Is politics still popular?
The civic movement is rumoured to be on its last legs. Critics say that it has outlived its usefulness. Some even say that now that the ANC runs most local governments, "civics" should simply cease to exist. Mzwanele Mayekiso There are a number of major differences between civic activism today and in the early 1990s, or the mid-1980s era of mass organising. Then, our common enemy was apartheid; today we face confusion about who to struggle against. Then, the political/economic vision shared by most activists was socialism; now we lack clarity about our long-term goal (socialism, social democracy, or some form of neo-liberalism?)
Then, we saw the role of civil society as revolutionary; today, civil society is sometimes posed as a pliant partner to shrink-thestate neo-liberalism, or merely as a watchdog for social democracy, and more rarely, as a stepping stone to socialism via community-based struggle.
Then, the progressive hegemonic line was UDF non-racialism through mass politics; today, we suffer from top-down politics based increasingly on the politics of "corporatism" (pacting between elites).
Then, the dominant bottom-up sentiment was ungovernability and militancy; today we find popular anger, cynicism about the gravy train, alienation due to non-delivery, and activists now sometimes degenerating into "onactivities, not progressive
Then, the dominant grassroots political formation was the civic; today there are a greater variety of community organisations and populist groups contesting for mass or community loyalties.
Then, resources were drawn from international progressive funders; today we have very few resources and we run the risk of succumbing to the corporate and foundation donor agendas and even their control.
Then, the spirit of voluntary community commitment was part and parcel of the logic of liberation politics and the self-activity of the masses; today, voluntarism is considered part of "social capital" and is increasingly commodified.
Then, class formation was affected by all black residents living together within homogenising townships; today, stratification intensifies, with the black petty bourgeoisie "escaping" the townships.
Given these differences, the civic movement must sooner or later provide solid answers to some tough questions. Is the traditional civic movement ideology of "working-class civil society" still relevant and appropriate? Is working-class civil society a vehicle for socialism, for weak social democracy, or even for succumbing to neoliberalism? How do organs of working-class civil society relate to the democratic state? How has our mode of organising changed? Is there any hope for the civic movement and working-class civil society? The new priorities
I believe there are sufficient continuities between the past and present that prove our relevance as civic activists today. Before, we challenged the legitimacy of the undemocratic state as our first priority, and slowly tackled bread-and-butter "development. Today, we work nearly entirely to achieve more progressive forms of development and community-based planning, a site of struggle where most of our constituents can maintain high levels of ongoing commitment.
But are we consistent in how we define development? Before, in the context of insurgency, working-class civil society generally adopted the ideology of socialism -expanding "dual power' and community "soviets." youth and gender campaigns, liberation theology, etc. - even if this was "millennial" (far into the future).
Today, in the context of on-the-make corporatism, three competing threads have emerged. We are most worried about neoliberalism, because it gives civil society more prominence and responsibilities-without sufficient resources-so as to better shrink the state. Civics then become little more than rubber-stamp vehicles, driven sometimes by political parties which control government, for endorsing conservative notions of development.
Second, we have mixed feelings about social democracy, which can provide some basic goods but which, politically, envisages civics in the standard liberal role that "pluralistic" organisations have in relation to
Third, we still feel comfortable with socialism, which requires us to continue developing class power and experiments in de-commodified relations of production and consumption, supported by a strong-but-slim
This brings us, as civic activists, to the question of our relationship to the democratic state. Today, we have complex relations with democratising local and provincial governments, including occasional protests, cooperation and a search for progressive allies.
But even good local and provincial relations do not nullify our concern that nationally, the political philosophy embodied in the Government of National Unity was a weak combination of ultra-reconciliation plus
South Africa * neo-liberal economic policy. Concern at the grassroots level remains: this lethal combination is derailing ANC campaign promises and the Reconstruction and Development
What do we do about this? A decade ago, our ability to survive during long spells in prison depended upon our reproduction of new layers of cadre. Today, it is more difficult because leading layers from the movement keep getting pulled aboard the gravy train. And not only into government, but also private sector and even lucrative non-governmental organisation (NGO) work. Meanwhile, empowerment/capacity building support (such as funding, NGO assistance, even press coverage) has ebbed. Civics still offer few "career" prospects, salaries, and perks, and so we lose our better cadres quite
Nevertheless, the concepts of civics, of a national civic movement and of a left civic ideology are still widely accepted. Deep structural forces and contradictions in South African capitalism mean the need for protest is as great as ever. International trends point to the importance of urban social movement revivals during periods of advancing neoliberalism, so that "IMF riots" don't degenerate into anarchy and instead transform into serious opposition against right-wing economic policy.
And while internal civic democracy has waned in practice, it is still the theoretical basis for civic politics. Many individual civics at township and rural village level retain the movement's best characteristics. And importantly, we also retain the ability to debate. It is the duty of our civic comrades to keep mass politics moving forward. * Source: Reprinted from Against the Currents (USA)
May 1997 #288 27