The word “Growth”, endlessly repeated by politicians during the present election campaign, is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Faith, Growth, but rarely Charity, are the cardinal virtues displayed for the mass media. When all the promises are ‘fully costed” but fall short of balancing, Growth is the shared panacea.
The trouble is growth post-BREXIT, Covid and Putin’s war looks feeble. No politician is reckless enough to explain exactly what they mean by Growth – though there are clues in the “Kick-start Economic Growth” section of the Labour Party Manifesto. Obviously, something organic and getting bigger - not to be mistaken for the magical money tree. Economists created a value they could express as a single figure or how would we all know if the economy, more precisely GDP, (Gross Domestic Product) was getting bigger, smaller or remaining unchanged? Not that there has ever been a clear consensus on what should be included in GDP. We still hang onto something of Margaret Thatcher’s homely simile that the national economy is like a huge domestic budget and managed in the same way. It isn’t. And, incidentally, domestic labour is one of the productive activities that economists leave out of GDP measurements. Were it to be included, the ILO, International Labour Organisation, estimate unpaid domestic work and caring to amount to be 9% of global GDP ($11 trillion) of which women’s domestic labour makes up more than two-thirds or 6.6%. Surprisingly, despite their prominence today, Growth and GDP are a relatively recent concern of economists. The history of Growth as a concept is set out in the opening chapters of Daniel Susskind’s brilliantly accessible Growth: The Reckoning Allen-Lane 2024. It was the economic crisis of the Great Depression (1929-1939) that triggered the search for some simple measurement of economies. During the Second World War the question of what proportion of the overall economy could safely be devoted to war production became pressing. “The American people have learned during the war the measure of their productive capacity’, President Roosevelt triumphantly declared to Congress in January 1945”. And it was not long before measures of Growth expressed as GDP were regarded as important indicators of who was winning the Cold War. Now, as the current election campaign nears the end, Growth has been established as the panacea for national decline. So today we have figures for GDP per capita over time telling us whether there is growth or ‘degrowth’. And because economics dominate our political thinking about what matters, while economists keep at arms’ length other things that matter, which they label as ‘externalities’, public political debate does not engage with questions about the price paid for Growth. Since the industrial revolution, whose origins lie at the end of the 18th century, what is now described as Growth brought unprecedented prosperity to much of the world, Africa is an exception, reducing poverty, dramatically improving education, enabling leaps forward in public health, feeding vastly increased numbers of people. But, looking at the UK – and not only the UK – nearly all these advances are now either stalled or going into reverse. The damage arising from blinkered, ungoverned Growth includes the fast-approaching climate catastrophe caused by carbon emissions, the degradation of our natural environment, the possibility of nuclear holocaust narrowly averted at least twice in the last century, ill-health caused by industrialised food, and growing inequality. The Growth dilemma is never “fully costed” nor raised in the barrage of interviewers’ questions about the economy on radio and TV. Growth as economic panacea remains a deceptive proposition unless its hidden trade-offs are acknowledged, shared with citizens for deliberation, and mitigated by government action. This is not the only message of Susskind’s revealing book, but it is certainly the most important one. Susskind sets Growth within the context of the common good, rather than in short-term party-political la-la-land. He poses fundamental questions about what kind of society in what kind of the world do, we, our children and grandchildren want to live in? Something you might have expected political leaders to talk about. And expected the electorate to want to hear about. Where Growth: The Reckoning is doubly helpful it is in resetting Growth within a discussion of trade-offs, rather than a simple binary argument, more growth or degrowth, and in proposing a direction of travel for social and economic development. Perhaps it is most insightful in its vision of Growth as meaning more than increasing the production of material things - and money- by adding ideas and innovation to the mix and proposing other ends to pursue. Susskind wants to redirect and redefine Growth not get rid of it. He distinguishes this approach from the temptation to insert socially desirable activities into the old, tired model which is yielding diminishing returns. What is considered socially desirable poses moral questions liable to be treated in a technocratic manner or left to market forces. This is not as theoretical as it sounds. As an example, Susskind uses the pool of networked ideas existing at the time of the COVID outbreak in early 2020 in the world of medical research which, with government funding, created COVID vaccines in an extraordinarily short time. And here the moral dimension of this innovation was evident in the failure to supply the global South adequately. Susskind delves more deeply into this terrain with an interesting discussion of intellectual property – the ownership of ideas - “the most important toolbox that societies have to shape the creation and distribution of ideas”. Balancing the costs of Growth, sacrificing one benefit for another, requires the widest possible deliberation and consultation. To achieve Growth Government must provide incentives the necessary means - such as a healthy educated workforce - and an enabling atmosphere. Yes, the other most repetitious campaign word “a plan”. It must include investment in research and development, and in public-private partnerships – which has some positive references in the Labour Manifesto and in James Naughtie’s exceptional exploration of Growth and innovation in The World at One on 23 June. Susskind also calls for citizen involvement in the form of civic assemblies to generate and evaluate new ideas but also to nurture comprehension of what is at stake, as well as support for progressive forms of government intervention. Susskind’s believes in “the innovative genius of humankind”. His book sustains a refreshing balance of ideas, academic analysis and down-to-earth realism drawn from his work in the policy unit at No. 10. The gulf between his book’s clarity, understanding, and vision and the mind-numbing repetition of the word Growth that political leaders, right now, feel obliged to utter under questioning is shocking. Have these six weeks locked in party-political-media inanity been democracy at work? If you don’t think so send this book to whoever gets elected in your constituency. See TheArticle 27/06/2024
2 Comments
I will never forget witnessing the determination and joy in the queues waiting outside South African polling stations on 29 May 1994. I had accompanied former President Kaunda of Zambia to Kwazulu-Natal only days before as an election observer. We feared serious violence between the Zulu nationalist party of Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, Inkatha, and Mandela’s ANC. Buthelezi, originally tasked to build up the ANC in the Zulu heartland, pulled back at the last minute.
In the triumphant election that ended apartheid the ANC won nationally with 62% of the vote. In this year’s elections, after thirty years’ unbroken rule, the ANC took only 40 per cent, losing their majority in Parliament. It was a humiliation, inflicted by a disappointed, angry electorate, but also a vindication of South Africa’s democracy. This was a clear verdict on the ANC’s performance in government over the last 15 years, during which corruption has become endemic. Meeting on June 7 to discuss the way forward, the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the ANC decided neither to seek a coalition partner or partners to form a majority government, nor to risk a minority government with a “confidence and supply” arrangement, but instead to propose a Government of National Unity (GNU). In a statesmanlike speech, President Cyril Ramaphosa spoke of the – legislated – 1994 transitional coalition which followed the ANC victory, bringing together under Mandela’s direction future President Thabo Mbeki and former President F.W. De Klerk, to govern until an interim Constitution requiring the allegiance of all political parties was finalised in 1996. The context, easing the transition from apartheid, was radically different from that of today. Though once again the province of KwaZulu-Natal — now led by Jacob Zuma, the corrupt former President, and his new Spear of the Nation Party (uMkhonto weSizwe or MKP), cleverly appropriating the name of the ANC’s former armed wing — is a threat to stability and to any unity government. Ramaphosa described the unity proposal as in the best interests of the people of South Africa, in accordance with the vision of the preamble to the Constitution: to realise the full potential of all citizens and bring material benefits to an unequal and unjust society. It might indeed be best for South Africa, but a GNU is also in the ANC’s interests. All the potential coalition partnerships were highly problematic. The Democratic Alliance (DA), led by Durban-born John Steenhuisen, which took 21% of the vote, is viewed by many as a right-wing party promoting white interests. Then there was Zuma’s MKP, with 14.5% of the vote, promising both to expropriate white-owned land without compensation and to change the Constitution. Thirdly, there was the former ANC youth leader Julius Malema’s Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), with 9.5%, calling for nationalisation of mines and land expropriation. Both Zuma and Malema are stridently populist, potentially violent, and determined to get rid of Ramaphosa. Any of these partners would have exacerbated divisions within the ANC. Only a Government of National Unity looked feasible. At 82, Zuma has a score to settle with Ramaphosa. He connects with many of the poor and has ten years’ prison on Robben Island with Mandela to his credit. In the 1980s, Zuma was the ruthless head of ANC Intelligence. He took the presidency in a non-violent internal coup against President Thabo Mbeki in 2009. As President, he accumulated power and money through a form of systemic corruption known as “state capture”. Ramaphosa led internal opposition to Zuma, forcing him to resign after a vote of no confidence in February 2018, allowing criminal charges for corruption and contempt of court to go ahead. But Zuma has only served three months in jail. His formation of the MKP in December 2023 heralded a political comeback with overwhelming support from his Zulu political base in Kwazulu-Natal. But just before the 26 May elections, he was banned from standing for Parliament. I have seen Zuma up-close. It was in Zimbabwe in the mid-1980s, when, in the garden of the Rev. Michael Lapsley – who later lost both hands and an eye in a South African letter-bomb, Zuma suddenly emerged from behind a bush. There was something brutal and sinister about him. Frankly, I felt frightened by him — as well Ramaphosa might be. Zuma is a clear and present danger for stability and democracy in South Africa. The ANC has until 18 June to pull together a government. Some 53 political parties contested the 2024 elections; only 6 of them won more than 300,000 votes. Of the three big Parties, only the DA has joined alongside Inkatha and the Patriotic Alliance. The MKP are refusing to join unless Ramaphosa steps down; the EFF is currently saying “we will not share power with the enemy”, though a few months back Malema did say he was open to a coalition with the ANC; and the DA wants to know more about how a Government of National Unity would function. A political minefield. But the wider question is: could a Government of National Unity tackle South Africa’s problems? These include chronic corruption; over 45% youth unemployment; wretched health and educational provision for the poor; serious crime and insecurity. And after 30 years of the ANC, South Africa is top of the world league for inequality. Systemic corruption has crippled the South African economy. André de Ruyter, the honest and competent CEO of the country’s energy provider, ESCOM, was forced out for trying to eliminate the corruption that was causing persistent and prolonged power cuts. After having cyanide slipped into his morning coffee, De Ruyter’s advice to any incoming CEO was not to have a personalised coffee cup. Is Ramaphosa up to it? He is undoubtedly tough and talented — but “squeaky clean” are not the first words that come to mind. In 2020 a mysterious $4 million dollars were stolen from his Phala-Phala farmhouse, a surprising sum to be stuffed inside the sofa. Head of the Student Christian Movement in his Venda High School, frequently detained while a law student, respected leader of the National Union of Mineworkers, brilliant negotiator, successful entrepreneur, skilled navigator of the dangerous shoals within the ANC, Ramaphosa’s biography suggests he has the capacity. But he needs the support of determined, competent and honest ministers to bring about change. Today the 400 members of the National Assembly will be sworn in, pledging to uphold the Constitution. As the ANC now knows, the people of South Africa will punish severely at the ballot-box failure to improve their lives, to provide jobs, and clean the Augean stables. A culture of accountability must be created, and prosecutions made. In a promising appointment, Rev. Frank Chikane, a courageous opponent of the apartheid regime, former General Secretary of the South African Council of Churches and chef de cabinet for President Mbeki, is now the head of the Integrity Commission to achieve this end. But support from the ANC parliamentary party will be essential. Despite multiple obstacles ahead, Ramaphosa with his considerable skills may be able to steer a GNU in the direction of integrity. South Africa’s future government should remember the warning of Amilcar Cabral, poet and pan-Africanist: “Always bear in mind that people are not fighting for ideas.... They are fighting to win material benefits, to live better and in peace, to see their lives go forward, to guarantee the future of their children”. As Trevor Manuel, the – honest and successful — ANC Minister of Finance, 1996-2009, pointedly asked on Radio South Africa’s Midday Report: “Who will hold the feet of the GNU to the fire?” See TheArticle 14/06/2024 |
Archives
November 2024
Categories |