Aug-Sept 2014 K.indd

33

www.cosatu.org.za • AUG/SEPT 2014

proposed economic paradigm will impact negatively on all dimensions of the plan, and the lack of coherence in the Plans proposals will undermine achievement of its objectives. The conservative Macro Economic Policy framework will impact profoundly on every facet of the NDP, both economic, and ‘non-economic’. We should also recognize that all aspects of economic policy are interconnected, and therefore need to talk to and reinforce each other: eg industrial policy has a bearing on regional development strategies; competition policy is linked to agriculture and food security; the economic role of the state has a major bearing on employment strategies etc. The NDP, especially in relation to its economic and labour market analysis and proposals, not only fails to advance a radical economic shift, but actually threatens to reverse certain progressive advances made by the ANC and government over the last few years. It fails to take forward key progressive policies which have been adopted since the 2007 Polokwane Conference, through the ANC’s 2009 Manifesto, at various Alliance Economic Summits, or through aspects of policies such as IPAP and the NGP, including: the need to fundamentally transform the structure of our economy, and promote a new path of growth through redistribution; the need for a massive concerted push to industrialise our economy, and that of the region; the need to place the creation of decent work for all at the centre of economic policy; and to place redistribution, and combating economic inequality and poverty, as a fundamental pillar of economic development. The NDP does none of these things. The NDP’s economic proposals represent entrenched economic interests, and an attempt to consolidate

and in government.

detailed critique of the NDPs economic proposals in February 2013, many had begun to wake up to the fact that the NDP contained deeply problematic, incoherent, and unimplementable proposals. In fact, Jeremy Cronin stated in the Chris Hani debate last year that the NDP was incapable of implementation. The rhetoric of the Plan was one of an ‘active citizenry’, a ‘plan for all’ and a plan based on ‘trust and co operation between labour, business and government’. The reality however has been in many respects the opposite of these noble sentiments. It soon became obvious, that far from the claim that the NDP was the product of deep and widespread consultation, critical elements of it were highly controversial, and unacceptable to key constituencies. Consultation was selective and super fi cial, and to this day there has been no serious engagement with the labour movement on issues of fundamental concern, identi fi ed by us. It even became apparent that there was signi fi cant unhappiness amongst a number of commissioners with important elements of the Plan. Unlike many Commissions in the past, there was no fi nal sign off on the Plan. Although we can expect this to be denied, history will prove this assertion to be correct. In any event it became clear that the Plan not only failed to represent a broad social consensus, but that serious and substantial opposition was emerging from-different quarters in society. These included progressive economists, a range of university intellectuals from different traditions, gender and youth activists, civil society activists, the South African Communist Party, COSATU and its af fi liates (who also raised a number of sectoral concerns) and some of the opposition. Concerns were also being raised by important actors in the ANC

Trenchant criticism of key aspects of the Plan culminated in the landmark resolution of the Alliance Economic Summit in September last year, where it was agreed that concerns being raised were legitimate, and that the NDP needed to be realigned to address these concerns. We come back to this issue later. Even if opposition had only come from COSATU, I argue that this would have been fatal for the success of the NDP: There is no way that the NDP can be implemented without the support of organised workers, when it is this constituency more than any other (except perhaps big business) who are vital for taking such a Plan forward. ‘ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID!’ The Second issue Prof Gumede’s paper raises is that the question of the economy is central. As with other Development Plans, the NDP’s core is contained in its economic proposals. Or as Bill Clinton put it in the US Presidential elections “its about the economy stupid”! TheANC’s2012MangaungConference called for a radical economic shift. But what does the call for a radical economic shift mean? It means getting to the root of structural problems in the economy, and systematically addressing them. It is not surprising that the NDP fail abysmally to do this, or that its proposals actually entrench existing power relations. In recent years there has been sharpened contestation by progressive forces in society and the state over economic policy. The NDP represents a ‘ fi ghtback’ by conservative economic forces, led by National Treasury and conservative business elites. While we have recognised that there are elements of the Plan which are positive, our view is that ultimately the

Economy