IDEOLOGY AND IDEOLOGUES ARE HOLDING US BACK
The crippling SAA strike this week, with the already struggling airline losing tens of millions on a daily basis as a result, reminded me once again of the dangers of ideology and how we as a country are being held back by the narrow convictions of ideologues who continue to dominate the public space.
The South African government has pumped billions into supposedly saving a struggling airline that should have been sold off years ago, but because we live in a country where some have posited state ownership as the supreme principle behind our developmental aspirations, this has tragically not happened and we keep wasting taxpayers’ money on an entity that has been on life support for too long.
The same thing could be said about Eskom, where National Treasury released a discussion document a couple of months ago on how to turn the SA economy around, and one of the suggestions was that selling off Eskom’s coal power stations could help the embattled state-owned entity resolve its crippling debt-burden, but once again the ideologues who place a high premium on state ownership above all other realities shouted the loudest and won the day.
Now I know that there are some people who are still stuck in a 20th century, Cold War mindset who accuse anyone who is a member of the ANC of being Marxist, but I consider myself a pragmatic fellow who is not tied into any “isms” and who is more concerned with what would work for the country as opposed to dogmatically advancing a certain ideological perspective. In fact, I often joke with some of my mates that the only Marxism I subscribe to, if one was to try and box me, would be that of Groucho Marx, as in I have this innate ability to find humour in any situation, no matter how serious it may be.
In thinking of all this in frustration at how ideology and ideologues are holding us back, I was reminded of a 1992 document by the ANC aptly titled, Ready to Govern. In discussing the highly contested matter of state ownership, the document states the following, “state ownership is not posited as the in-principle alternative to all private monopolies: rather, this would be informed by the impact such ownership would have on the ability of the economy to address poverty and inequality and to encourage growth and competitiveness. Secondly, the developmental state should be responsible for enterprises that provide public goods such as infrastructure and basic services. Thirdly, the private sector, including monopoly capital, is treated not as an enemy, but as a potential partner-and yet one that needs to be regulated. Lastly, balance of evidence would inform such decisions to either increase or reduce the public sector while protecting consumers and workers.”