In part one of this series, it was argued that the GNU appears depoliticised insofar as it focuses on doing its tasks efficiently. It does not mean, however, that the Statement of Intent and other statements associated with the inauguration of the GNU are without political weight, insofar as others who are not part of the GNU are free to breathe a range of meanings into these words.

Those outside can act and the GNU can be called upon to explain how it relates to its Preamble, what it is doing to ensure “stability and peace” in communities riddled with criminality, and how it intends to address this.

How does it relate to “the triple challenges of poverty, unemployment and inequality”? It needs to be asked to explain the steps it is taking “to build a South Africa for all its people” when homelessness, hunger, unemployment, generalised poverty remain the lot of black people (Africans, Coloureds and Indians), even if investment has been attracted? (See paragraph 3 and also FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES OF THE GNU - paragraph 8 and all its subsections and paragraph 10. Similar commitments are made in the BASIC PROGRAMME OF PRIORITIES (Section 11. All these references are to be found in the Statement of Intent of the GNU)

The GNU has steered clear of some of the key questions which are, in fact, raised as unifying principles in the Statement of Intent - relating to poverty relief, inequality etc.

My sense is that if the GNU were to try to address these - for example, ending inequality, poverty, unemployment and so forth - one would find it impossible to create unanimity or “sufficient consensus” over how to deal with those generalised principles of emancipation.

That, to me, leaves one with the reality that you either have a unified GNU that basically tries to rule more efficiently and effectively, mainly on non-ideological questions, or a GNU that attempts to address questions in the statement of intent, which are liberatory without them being able to state that word and to try to do this is almost certain to split the GNU and possibly to end its existence.

“Almost” does not mean definitely and if popular forces resurface and strengthen support for an emancipatory meaning that is in line with the words and spirit of the Statement of Intent, the GNU could become what it claims to be - a vehicle for realising the rights that are constitutionally prescribed.

National Dialogue

There are aspects of the GNU’s programme, as expressed in the Statement of Intent and statements of President Cyril Ramaphosa that seemed to be absent from reports and also from discussion of the ministers and other members of the GNU. I refer, in particular, to the notion of a National Dialogue on which I have written before. (See here). There is no clarity as to how this will take place, whether it is a single event, a range of events, a process of engaging with people and whether there is preparation for anything at all. Its objectives and processes are unclear.

It seems that too much is claimed for it, when in fact, there is not clarity as to what it will be and what it is aimed to be and may be achieved, although many people see it as some sort of magic wand through which what is called a “social compact” will be realised.

The main issue is that it is a space that has been raised for various vague objectives, but a space where popular forces can present themselves and ideas beyond what is advanced in official statements.

Openings

Whatever the limitations in what such notions may be, they need to be advanced in a manner that people may be able to engage with them. But how do they engage with what is on the table right now?

One of the problems is to ask who can be invoked or called upon to act to advance emancipatory ideas contained in the Statement of Intent. When Cosatu and the SACP condemn the GNU as neoliberal, but do not engage with the Statement of Intent that refers to liberatory ideas, as indicated above, is it not abandoning space that working class organisations in the past would have entered in order to advance progressive ideas, ideas advancing the continued struggle for democratic resurgence and against inequality, oppression and exploitation that prevail in the country 30 years after it was supposed to have ended?

The National Dialogue ought to have been a process amplifying the constitutional freedoms we are supposed to enjoy. Some of those who attack the GNU should ask what Nelson Mandela, Albertina and Walter Sisulu, Oliver Tambo, Chris Hani, Ruth First and Lilian Ngoyi, among others, would have done in the face of a statement that requires interpretation.

They were not lazy. They would not turn away from such statements but would have argued for an interpretation that ensured that the most emancipatory meaning would have been given to such words, precisely to ensure a trajectory that would have rebuffed any attempts to undermine rather than advance our freedoms.

Weakness of popular forces

One reality that is important is that it is not simply the leadership of the GNU and the various national foundations that are inadequate in relating to such notions.

The absence of popular forces that are organised and ready to act on these questions make it difficult to breathe emancipatory meanings into such concepts, meanings that have effects on the conditions of the poorest of the poor. It is insufficient to see the “opening”. There need to be organised human beings ready to remove obstacles and liberate that space for all to be free.

That is not to say that there are no social movements and NGOs organised at the grassroots level. There are notably the steadfast but bleeding Abahlali baseMjondolo, Equal Education, Section 27, and other movements, sometimes together with NGOs, with a range of areas of focus in rural areas, mining communities, campaigning on questions of land rights and landlessness and various other social issues like the extension of social grants etc.

When I first expressed support for the notion of a government of national unity, one of the reasons for the support was that I saw the possibility of openings for popular forces to raise democratic and transformational issues in the space that a document like the Statement of Intent provided.

The Statement of Intent is at once technical and also potentially emancipatory. Little attention has been given since it started to work to the emancipatory elements of that statement relating to inequality and a range of other issues that affect the quality of life of human beings in the South African territory.

That is work that needs to be done. Our democratic life is empty and debate is sterile or absent. That needs to be remedied and no space that can assist to retrieve democratic life can be left without careful attention.

Raymond Suttner is an Emeritus Professor at the University of South Africa and a Research Associate in the English Department at University of the Witwatersrand. He served lengthy periods as a political prisoner. His writings cover contemporary politics, history, and social questions. His X (twitter) handle is @raymondsuttner