like a doctor to prescribe more of the medicine that makes a patient sick!
This neo-liberal ideology now needs to be strongly challenged, both ideologically and through concrete struggles. Its ideologues and proponents need to tell us where has privatisation succeeded to overcome the legacy of poverty and inequality left by colonial plunder and neo-colonialism, and brought sustainable growth and poverty alleviation? This ideology has, ironically, become attractive precisely because it is merely based on hope and promise, but whose realisation is never guaranteed. It is like an inversion of the “Fly now pay later” adverts. But in this case it is “Pay now, fly later, but be warned the aeroplane might actually never arrive”. On what basis therefore is this approach likely to succeed in South Africa, a country with one of the highest social inequalities in the world, and a serious problem of structural unemployment?
Perhaps the record and history of privatisation tells us exacly what it actually is. The reason why privatisation and liberalisation have featured so much as a international prescriptions is not because they are solutions to social problems facing humanity. But they are mechanisms to turn the entire globe into a haven for private accumulation, principally for the transnational corporations. We challenge those who claim otherwise to disprove this and concretely demonstrate otherwise!
Arguments for privatisation normally point to globalisation as a force that determines a path of development for all countries. Much as there is truth in this, but sometimes this argument has been used to hide lack of political will to struggle for the creation of spaces to implement progressive national development agendas. Or even worse to hide that some governments have made a choice to deliberately promote capitalism, hopefully with a human face.
Our own experiences over the last five years are instructive. The delivery of water, electricity, housing, telephone connections and education for millions of our people has been as a direct result of an aggressive state-led development programme. This has been buttressed by hundreds of development committees and forums. This has not been as a result of massive privatisation of essential state functions and utilities. Instead, in cases of privatisation or private-sector driven provision of essential services, the result is generally that of job losses, casualisation, outsourcing of labour with little impact on social upliftment.
This however does not mean that private resources should not be harnessed towards development. Indeed it is necessary. But any socially beneficial role the private sector plays always takes place within the context of state-led development programmes. This has been the case even in developed capitalist countries. In cases where new technology, expertise and capital is needed, the state can enter into partnerships with the private sector.
But on the understanding that such arrangements are aimed at improving the capacity of the state, in the short to medium term, to deliver social services and create jobs on a sustainable basis. Where the state, at national or local level, acting in concert with the people, is capable of providing basic services without the involvement of the private sector that should be done. The truth is that the private sector is only efficient in delivering profits not services to the people, particularly in relation to the working class and the poor.
One of the main aims of the working class, the urban and rural poor should therefore be towards the strengthening of the role of the state in social delivery and economic development. This struggle should include a consistent opposition to ideologically driven privatisation. Instead we should struggle for the building of a developmental state. Such a state plays an increasingly interventionist role in economic development and in the delivery of key social services to the majority of the people. If need be such a state should create new state entities in order to accelerate social delivery. Parastatals should be strengthened as key instruments for development and not merely targets for privatisation. The key question therefore is not whether to privatise or not, but how best to develop our economy on the basis of meeting the needs of the majority of the population.
Blade Nzimande General Secretary, SACP 12 August 1999