 |
| Justice Kofi Henaku with CPP Chairman, Prof Edmund Delle |
By
Ekow Mensah
Mr
Justice Akufo Henaku, Director of Education of the Convention People’s Party
(CPP) says that tax reduction across the board would not be in the interest of
Ghana.
According
to him any meaningful tax reduction ought to be discriminatory in favour of
Ghanaian businesses especially small scale businesses.
Speaking
on “ Good Morning Africa “ a magazine program on Pan African Television, he
asked “ why would we reduce taxes for foreign companies making huge profits
which are transferred out of the country?
He
said that tax reduction should target market women and small scale businesses
with a view to facilitating the accumulation of capital.
Justice
Henaku said already many foreign companies including those engaged in mining
are enjoying 10 year tax holidays.
He
was reacting to the call by Telecom companies on the Akufo Addo government to
remove the National Fiscal Stabilization Tax.
Mr
Isaac Adongo, NDC Member of Parliament for Bolgatanga Central said Telecos are
making these demands because of the NPP’s claim that taxation is a lazy way of
raising money.
He
said the demand for tax reduction follows the NPP’s unrealistic promises on the
campaign platform.
He
said as at 2006 40 percent of the national budget was donor funded.
This
situation, he said, has changed drastically with donors funding only 6 percent
of the national budget as at 2016.
As
a result of this, Mr Adongo claimed that government has had to borrow at very
high interest to be able to fund social and economic development.
He
said the IMF exit report said that Ghana still faces major challenges in the
domestic mobilization of resources.
Given
this difficulty, Mr Adongo said it would be imprudent to reduce taxes for
foreign businesses which have huge balances in the banks.
Nana
Fredua Ofori – Atta , a member of the New Patriotic Party’s communication team,
said that the Telecos are justified in
demanding the removal of the tax because it was time bound.
“From
the very beginning the government made it clear that the tax would not go
beyond 2015”, he said.
He
said the reduction of taxes could stimulate growth in industry and commerce.
Editorial
MISSING CARS AND ALL
The
controversy over number of cars handed over to the Akuffo-Addo administration
is absolutely needless in view of the fact a simple audit will settle the
dispute.
The
Mahama government has already provided a list of 642 vehicles, with chassis
numbers and other details.
If
any of these vehicles cannot be found, it should be fairly easy to provide the
make of vehicle, the chassis numbers and other details.
It
is strange that over a period of two weeks, the new administration has not been
able to disclose the real vehicles it claims are missing.
The
Insight urges the authorities to bring this needless controversy to a close by
simply ordering an audit of all the vehicles available at the presidency.
This cannot be rocket silence!
ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL
SPEAKS
 |
| David Yaro |
By
Duke Tagoe
Questions
have been raised about the capacity of the Administrator General to monitor and
collect accurate and reliable database of government properties in the
possession of public servants.
In an interview he granted to “The Reporters
Roundtable” on GBC 24, the Administrator General, David Yaro, said, “I do not
have the capacity to determine properties acquired by the state through the
ministries, departments and agencies of government”.
According to him, although Section 9.1 of the
Presidential Transition Act mandates the Administrator General to prepare a
register of all assets including state lands and any other assets vested in the
president by the constitution, his office is terribly under resourced and
cannot undertake its duties.
“As a result, we only rely on the integrity of
public officers to voluntarily make declarations of assets that are in their
possession. Apart from that, we have no other means of determining what assets
or properties are in the possession of public servants.”
This revelation by the Administrator General
has sent shock waves to many quarters including anti-corruption campaigners who
campaign against the corruption of public officers in public offices.
According to them, the inability of the
Administrator General to check and take proper inventory of all assets of
government can lead to the pillage of resources needed towards the eradication
of poverty and the development of the country.
They recall that a few days after the Atta
Mills administration took office on the 7th of January 2008, a tall
list of vehicles and other government properties including land that were in
the possession of appointees in the Kufuor administration was put out without
much investigation to reclaim those assets.
They have therefore called for stricter
measures and greater powers for the Administrator General to probe, trace and
collect all assets of government that might have been stolen or hidden by
unscrupulous government functionaries.
Some have also called for a repeal of the law
that established the Administrator General in order to make it a part of the
transitional committee.
These calls have been made following
unverified and unsubstantiated claims by elements of the New Patriotic Party
(NPP) that more than 200 cars of various models have not been accounted for by
the previous regime of the National Democratic Congress (NDC).
Meanwhile, key functionaries of the opposition
NDC have described the allegation of the Akufo Addo government as hogwash.
According to them, the new government is
engaged in a scheme to make a case for the purchase of new vehicles from NPP
businessmen for the celebration of Ghana’s 60th independence
anniversary that falls on the 6th of March 2017.
Mr Asiedu Nketsia, General Secretary of the
NDC, insists that all vehicles in possession of previous government appointees
were properly handed over with documents of the vehicles made available to the
transition committee.
The NDC has challenged the Akufo Addo Government
to put out evidence that former Ministers of state and government functionaries
have been complicit or are still in possession of vehicles or properties of
government it hadn’t handed over.
Appointments
Not 'Old Wine In New Wine Skin'- Researcher
 |
| Nana Akufo Addo |
Mr
Harrison Kofi Belley, a Governance Researcher in Ho has dismissed the description
of President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo- Addo’s ministerial nominations as “old
wine in new wineskin”.
He
said the nomination of experienced individuals with the blend of young people
was a wise decision by the President.
Mr
Belley in an interview with the Ghana News Agency said experience was a key
factor in ensuring good governance and said “the nominations are so far, so
good”.
He
said he saw nothing wrong with the appointment of Mr Osafo Marfo as a Senior
Minister, saying, his role was to supervise all ministers with the Chief of
Staff charged to coordinate activities of the ministers alongside other
administrative duties.
“This
looks like a team “A” but I will urge the Minister in charge of monitoring and
evaluation to ensure that the appointees deliver to expectation,” Mr Belley
said.
He
also called on technical heads of institutions and stakeholders to support the
nominees to give off their best to the country.
Proposed Ban on Sex
With Clients Splits California Lawyers
California
lawyers are split over state bar association plans to introduce an all-out ban
on sex between attorneys and their clients.
Those
supporting the blanket ban said that any sexual contact between an attorney and
a client is potentially coercive due to the as the inherently unequal nature of
relations between the two.
However,
opponents of the initiative among the lawyers labeled it uncalled for and an
unconstitutional invasion of their privacy.
It
is proposed that those violating the sex ban face punishments ranging from
private censure to the loss of their legal licence, AP reported.
The
only exception to the rule would be when a sexual relationship between
individuals preceded their contract as attorney and client.
The
move, which is being introduced as part of the first overhaul of ethics rules
for attorneys since 1987, is aimed at bringing California in line with other
the US states where similar restrictions are in place.
“The
first and foremost goal is to promote confidence in the legal profession and
administration of justice and ensure adequate protection to the
public,'' Lee Smalley Edmon, who heads the commission revising the rules,
said.
At
the moment, California only outlaws lawyers coercing a client into sex or
demanding sex in exchange for legal representation.
But
commission member, Daniel Eaton, said in October that existing regulations
regarding sex were ineffective.
Eaton
cited statistics showing that a single attorney was disciplined out of 205
sexual misconduct complaints filed to the state bar between 1992 and 2010.
However,
another commission member, James Ham, argued that “proponents of a
complete ban cannot articulate why a lawyer should be disciplined for sexual
relations with a mature, intelligent, consenting adult, in the absence of any
quid pro quo, coercion, intimidation or undue influence.”
The
commission has until the end of March 2017 to get the board's approval for the
sex ban before it can be sent to the California Supreme Court, which will
decide on the matter.
South
Africa: The Role Of The Working Class In Socialist Transformation
By
New Unity Movement
Transition
to a liberal democracy has seen no change. Resistance to apartheid has morphed
into resistance to neoliberalism. Ongoing crises in healthcare and service delivery,
runaway corruption, continued debasement of education, an inability to meet
housing needs, out-of-control crime and high unemployment all speak to the
intolerable conditions that have worsened since 1994. It is no exaggeration to
say that South Africa is ripe for revolution.
Introduction
With
South Africa’s official unemployment rate just about permanently fixed in the
mid-to-upper twenties (26.7% as at July 2016) [1] there is little prospect of
this position really changing any time soon. If anything – notwithstanding the
several palliative-measures being offered by government (including its National
Development Plan) – the rate has every chance of worsening in coming years.
One’s biggest clue to this is the inexorably transforming structure of the SA
economy: in the 1950s, the economy was based primarily on (labour-intensive)
mining and agriculture (then 26.1% of GDP, now a mere 7.9%). In contrast, the
tertiary sector (retail, transport, finance, etc) in the same period grew from
57.1% to 65.5% of GDP.[2]
Allied
to the high unemployment rate is the state of education, which is no less
dismal. Around 57% of our youth (in the age group 15 to 34) have less
than matric – in an economy where job prospects are more than ever linked
to educational levels.[3]
And
our government’s response? Why, simply “more of the same” – that is, a
continual beavering away in search of incremental improvements in all the
indices that they target. (Einstein would have called this
government insane for doing the same thing over and over again and
expecting different results!).
But
then, of course, this is not a government of the people (even though it is and
has historically been, propped up by popular mass support at the polls – albeit
dwindling popular mass support). It is a government of the neoliberal
Masters-of-the-Universe.
Redge
Nkosi [4] has the following to say:
“Two
decades into democracy the outcomes of our economic system and its policy
framework are unambiguous: increased poverty, increased inequality, increased
unemployment, escalating costs of living and doing business. How else does one
measure the success of any economic model if not on its ability to provide
sustainable increases in the well-being to the majority of its citizens? If it
does not, as is so abundantly clear, why should a people continue to labour
under such a system with such outcomes – even when there is impressive economic
growth?
“Attributing
such dreadful outcomes to labour laws, policy uncertainty and infrastructure
constraints smacks of intellectual poverty, political naiveté and leadership
vacuity on the part of the nation. To make matters worse, we have drawn up a
20-year National Development Plan (NDP) based on the same failed policies,
backed by the same Bretton Woods institutions. We are told to pile our hopes on
this plan.”
Class struggle from
above
The
“same failed policies” referred to by Nkosi above can neatly be gathered under
the rubric of “neoliberalism.”
“
‘Neoliberalism’ is the term used to describe the transformations that capitalism
underwent in the 1970s and 1980s. In essence, neoliberalism was from the very
beginning a project aimed at restoring the class power of capital through the
liberalizing of markets – in a word, through the restoration of market
hegemony, in terms of which markets would come to dominate every facet of
social life.
“Neoliberalism
is a . . . stage of capitalism that emerged in the wake of the structural
crisis of the 1970s. It expresses the strategy of the capitalist classes in
alliance with upper management, specifically financial managers, intending to
strengthen their hegemony and to expand it globally.” [5]
In
short, the effects of four decades of neoliberalism which have ravaged the
working class on a global scale, have their origins in a capitalist class
revolt against the welfare state, and might (in the words of James Petras [6])
be referred to as “class struggle from above.”He is worth quoting at some
length:
“The
entire panoply of neo-liberal policies, from so-called ‘austerity measures’ to
mass firings of public and private employees, to massive transfers of wealth to
creditors are designed to enhance the power, wealth and primacy of diverse
sectors of capital at the expense of labor. To paraphrase Marx: class
struggle from above is the motor force to reverse history – to seize and
destroy the advances secured by workers from previous class struggles from
below.
“Class
struggle from above and the outside is waged in boardrooms, stock markets,
Central Banks, executive branches of government, parliaments and
Congresses. Decision makers are drawn from the ruling class and are ‘in
their confidence’. Most strategic decisions are taken by non-elected
officials and increasingly located in financial institutions (like the
International Monetary Fund, European Central Bank and the European Commission)
acting on behalf of creditors, bondholders and big banks.
“Class
struggle from above is directed at enhancing the concentration of wealth in the
ruling class, increasing regressive taxes on workers and reducing taxes on
corporations, selectively enforcing regulations, which facilitate financial
speculation and lowering social expenditures for pensions, health and education
for workers’ families. In addition, class struggle from above is directed
at maximizing the collective power of capital via restrictive laws on labor
organizations, social movements and public workers’ collective bargaining
rights.
“In
other words, class struggle penetrates numerous sites besides the ‘workplace’
and the strictly ‘economic sphere’. State budgets over bailouts are sites
of class struggle; banks are sites of class struggle between mortgage holders
and households, creditors and debtors.”[7]
Class struggle from
below
Despite
the multiple, ongoing crises of capitalism, including the way its excesses are
speeding us towards the planet’s ecological breaking point, capitalism “will
not collapse under the pressure of its own contradictions.” It will, as Alex
Callinicos tells us that Marx believed, “require the active intervention of a
revolutionary working class, imbued with the necessary levels of class
consciousness.”[8] Callinicos adds:
“.
. . at the heart of Marx’s thought was the proposition that socialism is the
self-emancipation of the working class. It is only by their own efforts that
workers can be rid of capitalism. They are their own liberators.”[9]
How
should this Marxian precept inform class struggle in South Africa?
Three ‘levels’ of
class struggle
Various
analysts, including Erik Olin Wright, have found it convenient to
distinguish three levels of working class struggle.[10] At the level of the
firm, there would be the struggle to improve working conditions for the
employees of the firm. Such struggle would not be aimed at overthrowing the
system (of capitalism) but rather securing the employees’ work-related
interests. At the institutional level, workers would struggle over the “kind of
capitalism” applicable. In a nutshell, should this be more or less
democratic-socialist (that is, Keynesian)? “What kinds of regulations of
markets and sectors are permissible? How organized and coordinated should be
the principal collective actors in capitalism? What kind of insurance against
risks should be provided by the state? The game of capitalism can be played
under a wide variety of rules, whose terms matter a lot insofar as they give
advantages and disadvantages to different kinds of players who play the game;
but these all constitute varieties of capitalism.”[11] In line with Wright,
Ellen Meiksins Wood [12] distinguishes what she refers to as two kinds of
non-transformational strategy in the anti-capitalist struggle:
·
“protective strategies” in terms of which workers and working
class people fight to defend what they have (for example, the fight against
gentrification or dispossession of their land) and for basic demands (such as
housing and public services).
·
The struggle over the “terms and conditions of work.”
Then, of course, there
is the macro or system level, where the contest boils down to capitalism versus
socialism.
At the level of the
firm
In
South Africa, 1994 did much to usher in a (relatively) more enlightened labour
relations regime, what with the substantive liberal reforms to legislation such
as the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. However, because such legislation
was grafted onto a business environment dominated by neo-liberal capitalism,
the dice remained significantly loaded in favour of the employers or capitalist
firms. Thus, more enlightened legislation did not slow down the relocation of
business firms to cheaper production sites (for example, in China), it just put
in place a “fairer process” for terminating local jobs. The fierceness with
which employers resisted the legitimate pay demands of workers reached a kind
of apotheosis with Marikana[13] and De Doorns,[14] enlightened legislation
notwithstanding. Workers operating at the level of the firm do so under
enormous threat – the threat that their firm might relocate, the threat that
their jobs might be automated, the threat that they might be retrenched in a
down-turn, and then, the threat that one or more of their co-workers might
“out-compete” them in the workplace, and in this way (through “competition”)
threaten their livelihood.
This
kind of scenario provides workers with little bargaining power; they end up
fighting defensive battles – battles to prevent the (further) erosion of their
already eroded pay and working conditions. For real change to happen at this
level, the conditions need to be created at a higher level.
At the institutional
level
The
so-called “golden age of capitalism” probably provides the best vision for the
limits of utopia for the working class under capitalism. Reece Jones[15]
provides the general picture:
“In
the thirty-year period after World War II, the US economy grew expansively.
From 1945 until 1975, real wages almost tripled; income inequality reached its
lowest point in 1972. Economic growth was fueled by government spending
programs.
The
GI Bill educated returning soldiers and funded research at universities, which
gave US companies an educated workforce and new technologies. The Highway and
Transportation Funding Act funded construction companies, provided jobs, and
established the necessary infrastructure for more cars and long-distance
trucking. This made it easier for companies to sell products. The New Deal
regulations also created favorable conditions for workers. Minimum-wage laws
established reasonable salaries for workers across all industries, and because
all US companies had to comply with them, everyone was on equal footing. The
forty-hour work week created weekends, a novel idea that gave workers the time
to pursue leisure activities. With their higher wages, they could buy new
products to use in their free time. The emerging middle class used its growing
wealth to buy homes in the suburbs, which funded the construction industry.
The
suburbs were often far from factories, so workers had to buy new cars to drive
to work, which contributed to road building and the auto industry. They had to
fill their new homes with consumer goods, which spurred the manufacturing
sector. In turn, all of these purchases created more jobs, which generated more
wealth and propelled more people into the middle class. Labor unions played an
important role in this economy. The unions guaranteed a stable, dependable, and
skilled labor force. In return, they demanded high wages, benefits, and
long-term contracts. With government support via regulations, the unions helped
to create extremely favorable conditions for workers across a wide range of
industries. This system worked because all US companies were in similar
circumstances; none was able to undercut the others by paying low wages.
Instead, they outcompeted each other by having dedicated, skilled workers who
were extremely productive and made high-quality products.”
The
South African economy shared in the postwar boom (when international economies
grow, our exports rise. In fact, this is precisely what happened in the years
following the war – our export performance improved dramatically and local
industry expanded.[16]). But the benefits were apportioned according to the
dictates of apartheid, and it was local capital and the (white) labour aristocracy
who appropriated the lion’s share. For those discriminated against under
apartheid (that is, the black working class) there was no golden age – just
ongoing ultra-exploitation.
NEDLAC[17]
and the post-1994 labour reforms were established under the delusion that
golden age-type conditions would pertain going forward. Instead, the ANC
government’s GEAR strategy[18] - which effectively ushered in SA’s neoliberal
era – lay in wait. This contradiction – a social democratic labour relations
regime versus a neoliberal economic order – persists into the present. Today,
especially with the benefit of hindsight, few would disagree that the “new
South Africa” – far from being the intended progenitor of a social democratic
paradise – was actually crafted to “save” “apartheid South Africa” for
imperialism. CODESA became SA’s Lancaster House,[19] where the necessary deals
would be struck.
Critically,
these deals included the participation and consent of COSATU. From the very
outset, the settlement at CODESA opened the door to an opportunistic element
within the (black) working class movement to secure its place at the table (or
should that be the “feeding trough?”). COSATU has always been part of the
Tripartite Alliance, which makes it a direct part of the ruling class
responsible for SA’s neoliberal regime. As Nkosinathi Mzelemu put it, its
alliance with the ANC and SACP makes COSATU part of the problem:
“The
post-apartheid man or woman that COSATU has begotten is a worker who, instead
of challenging the nature and history of the neo-liberal capitalist game, only
complains about and strikes over some rules of the game. Truth is, COSATU is a
liberal structuralist trade union that checks and balances a capitalist
employer-employee relationship. It is a liberal moral vanguard for capitalism
and an ideological apparatus that gives workers a false consciousness.”[20]
COSATU
thoroughly discredited itself as a part of any vanguard for progressive change
by the position it took in relation to both Marikana and De Doorns. For
example, note the statement by the Progressive Youth Movement (PYM) on 25
October 2015:
“Doing
the dirty work of the ANC, COSATU will follow the logic that if you are not in
the alliance, you are a counter revolutionary. Whereas, we, the PYM know that
the most real counter-revolutionaries are those in the ANC and its alliance
partners who sold out workers and have become capitalists. In these 18 years of
so-called ‘democracy,’ they have created millionaires and billionaires while we
have a jobs crisis, an education crisis, a housing crisis and many other
problems. Yet every five years they want our votes. Through union investment
companies, COSATU unions have shares in various companies; they are benefiting
from narrow Black Economic Empowerment (BEE), whilst the majority of black
people are poor.”[21]
While
the ANC and its allies hope for some kind of economic miracle, such as a new
“golden age” or a sudden upsurge in demand for our mineral exports, pundits are
already speculating on when – not if – capitalism will fall.[22]
System change
There
is little likelihood of a return to postwar growth and prosperity. Streeck
explains why:
“Crisis
symptoms are many, but prominent among them are three long term trends in the
trajectories of rich, highly industrialized — or better, increasingly
de-industrialized — capitalist countries. The first is a persistent decline in
the rate of economic growth, recently aggravated by the events of 2008. The
second, associated with the first, is an equally persistent rise in overall
indebtedness in leading capitalist states, where governments, private
households and nonfinancial as well as financial firms have, over forty years,
continued to pile up financial obligations. Third, economic inequality, of both
income and wealth, has been on the ascent for several decades now, alongside
rising debt and declining growth.”[23]
If
we are to avoid a turn to barbarism, then the only feasible alternative is
socialism.[24] Our situation today – the objective situation – is not much
different to that which confronted Trotsky’s generation in the 1930s when he
wrote:
“The
strategic task of the next period – a prerevolutionary period of agitation,
propaganda and organization – consists in overcoming the contradiction between
the maturity of the objective revolutionary conditions and the immaturity of
the proletariat and its vanguard (the confusion and disappointment of the older
generation, the inexperience of the younger generation). It is necessary to
help the masses in the process of the daily struggle to find the bridge between
present demands and the socialist program of the revolution. This bridge should
include a system of transitional demands, (italics in the
original) stemming from today’s conditions and from today’s consciousness of wide
layers of the working class and unalterably leading to one final conclusion:
the conquest of power by the proletariat.”[25]
Prospects
Transition
to a liberal democracy has seen no change in the pattern of mass rebellion in
this country; resistance to oppression under apartheid has morphed into
resistance to oppression under neoliberal austerity-measures. Then as now, we
remain the protest capital of the world, with a planet-leading Gini
coefficient.[26] Ongoing crises in healthcare and service delivery, runaway
corruption at all levels of government, continued debasement of the education
of our youth, an inability to meet the housing needs of our people,
out-of-control gangsterism and crime in local communities, and of course,
intractably high unemployment levels all speak to the intolerable conditions
that – if anything – have worsened since 1994. It is no exaggeration to say
that we are ripe for revolution.
Ferment
in the ranks of the organized workers, particularly in the wake of Marikana,
saw a significant rupture following the breakaway of COSATU’s then strongest
affiliate, NUMSA. The same period saw the formation of the Workers and
Socialist Party (WASP) and a call by the Unity Movement for the building of a
united front “for the socialist transformation of our country.”[27] It also saw
the formation of Julius Malema’s EFF.
NUMSA
immediately set about building a united front with leftwing and other
“people’s” organizations, with a view to organizing a mass-based opposition to
ANC-rule and the neoliberal order. Whether the NUMSA UF is the new Messiah
remains to be seen. Certainly, there are many issues to be resolved. As a
united front, by definition it accommodates many overtly contradictory
positions. For example, elements that see it as a “reformed” ANC (that is, as
the new “true guardians” of the Freedom Charter) live side-by-side with those
who would espouse an out-and-out socialist programme. In addition, the UF is
far from resolving whether it is a movement for socialism or simply for a
reformed-capitalism. Many struggles lie ahead for any united front – including
resolution of the race versus class conundrum. And then, of course, it will
have to resolve its position in relation to bourgeois parliamentary/electoral
politics – is it a new political party in the making, readying itself for the
2019 general election, or is it committed to building a class-conscious mass
working class movement focused on the overthrow of the capitalist order? If the
NUMSA UF is to play a key historical role in placing our struggle irresistibly
on the path to socialist transformation, then it will need to successfully
address key questions such as these.
In
short, if the NUMSA UF is to be the progenitor of a new political order in
South Africa, then its “UF phase” will be a transitional phase, one that unites
the working class under a democratic banner of non-racialism, non-sexism,
non-collaboration and anti-capitalism, leading to the formation of a mass-based
workers’ party. This would be its historical task, one that is not only
achievable, but achievable in our life-time.
End
notes
[1]
Taken from the website http://www.tradingeconomics.com/south-africa/unemployment-rate [13 Nov 2016].
[2]
Roux, Professor Andre, Everyone’s Guide to the South African Economy (Kindle
Location 1090), Random House Struik. Kindle Edition, 11th Ed, 2014.
[3]
Lehohla, Dr Pali (Statistician‐General), Statistics
South Africa Report No. 03‐19‐01,
Vulnerable Groups Series I: The Social Profile of Youth, 2009–2014, 2016.
[4]
Nkosi, R, Failed neo-liberalism sees SA sleepwalking into a revolution, IOL
website,http://www.iol.co.za/business/opinion/failed-neo-liberalism-sees-sa-slee... , 18 Nov 2013.
[5]
From Dumenil, G and Levy, D, The Crisis of Neoliberalism, Harvard University
Press, 2011, page 8.
[6]
Petras, James, The Economic and Social Crisis: Contemporary Capitalism and
Class Struggle: The Motor Force of Regression or Advance, Global Research,
April 2013.
[7]
Ibid.
[8]
Callinicos, A, The Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx, Bookmarks Publications,
2010.
[9]
Ibid.
[10]
See for example, Erik Olin Wright’s Understanding Class, Verso, 2015.
[11]
Erik Olin Wright, Ibid, Kindle Locations 2436 – 2440)
[12]
Meiksins Wood, E, The Politics of Capitalism, Monthly Review, 1999, Volume 51,
Issue 04 (September)
[13]
On 16 August 2012, Police mowed down mineworkers who were on strike in support
of pay demands against the Lonmin Platinum Mine. 34 workers were killed and 78
wounded.
[14]
“De Doorns” is the rubric under which a strike of farmworkers took place in
2012, on farms in places such as De Doorns itself, Worcester, Ceres, Robertson,
Grabouw, Wolseley and Villiersdorp in the Western Cape.
[15]
Jones, R, Violent Borders: Refugees and the Right to Move (Kindle Locations
1921-1936). Verso, 2016
[16]
Roux, André, Op Cit.
[17]7NEDLAC
stands for the “National Economic Development and Labour Council.” It is made
up of representatives from Government, organised business, organised labour and
organised community groupings. The council comes together on a national level
to discuss and try to reach consensus about anything to do with social and
economic policy.
[18]
GEAR – The “Growth, Employment and Redistribution” strategy introduced by the
ANC government in 1996 to drive its post-CODESA neoliberal implementation
plans.
[19]
The discussions which led to the independence of Zimbabwe took place at
Lancaster House in 1979.
[20]
Article by Nkosinathi Mzelemu, Alliance with ANC makes COSATU part of the
problem, Another View, September 2009.
[21]
Progressive Youth Movement (PYM), Press Statement: A Response to the NUM’s
Problematic Positions on Mineworker Strikes and Response to the Coming
Weekend’s Cosatu Rally in Rustenburg, 25 October 2012
[22]
See, for example, article by Willem Streeck, How Will Capitalism End? In New
Left Review (NLR), 2014
[23]
Ibid.
[24]
The well-known expression, “Socialism or barbarism” is attributed to Rosa
Luxemburg.
[25]
Trotsky, Leon, The Transitional Program for Socialist Revolution, Pathfinder
Press, New York, 1977.
[26]South
Africa’s Gini coefficient ranges from about 0.660 to 0.696. According to UCT’s
Professor of Economics, Haroon Bhorat, “This would make South Africa one of the
most consistently unequal countries in the world.” (Mail & Guardian, 30
September 2015)
[27]
See Background Notes to the Revised and Updated Ten Point Programme 2012.
The Struggle of the
Venezuelan People against U.S. Interventionism
 |
| Venezuelan President Maduro attends a huge rally in Caracas |
By The Gathering of Intellectuals
Following
the spirit of solidarity expressed in the message released by the participants
of the XII Meeting of the “Network of Intellectuals, Artists and Social
Movements In Defense of Humanity,” held in Caracas, on April 11, 2016, and as
testimony to the support on behalf of all the progressive forces of the world
toward the Bolivarian Government and the Venezuelan people, in their struggle
against the constant attacks carried out by the local and imperial oligarchy,
we, the undersigned Canadian intellectuals, reiterate our support for the
sovereignty and self-determination of the Venezuelan people.
We
emphasize that the oligarchic/imperial aggressions reflected in the “economic
war” and the “media war” directed against Venezuela are not isolated cases.
Rather, they form part of an overall global strategy to silence the dissonant
voice of the Bolivarian government and Venezuelan people for their opposing the
structures implanted by global capitalism’s centres of power.
In
this sense, we express our concern regarding the current mechanisms of
manipulation, propaganda and intervention used to destabilize Venezuela’s
democratic political institutions and social structures with the objective of
restoring the previous order of oligarchic elitism as well as re-establishing
the nefarious neoliberal policies that seek to dismantle the social gains
achieved by the Bolivarian popular transformation process launched in 1998.
Likewise,
we denounce that these incessant attacks have increased with the disinformation
campaign carried out by media outlets, which have focused on the shortage of
food and medicine without mentioning the economic war waged by the domestic
oligarchy and other sectors of the local and imperial fifth column, to the
detriment of the entire population, particularly the poorest sectors of
Venezuelan society.
We
also raise our voice against allegations of human rights violations in
Venezuela, in particular the unfounded claims of a supposed existence of
“political prisoners” in Venezuela. In fact, they are politician-prisoners who
have violated Venezuelan penal laws by inciting violence that has caused the
death of innocent Venezuelans. Nobody has mentioned this fact at the
international level, as these opposition politicians echo that irrationality
and have caused numerous deaths, hundreds of wounded and considerable material
damage.
We
express our admiration because, despite these attacks, aggressions and
accusations, we note that Venezuela maintains its Bolivarian principles and
enjoys a solid international prestige. In this regard, we congratulate the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for the successful organization of the XVII
Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Non-Aligned Movement, held in
Margarita Island, on September 17 and 18, 2016. This Summit took place under
the theme of “Peace, Sovereignty and Solidarity Towards Development.”
On
this occasion member states reaffirmed their commitment to respect the
sovereignty, national unity, and territorial integrity of states, their
sovereign equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of states, the
peaceful settlement of disputes, the defense of the right of self-determination
of the peoples, to refrain from using threats or force, to reject illegal
policies in regards to changes to constitutional governments, and to condemn
the promulgation and application of unilateral coercive measures.
Furthermore,
we wish the best of success to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in its
exercising of the Presidency of the Non-Aligned Movement for the 2016–2019
period, and, given its leadership, strengths and commitment to the less
fortunate, we believe its tenure will reinforce and revitalize the aspirations
of humankind to build a world of peace, justice, solidarity and shared
development.
We
recall that, despite the permanent aggression during 17 years of government
management centred on the human being, coupled with a holistic view of human
rights, the Bolivarian Revolution, inspired by the ideals of the Liberator
Simón Bolivar and led by Commander Hugo Chávez Frías, has achieved one of the
fairest distributions of wealth in Latin America, obtaining universal
recognition of the progress made in education, food and income distribution,
and community and popular development.
We
emphasize that this policy of social assistance has been invigorated under the
mandate of President Nicolás Maduro Moros, overcoming the adverse effects of a
global crisis and the induced collapse of oil prices, given that the sharp drop
of this commodity has been a consequence of a “financial war” that promotes
stock market speculation as well as the overproduction of fossil fuels
generated by, among other factors, the use of hydraulic fracking, a process
that has aggravated the ecological fragility of the planet.
We
express our firmest condemnation of reactionary actions taken to censor and
silence the voice and critical opinion of TeleSUR through measures
intended to weaken its image as a communication tool available to the entire
world. For this reason, we deplore the Republic of Argentina’s untimely
withdrawal from this communication platform, a departure that undermines
political and media pluralism as well as the tangible progress of Latin
American integration.
In
order to counter these actions of censorship and misinformation regarding
Venezuela, we express our willingness to contribute toward popularizing the
broadcast of TeleSUR’s programming in Canada, employing the tools of
modern media technologies and social networks, which have a high penetration
rate in various sectors of Canadian public opinion.
In
light of the long and dark interventionist record of the U.S. in Latin America,
we vehemently declare our rejection of interventionist acts by the U.S.
government against the democratic and institutional stability of the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela, imperial actions that are part of a new offensive inserted
into a “Continental Condor Plan” in order to regain its lost influence in the
region. These actions have sponsored a national and international vilification
media campaign and a dehumanizing domestic economic war, without let-up, with
the aim of provoking the suppression of the Bolivarian process.
Venezuela
is not a security threat to any country but an example of hope, though it does
represent a threat to the prevailing imperial order. In this regard, we demand
the immediate repeal of the dismal and infamous U.S. government Executive
Order, in which Venezuela is considered a threat to its national security and
foreign policy; this Executive Order has been rejected by an overwhelming
majority of countries around the world.
We
reject any attempt to undermine the sovereignty of Venezuela through direct
imperial actions, or by using hemispheric or international organizations
to promote a change of government by illegal means that restore the old
oligarchic structures and dismantle the social gains achieved through
revolutionary governmental social programs.
Therefore,
we express our commitment to defend Venezuela’s institutions in the face of the
de-legitimization campaign orchestrated in the current process of activating a
constitutional option for convening a recall referendum, as definitely these
operations of discrediting erode the fundamental precepts contained in the
Bolivarian Constitution of 1999.
Given
the recent destabilizing experiences against progressive governments in Latin
America, evidenced in “soft” or “constitutional” coups, we reaffirm our
solidarity with the Bolivarian government and people, and announce that we will
remain alert to report any aggression against the Venezuelan constitutional
order; therefore, we continue to support the Bolivarian process and the
empowerment and deepening of popular grass-roots education and participation as
a legacy of Commander Hugo Chávez Frías and as a guarantee of the continuity of
the struggle for social justice and equality.
Finally,
we reaffirm our full support towards Venezuela, whose government has been
legitimately elected by the majority of the Venezuelan people, and, from this
perspective, we call on the Canadian government to distance itself from
interventionist U.S. policies that seek to dismantle progressive governments in
Latin America and the Caribbean, framed in the American global strategy of
promoting “wars by region” worldwide.
Ottawa
– October 7, 2016
Michel
Chossudovsky
James
Cockcroft
Mahdi
Darius Nazemroaya
Kathy
Hogarth
Maricarmen
Guevara
Víctor
Ramos
Stuart
Ryan
Jorge
Sorger
Santiago
Escobar
Jean-Claude
Balu
Luis
Gómez
Félix
Grande
Claude
Morin
Arnold
August
The
original source of this article is The Gathering of Canadian Intellectuals
Myanmar and the
Fundamental Rights of the Rohingyas. Sign of Hope, or Business as Usual?
By Eresh Omar Jamal
The
Rohingyas are a people struck by tragedy. Persecuted in their home country,
Myanmar, over 65,000 of them have fled to Bangladesh between October 9, 2016,
and January 5, 2017, according to a report from the United Nations Office of
Coordination for Humanitarian Affairs. Every day, as reported by The Daily
Star, scores of Rohingya people, mostly women and children, are seen dotting a
15 kilometre stretch of road from Ukhia to Teknaf in Cox’s Bazar.
Having
barely escaped with their lives leaving all their belongings, if any, behind,
they are seen begging on and around the roads there. Hoping for someone to stop
for a moment, sympathise with their sufferings and lend them some assistance,
however trivial it may be.
The
persecution of Rohingyas in Myanmar is, of course, nothing new. It has been
going on for quite a while now. But ever since the attacks on Myanmar’s border
guard posts on October 9, 2016, it has again escalated. This is obvious from
the fact that, on average, over 1,000 Rohingyas have been entering Bangladesh
every day since late last year, while the previous rate of Rohingya influx was
50 a day.
From
the looks of various reports concerning the latest round of crackdown on the
Rohingya people, it seems that some sections of the Myanmarese authority have
not been shy in handing out collective punishment to all Rohingyas, regardless
of their innocence or guilt.
Although
some had expected things to improve for the Rohingyas under the stewardship of
Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, no such signs are currently visible.
In fact, many have gone so far as to criticise her for her nonchalant attitude
towards the sufferings of the Rohingyas, particularly her reluctance to condemn
the attacks on occasions and for playing them down at times.
And
this has been the official stance of the Myanmarese government for years now –
to deny that the Rohingyas are being persecuted as severely as reports suggest.
And in all honesty, with the rest of the world being busy dealing with other
problems, it has served them well in avoiding taking any responsibility for the
atrocities that have been committed against the Rohingyas.
But
for how long can the government of Myanmar insist that the Rohingyas are not
being persecuted mercilessly? For how long will people avoid asking: “Why then
are Rohingyas fleeing Myanmar, risking their lives to resort to begging on the
streets of Bangladesh or elsewhere”? Surely begging is not a profession many
would take up willingly.
Even
the UN, which some believe, has played a less than impressive role in helping
to find a solution to the Rohingya crisis, seems to have lost its patience with
the Myanmar government. The UN Human Rights envoy to Myanmar, Yanghee Lee, for
example, said at a news briefing in Yangon that the Myanmar government would
“appear less and less credible” if it continues being defensive in response to
the allegations of persistent human rights violations against Rohingyas
(UN rights envoy: Myanmar losing credibility, Bangkok Post, January 21).
Furthermore,
shifting from the UN’s routine position, she said: “I must remind again that
these attacks took place in the context of decades of systematic and
institutionalised discrimination against the Rohingya population.” Some strong
words indeed, which, members of international observant groups have,
unfortunately, failed to use with regards to the persecution of Rohingyas in
the past.
With
such strong words coming out even from within the ranks of the UN, is it a sign
of hope for the Rohingyas? Will the international community finally take the
matter as seriously as it should have all along? It will, of course, be unfair
to include all nations under that umbrella. The Malaysian Prime Minister, for
example, has already condemned the handling of Rohingyas by the Myanmarese
government quite severely.
He
has even gone so far as to push “the Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation
(OIC), the world’s largest Muslim intergovernmental organisation, to apply
pressure on Myanmar to end the persecution and killing of ethnic Muslim
Rohingyas in the country” (Myanmar urged to end persecution of Rohingya,
Bangkok Post, January 19). Encouragingly, he said: “I believe I speak for all
neighbouring countries when I say that we want to avoid a repeat of the 2015
‘boat people’ crisis”, referring to the thousands of Rohingyas who fled Myanmar
in boats for Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand in 2015.
Finally,
he urged on the whole of South Asia to unite in an attempt to resolve the
crisis, warning that it may otherwise explode into something much bigger — such
as increasing petty crimes, human trafficking and various forms of militancy —
which will obviously harm the region as a whole. But for various geostrategic
reasons, many leaders in South Asia have so far refused to condemn the
government of Myanmar, despite the possible long term dangers its policies may
pose to their respective countries.
But
with the passing of time, it is becoming clearer by the day that things cannot
be allowed to continue as usual. It is time for the other leaders of the region
to realise that and heed the warning of the Malaysian Prime Minister and
condemn the atrocities being committed against the Rohingyas.
Although
one could take the comments made by the UN Human Rights envoy to Myanmar as an
encouraging sign, what is needed is for the leaders of South Asia to solve the
problem through dialogue before it gets much bigger and leads to many more
atrocities than what has already been witnessed. It is a challenge which must
be faced head on, rather than be criminally avoided, as it has been, despite
the tragic consequences.
Sports and Security:
Manchester United’s Counter-Terrorism Chief
By Dr.
Binoy Kampmark
It
seemed an unnecessarily grand gesture, but the English Premier league
discovered last week that Manchester United had appointed its own
counterterrorism manager. The person is said to be a former inspector
from Greater Manchester Police’s specialist research unit. As with
everything else in matters of security, such a move will stir and spark
discussion: if they have one, why not us? Club boards are bound to be meeting
over the subject.
This
has happened despite the Football Association’s keen confidence that the
standards of security at English football venues are second to none. “Irrespective
of league position, stadium size or attendance; the way in which the grounds of
our football clubs are operated ensures that crowd safety, accessibility and
enjoyment are world class as standard.”[1]
The
UK Government has its own Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds, which was
commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. In its fifth
edition, it has come to be known as The Green Guide, the salient benchmark.
The
Green Guide acknowledges the need for counter-terrorist approaches, including
the necessity of searching “spectators more thoroughly prior to entry.
This may require extra temporary arrangements and the deployment of additional
resources on the approaches to the turnstiles or entry points, which in turn
may reduce the rate at which spectators can enter.”[2]
The
authors of the report also note the Counter Terrorism Protective
Security Advice for Stadia and Arenas produced by the National
Counter Terrorism Security Office. With such an array of advising
documents, the spectator can be either assured or irritated that appropriate
measures are going to be in place against attack.
Despite
supposedly exemplary state of stadium security, breaches do take place.
Manchester United’s appointment came in the wake of two incidents designated
by The Guardian as blunders. May’s Premier League match
with Bournemouthwas a disruptive affair: a questionable package had been
discovered in a toilet. A moment of panic ensued, then evacuation.
As
things transpired, the suspected item proved harmless enough. The package had
been, of all things, actually placed there by a security firm, a costly
oversight that meant the match had to be rescheduled.
The
lavatories were again the site of another breach, this time featuring two
United fans who wished to capitalise on their tour of Old Trafford by icing the
cake. Their method proved childishly simple: conceal themselves in the
good old water closet long enough to sneak in to see the match against Arsenal.
The ploy failed, and the police duly tidied up.
As
with much in the world of counter-terrorism speak, inconsistencies reign.
A counter-terrorism system can be lauded, yet breached in the twinkling of an
eye. This can happen despite the fact that Old Trafford remains heavily
policed. Turning up at a match entails searches of cars of owners wishing
to avail themselves of the car park; spectators are searched at the
turnstiles. A perfect detection system, should it ever exist, would be
intolerably intrusive.
Sporting
officials have every reason to fear vulnerability of their sports venues,
though football’s, at times pugilistic history, suggests that some of the
greatest threats have been the fans themselves. As is the fashion these
days, fearing the next Islamic State attack or inspired attack, governs
discussion and deliberation.
However
an attacker is inspired (the lone-wolf term remains all too convenient and
problematic), the danger in any such attack remains inherent and genuine.
As with everything else in the business of inflicting terror, theatrics and
horror are ingredients to the pudding of mayhem. The problem, as ever,
remains detection, an imperfect science at best.
Manchester
United’s appointment shines a light on the securitisation of the very pleasure
of attending sporting venues, a process that has, in truth, been going on for
some years. Baroness Ruth Henig has even insisted on law changes to make
entertainment venues through the UK undergo counter-terror
training.[3]
The
clubs, it would seem, have decided to buy into the rhetoric of
counter-terrorism paradoxically making football seem lesssafe. Counter-terrorist czars are being
sought. Clubs, as always, wish to be seen to be doing something. But
nothing will ever eliminate the element of chance.
Dr.
Binoy Kampmark was
a Commonwealth Scholar at SelwynCollege, Cambridge. He lectures
at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com
Notes
No comments:
Post a Comment