Bloodshed in South Africa

By John Rapley

You could be forgiven for thinking you had landed on the History Channel and were watching newsreels from 30 years ago. South African miners protested against a union they saw as being a puppet for the government, the police came in and opened fire, killing more than 30 demonstrators, and the police chief declared they had nothing to apologise for.

Except that the chief was black. So, too, were most of the police. The populists in South Africa will tell you that the only thing which changed since 1994 has been the faces of those at the top. South Africa is more divided and more unequal than ever, conditions for mineworkers remain dire, and aside from a privileged black elite who have made it into the halls of political and corporate power, black South Africans are no better off.

They may push their point too far, but populists like former African National Congress (ANC) youth leader Julius Malema, now expelled from the ruling party, have a point. Less than two weeks ago, at a platinum mine near Rustenburg, a rivalry between two unions broke into violence. Exactly why it happened, and how it turned so violent, is not yet clear. South African President Jacob Zuma has thus ordered a commission of enquiry. But for the protesters, there is little doubt who is ultimately responsible for this tragedy.

The National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) has long represented the miners. It had to fight and claw its way to prominence back in the apartheid era, when the regime set up puppet unions the workers rejected. The NUM now stands accused by its detractors of that very crime. Because it is a pillar of the South African union movement, which is itself a pillar of the ANC, the NUM is close to the regime.

In its defence, the NUM maintains it can use this proximity to negotiate the best possible deals for workers. But it also means the NUM can be a bit complacent in the face of unrest in its ranks. With presidential elections approaching in South Africa and a fight on for the nomination, the union is currently distracted by ANC politics.

uncomfortable coincidence

Worse, its leaders are sometimes perceived as sell-outs. NUM leaders have been able to parlay their political power into economic gain. It is an uncomfortable coincidence, for example, that sitting on the board of the company that runs the Rustenburg mine where the violence broke out is none other than Cyril Ramaphosa, a man who rose to prominence as leader of the NUM.

Fed up with poor work conditions, many miners began drifting towards a breakaway union, the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (AMCU). It was an AMCU protest which turned ugly. Very quickly, Julius Malema rushed to fill the breach caused by the absence of ANC politicians in the days after the strike. He lambasted the government for being out of touch with poor people, and repeated his call for the nationalisation of the mines.

Malema's angry, righteous rhetoric resonates with ordinary South Africans. However, it's not entirely clear he isn't playing the same game as Ramaphosa. During his days in power at the youth league, he mysteriously became a wealthy man, reportedly by cutting deals for himself and his cronies. Many analysts suspect his rush to build ties with the AMCU is a rearguard action to rebuild a power base, and make his way back into the ANC.

Nor would the nationalisation for which he calls likely provide more than short-term relief to the workers. A state-owned mining company would come under intense pressure to distribute profits. That would be good in the short term, but it would probably also slow investment, inhibiting future growth. It would benefit workers now, but possibly come back to haunt them later.

Nonetheless, the prevailing situation is equally unsustainable. Until poor South Africans begin seeing the fruits of their struggle against apartheid, they will remain angry. And rightly so.

John Rapley is a world-affairs expert. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and rapley.john@gmail.com.