shops 11.04

What is the role of progressive unions in a stable democracy?

The attacks on COSATU's political views have forced us to look at the role of progressive unions in a stable democracy in particular the use of power, especially strikes, to back up policy demands.
The role of unions, everyone agrees, is to defend workers. Historically, they arose to protect workers' interests on the shop floor. But this proved inadequate and unsustainable in the absence of policies to benefit the working class. Particularly in developing countries, if government does not ensure labour rights, social protection and employment growth, any victories in the workplace will be short-lived.

COSATU has always taken a broader view of the workers' struggle. We have always seen ourselves not just as a progressive labour movement, but as part of the Congress movement. At the Ipelegeng Congress in June 1985, our adoption of this position led to a walk out by black consciousness and workerist unions.

The argument that workers are, firstly, members of their community was hard-won, based on consistent work by ANC and SACP activists in our ranks. Thanks to their teaching, COSATU has never looked back to a narrower approach. So it is particularly disturbing that an authoritarian clique in the ANC now wants to reverse those gains.
The main debates on this issue relate to the difficulty of defining priorities for policy engagement, managing relationships with an avowedly pro-poor government in a capitalist society and establishing an appropriate balance between policy and shop-floor engagements.

Defining priorities for engagement on policy

The international labour movement has long (and notoriously) been split about how far unions should go in engaging on policy issues.
Some union leaders argue that labour should not engage strongly in broad political action but should limit policy engagements to protecting labour rights, minimum standards, occupational health and safety and similar workplace issues.

This position has been pushed hardest by the American unions, who have a tradition of strong shop-floor militancy without an equally radical social vision, at least since the right-wing purges of the late 1940s. It also seems to have been endorsed by President Mbeki in his speech to the 2002 FEDUSA Congress.

In contrast, more progressive unions argue that protecting the working class requires a commitment to left-wing policies and a critical attitude towards government and capital, in order to give the broader working class a voice. It follows that union federations must have substantial policy capacity, and lead campaigns around broad policy demands. This approach generally leads to explicit support for labour, socialist or social-democratic parties.

The difference between these approaches emerged in labour's work around the World Summit on Sustainable Development. The initial position paper of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions focused on the role of workers in enforcing environmental policies in the workplace.

In contrast, Public Service International, COSATU and other national federations argued for an emphasis on pro-poor policies in general, such as opposition to privatisation. We wanted to extend our demands to reflect the interests of the working class as a whole, rather than emphasising narrower workplace issues.

A similar division is evident between FEDUSA and COSATU. For historical reasons, FEDUSA and its affiliates are reluctant to engage in policy issues. As a result, compared to COSATU, they have not established a strong internal capacity for policy engagement.

The decision on whether unions should take on broad policy issues is defined not only by ideology, but by the need to respond to the objective realities facing their members. In industrialised countries, where labour rights are more entrenched and poverty is relatively limited, unions can survive for some time with a fairly narrow focus (although they are increasingly threatened by global undercutting).

In developing countries, that approach has never been viable. It would subject organised workers to the continuous threat of undercutting as a result of mass poverty and joblessness.
Certainly South African unions cannot afford to limit their engagement to workplace policies. As COSATU's Organisational Review Report points out, that would mean unemployment continuing to rise, and organised workers' position becoming untenable. The only way for unions to survive is to fight for improved social protection for all households, and for economic restructuring to raise incomes and employment in the longer run.

So what happens when the Left is in power?

A further set of challenges arises when a left-wing party is in power. The central question becomes how organised labour can promote workers' interests without undermining the ability of the state to resist pressure from capital.
Even left-wing governments cannot ignore the power of capital. Big business is always relatively well organised and vocal, because it has more resources. It relies largely on lobbying, including through foreign governments and the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and World Trade Organisation.

But it also invariably threatens 'strike' action - in the form of a strike of capital - evidenced in our case by the ever-present menace of a stock market crash and a run on the rand.
Because of these realities, virtually all social-democratic parties adopt more radical positions when out of power than when in government.

Labour, especially in developing countries, is almost invariably the strongest voice outside of government, speaking for the poor as a whole. Its power derives from its relatively stable social and economic basis. As Marx points out, workers lead the struggle of the poor not because they are most oppressed but because they can organise most effectively. Thus, in South Africa, COSATU is by far the strongest component of civil society.
The question therefore becomes when and how progressive unions should use power - strikes and other direct action - to influence government policy.

Unions face twin risks. If they engage too much in direct action, they risk alienating supporters in the state, pushing them into the hands of capital; and they could cause an unmanageable capital strike. But if unions do not use power at all, members will be disempowered and demoralised, and government will have nothing with which to counter the power of capital. In these circumstances, no matter how strong labour's arguments, government will generally ignore them.

In South Africa, some government leaders seem to oppose any direct action by labour (or anyone else in civil society, for that matter), arguing that this will only cause a capital strike, destroying the economy and any hope of improving the lives of the poor.

They say an elected government must be free to make policy on behalf of its constituency. In this view, mass action, even when supported by that constituency, only undermines the democratic system.

We need to evaluate whether we have successfully combined policy engagements and the use of power. In particular, we need a more in-depth assessment of the impact of our mass action on the balance of forces.

Managing mass action and engagement

We cannot afford to give up on mass action just because some people don't like it. It has become obvious that over time, only mass action leads to concessions from government and capital.
Still, we must do more to ensure that mass action does not unnecessarily disrupt our long-term relationship with government and the ANC. COSATU has tended to act as if we will soon achieve a once-off shift in policy that will solve all our disputes with government.

As a result we have sometimes failed to celebrate our partial victories, which can cause workers not to see the point of continuing to struggle and sacrifice.
Just as we do in shop-floor negotiations, we must look to gain small concessions bit by bit, rather than expecting an overall solution. It follows that we have to define our victories better, and improve our dispute-settlement processes. We will do more to guide compromises on policy issues by defining our bottom line and urge the Alliance to draft a protocol that justifies and protects mass action.

Policy engagement and building the organisation

The Organisational Review Report argues that especially since 1994, COSATU has generally under-resourced its activities on economic restructuring and workplace policies and organisation but tended to over-emphasise policy engagement around social development and macro-economic policy.

COSATU and its affiliates are therefore jointly evaluating the impact of policy actions, especially general strikes, on the organisational strength of affiliates and COSATU regions and locals. We must in future design mass action so that it reinforces our organisation.