[Debate] (Fwd) Review of Malema book in NY Rev of Books

Wed Apr 11 11:16:16 BST 2012

Quick question - what's empty about valorising substantive democracy above
shallow democracy?

From: debate-list-bounces at fahamu.org [mailto:debate-list-bounces at fahamu.org]
On Behalf Of Riaz K Tayob
Sent: 11 April 2012 10:32
To: Debate is a listserve that attempts to promote information and analyses
of interest to the independent left in South and Southern Africa
Subject: Re: [Debate] (Fwd) Review of Malema book in NY Rev of Books

Devan

There is certainly a principled basis for your position, and one that is
sorely needed, not least as a clear, coherent and "moral"/ethical position.
But if the objective is to change reality, then we do need to deal with
circumstances not of our making or liking.

Part of what Saul points out about the kamikaze nature of SA politics
(particularly about ethical, theoretical or ideological felicity) is our
inability to deal with difference, which consequently leads to problems of
collective action and prioritization. I am not being judgemental, as I am
guilty as much as any others, but this is if I try to be objective. For
instance, one can denounce corruption from the heights of morality, and fail
to deal with the way state money is spent apart from corruption. If I take
this position (which is one amongst many - at the risk of being in two
places at once even), arguing that corruption, while anathema to good
values,  has co-existed with policies (like in East Asia) that have on
balance raised wages and living standards (something which SA even with
Schusslerian and STATSA fudging) has largely not done. Here I too would be
presiding over a rotting carcass, and that makes me complicit in some
degree, but it IS nevertheless about seeking a qualitative change in how
money is spent and how it is directed (i.e. emphasising small business, or
labour over capital intensive construction methods). 

I would much rather Patel and Motsoaledi in these positions than anyone else
who would have less sensitivity and creativity in dealing with the
neoliberalism of most of the state. Sure they must be criticised and pushed
and proded and cajoled and bullied into a progressive agenda (as they occupy
an institution, and are not there personally) as they WILL be forced into
bureaucratic and political compromises. How to judge disengagement from
giving credence is the classical paradox of participation. In
non-revolutionary times, as we are in now, this is an avenue or level of
abstraction that is far more complicated than when there is a revolutionary
fervour. 

Sure we have a kleptocracy, and perhaps it might be better for it to run its
course to total oblivion. Or perhaps it is far more idealistic to believe in
and push for incremental change. And these are necessary divergences in
perspective and understanding that ALL form part of the progressive left as
a shared-values body within civil society. Tactics may differ, but there may
be strategic convergences (and also differences) but if the peoples interest
are central that can help form a core of unity. These contradictions abound,
even under Apartheid when many of our Jewish comrades were anti-Apartheid
and pro-Israel, for instance. Perhaps it is too pragmatic to say that a more
distributive kleptocracy is better than a naked self-interest one. But this
is the core of the contradiction. Blacks are generally marginalised in the
formal foreign owned economy and need to use the state apparatus to collect
economic power. And they somehow hope to do this by using anti-statist
neoliberalism (a primary contradiction for BEE) while piling on debt from
the IFIs (and those countries who did develope and are "emerging" have
dispensed with IFIs wherever they could). So objectively you are correct,
but reality bites. We need to push good policies wherever we can, and some
pockets of efficiency and competence are necessary, and these are the people
within that we need to strengthen within and without the party structures. 

The way you pose your questions (holistic, imaginative...) indicates a
decision already of some degree of non-engagement. This is not exclusive of
other processes, and is not that easy to discern where to act or what to
prioritise even if this ontological standpoint is analysed. Would this
movement engage in NEDLAC? Should it? Or would it be presiding over carrion?

There is need for diversity in thought and approach and we count on our
people to come to aid the selection process of issues that need to be
prioritised. And just like intellectuals can be wrong, so too can the people
- something I wish we all could appreciate more. And these are processes
rather than outcomes. 

I like the way you frame the issue: eco-socialist dream or realist
possibilism - and dream we must. Idealism is not passe! But why mutually
exclusive? Politically I understand taking a position like the DLF does. But
from an interrogation pov, why not dialectics? And this is a serious short
coming in the ontological choice you pose to me - as both are extant! It is
here where I find the troubles of CCS, UPM, ABM far more edifying than the
"right" theory imposing on practice. It is in the roughness of notions in
practice that we learn. I put it to you thus, why not full spectrum
engagement? And things are complex so there is a role for intellectuals and
I despise this anti-intellectualism that pervades some of the legitimacy
arguments (there has not been a revolution without intellectuals just as
there has not been a counter-revolution without any). 

On anti-imperialism, I think a dialectical view would also need to take into
account anti-anti-imperialism if your analysis is to have some granularity.
It seems like embracing the contradiction is hard to do for most of us, but
this is not serious if were able to be self-critical (as much of the
Cole/Achcaar aligned left have btw failed to do) and self-correct. These
gross simplifications of relating to national governments that are
ostensibly anti-imperialist while oppressive (to varying degrees) at home
have some utility and should not be as easily dismissed as you are wont. Pan
Africanism was pushed as a bulwark against imperialism when poco leaders
realised the extent of their continued domination. As one must condemn
oppression one needs also to look at the systemic or structural impositions
on parties that inherit governments over whose economies they can exert
little control. You speak of a national body politic, when long ago Nyerere
made it clear, there is no national economy to speak of! Of course he was
more honest than leaders who now embrace WashCon as homegrown, but the point
remains. And the point is that the ANC for all its faults, finds itself in
objective difficulty and it does not help that it keeps shooting itself in
the foot as it goes about trying to fix it. To underestimate this is to
overestimate the possibility of making a meaningful change (not pessimistic
but realistic). And finance has told them, land mines etc, play your games,
on finance 10 to 15% of the BEE Charter and not a penny more! 

And I do not like your interventionist state argument where civil liberties
are in tatters (just show me one active liberal campaigning for reproductive
rights for more than one child in China for eg on double standards). One
cannot take on entrenched privilege without power.  Zim and China are really
smart at this, while the paucity of understanding this in the ANC is on full
peacock display... 

Democracy is imminently susceptible to capture by regressive forces (as is
the case in SA and elsewhere on low intensity democracy even in rich
countries), and we need to be aware of this. And I hope I am not wrong to
presume your are not making some empty argument for "real" democracy as
opposed to shallow one, nor that you argue that formal freedoms of civil and
political rights are more important than economic and social ones. These are
all important, but you would be remiss if not to note that formal freedom
unless butressedby good economics (of the reformist AND radical type) can be
a rotting carcass too. So there is a demand for full spectrum engagement... 

Your approach has longer term horizon, and for that it is necessary and
commendable and needs support, even if we differ. But it is not a
substitute, it is to inform tactics. And the complexity (contradictions,
realism) of the situation needs to be embraced. If not then, even you are
just like Sader in a different policy context (utopian), without embracing
complexity to become a rival for leadership.

provocatively yours... 

On 2012/04/11 09:26 AM, Devan Pillay wrote: 

Good point Riaz.... but another way of looking at it, of course, is that the
good people (including Patel and Motsoaledi) are giving respectability to a
rather rotten carcass (talking about the Zuma-led ANC now, not just party). 

So - will we be happy with an interventionist state al la China or even
worse Zimbabwe- where our civil liberties are in tatters.....? A kleptocracy
that at least redistributes something to the poor?  Is IPAP really all that
important within the context of state dysfunctionality and unimaginative
leadership generally?

Or do we try and work towards something much more holistic, enduring and
imaginative - a counter-hegemonic movement built around a revived social
movement unionism?

An eco-socialist project? Do we dare to dream?  

Or is that utopian maximalism, as opposed to realist possibilism?

Should we rather do what Emir Sader demands of the Left - cheer on the few
good things of "left" regimes, no matter what ...as long as they are
"anti-imperialist".  Maybe his point is valid for some Latin American
countries.  

Is it valid for the progressive-conservative 'historic bloc'  in power
today?

Mmmmmmmm.  Maybe I should stop reading Wright's Real Utopias, and start
reading the ANC policy documents......

cheers,

Devan

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:

I for one would prefer Davies to keep his head in the sand and get on
with trying to build policies that challenge the free trade-ism of most
of the state apparatus... in other words, if he is caught in the
factional cross fire, we loose IPAP, which is one of the few sensible
things happening in govt at present...

On 2012/04/10 05:16 PM, Devan Pillay wrote:
> .One wonders how much longer the few good people left in the party,
> like Rob Davies, will keep their heads in the sand?

_______________________________________________
Debate-list mailing list
Debate-list at fahamu.org
http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list

_______________________________________________
Debate-list mailing list
Debate-list at fahamu.org
http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fahamu.org/pipermail/debate-list/attachments/20120411/4274fb70/attachment.htm 