As a perceptive, discerning and active youth in South Africa on the socio-economic facet, I took liberty to read and re-read the recent document issued by the ANC YL entitled “A clarion call to economic freedom fighters: programme of action for economic freedom in our lifetime”. Indeed a programme of action that is underpinned by the Freedom Charter. For the purpose of expressing my opinion I call it a “Clarion Call”, a shortened version. Basically, in the English grammar, a “clarion call” is an idiom, meaning; a strongly expressed demand for action.
While it is laudable for the energetic ANC YL to have expended its energy to develop the paper and in the spirit of the constitutional tenet of freedom of speech and expression, I am dissuaded by the currency and materiality of its content, let alone a few grammatical errors which the writers of the ANC YL public documents need to austerely consider given its inherent consistency which has become a tendency that is likely to reflect an unprofessional image on the part of the youth organisation with consequent public disregard. I need to be taken seriously as a major constituent of the ANC YL in my attempt to make this country a better one during our lifetime and future generations. My first carp about the content of the Clarion Call is that it contains policy expressions that are not new to the debate of socio-economic growth in South Africa as a developmental state. This begs the question of its potential impact and the influence of socio-economic policy debates. The recital of, for example, unemployment figures, youth unemployment, poverty and income inequality is in the public knowledge and these issues have found their expressions in over a dozen of socio-economic policy documents by both the ANC and the government. Their lack of delivery has been the subject community protests. These issues have found their profound expression in the New Growth Part (NGP) policy document released by the Department of Economic Development in the last quarter of 2010. The original IPAP,IPAP2 and the IPAP2 2011-2013 contain these critical issues with industrialisation, job creation and poverty alleviation as key pillars to drive economic growth. President Zuma has in numerous occasions articulated his vision of integrated African continent through the development of infrastructure across the regional economic blocs. In actual fact, he is the champion of this critical goal in the AU.
Out of the seven (7) “cardinal pillars of economic freedom in our lifetime” as expressed in the document, only one, i.e. “inclusive and decentralised economic growth and development” with specific reference to clause 22 about rural development that I would say is a new policy proposal by ANC YL that warrants attention by the mother body. For me, the rest of the document is a “sequel” of the mine nationalisation document released by the organisation in August 2010 idiomatically expressed through the reference from the Freedom Charter.
The principle for my argument is the logical purpose, amidst political rhetoric, of releasing, let alone developing such a document. I maintain that the raison d'être of influencing a debate is to steer it to a particular direction with an intended reasonable and practical outcome. Let me qualify my statement. In the Clarion Call, under the Industrialisation for Nationalisation cardinal pillar, the benefits of nationalising of strategic sectors of the economy are well articulated, with five examples mentioned. I have a problem with all five realities which in essence purport the government as the owner of economic activity and thus the largest and chief employer in the drive to economic growth. In my limited knowledge of economics and government administration, such a reality, would create a cumbersome government machine bedevilled with bureaucracy, red-tape with consequent enormous bill culminating into wearisome fiscus with the potential of stifling private economic activity. While the argument of land ownership holds water for a true economy that is transformed, history indicates that economies that have developed over time drove their economic growth through the burgeoning middle class and entrepreneurship with the latter fuelling employment and thus increasing the tax base for government to be able to deliver. The platitude of communities creating wealth by means of “profiteering” through broad-based empowerment schemes which are very long term in their nature is implausible.
Generally there is consensus that the government (ruling party), in the main, has developed policies that are progressive and to a certain extend world-class, the progress and advancement which the ANC YL embraces, acknowledges and recognises in the Clarion Call. However, the challenge for the ruling party (government) has always been in the effective implementation of those policies.
To this effect, I suspect, and I hope I am not right, that the ANC YL find it very difficult to balance its policy stances and development thereof, of national issues and those pertaining and concerning the youth of this country. It takes me back to my argument of logic and common sense I earlier referred to. For me the Clarion Call should have contained specific economic issues that are appropriate to the youth of this country. Therefore, the purpose of Clarion Call should have been the influence of the content to the constituency to ensure that all these ‘specific’ and ‘appropriate’ issues find their expression in all socio-economic policies. I put the adjectives specific and appropriate in parenthesis to emphasis the preciseness and defined vital socio-economic issues affecting the youth. Ours would be to mobilise the youth of this country to rally behind the intended outcome that speaks to us in our different professions and careers as well the future generation. The interspersion of such clearly articulated issues would find their appearance in the relevant and key economic policies. After all and for the foreseeable future, the majority of South Africa’s unemployed population would be youth given the demographic landscape and profile of the total population. Actually, the problem of youth unemployment is not unique to South Africa, is a global issue. In South Africa youth unemployment has been the subject of ANC YL debate dating back in the mid 90’s, 1996 to be specific, while Malusi Gigaba, now the Minister of Public Enterprises was then its President. Julius Malema has indeed raised the profile of the organisation and represented the voice of youth with robustness filled with vigour and dynamism. Has he delivered according to the expectation of the constituency? Members as they head to Mangaung in a few weeks will decide.
