Review Glenn Adler and Eddie Webster (eds) (2000) Trade Unions and Democratisation in South Africa, 1985- 1997. International Political EconomySeries. Hampshire and London: Macmillan Press. Harry Zarenda Given the recent ongoing tensions between the trade union movement and governmentin the post-apartheid South African state regarding a variety of issues — relating not only to the latter constituency’s insistence on pursuing more orthodox economic policies — the appearance of this book, essentially tracing the crucial role that the union movementplayed,initially, in bringing an endto the apartheid state andlater, in attempting to consolidate the shaping of democratictransition, is to be most welcomed. The editors ofthis collection ofessays have incorporated several interesting and pertinent contributions to the dominant issue — as to whether labouris “strategic enough andstrong enoughto shapethe process of consolidation of democracy and economic restructuring’ in South Africa (2000:11). The editors, both renowned industrial sociologists, were directly involved in the Labour Monitoring Group as well as the Sociology of Work Project and the emergenceof this work represents not only their affiliation with the above projects butalso a collaboration with the Albert Einstein Trust (Cambridge, Mass.). Thecoreof the argumentis articulated by the editors in both their preface andintroductionto the collection of contributions. Contrary to the conclusion of various social science writers who argue that labour can be construed as an unimportant actor or even an impediment to the consolidation of democracy (in that sectional demands mayconflict with democratic restructuring), Adler and Webster are explicit in contending that, through its accessto institutions and policy makingin the political democratisation in South Africa, labour has the potential to shape economic restructuring in a substantia] way suchthat the costs ofadjustmentare not borne by workersandthe poor alone. Theissue thus TRANSFORMATION43 (2000) ISSN 0258-7696 Review becomes one predominantly ofa class compromise. In fact, the authors even go further in their conclusion, correctly maintaining, in the view of this reviewer, thatif labour is marginalised from policy making, the consolidation of democracy and economic reconstruction may well be putat risk (2000:ix). The key issue thus relates to how the labour movementcan in essence best effectits strategy that would ensurethe desired outcome. Itis precisely this that represents the bone of contention. Thestrategic options conventionally available to the labour union movement includea ‘corporatist’ style of consultation and negotiation (alongthelines of the NEDLACarrangementadopted in South Africa as part ofthe transition) and ‘concertation’ (this latter concept drawing on the substantive work of Przeworski and others in their comparative perspective of policy options facing new democracies). Adler and Websterreject this approach as viewing the role of unions as being too functionalist and representing too narrow a perspective. The detailed analysis of the role of unions in South Africa’s more recent history suggests a much more fundamentalandcritical contribution for labourin thatit can adopta ‘radical reform’ alternative — broadly conceptualised by the authorsas being a situation where labouris not capturedbyeither capital or the state and it is both inside and outside the state. By virtue ofits independent powerbase,labour is able to mobilise outside state structures,yet through its alliance with the ANCit is able to influence state policy (2000:9) — the implication of this strategy being that labour can exercise its muscle outside as well as inside, thus dramatically impacting on policy making. If labour’s voiceis marginalised or rejected, unions can afford to be more militant and‘spoiling ’— in thatits special and unique (for recent democracies)relationship with the ruling party would ensure that its voice be heard and takenseriously. Whetherin fact the identification of this potential implies that labourwill successfully realise this envisaged role is the crux of the issue. The editors’ contribution in their introduction duly acknowledges the threats to a radical reform project, stemming from the unfamiliar political terrain of democratic transition (in contrast to representing a movementat the forefrontof the anti- apartheid struggle), the substantially changed macroeconomic environment posed by globalisation, neo-liberalism andstructural adjustment, the internal workings of the labour market and the possible capacity constraints of the union movementitself. In the viewpointof this reviewer (and admitting with the benefit of hindsight that the severity of some of the above threats was not as clear to the contributors at the time of writing the book), insufficient attention is provided to these threats — an issue I shall return to later. 103 Harry Zarenda The chapter by De Villiers and Anstey compares the role of the labour movementin the democratic transition of South Africa with that of Spain and Brazil. While muchof the chapter provides a concise outline of the history of labour union involvementin these countries, the authors identify the one distinguishing characteristic ofthe South African labour movement’s struggle during the apartheid struggle — that racial authoritarianism added a vital and decisive unifying dynamic to the opposition that was absent in the other examples (2000:38). The point these authors makein their conclusion (2000:39) ~ that once democratisation takes place and former opposition allies are transformedinto governingparties, interests and constituencies mustinevitably broaden — is at the essence ofsomeofthetransitionary problemsfaced in South Africa. In those countries where labour unions wereinstrumentalin mobilising against non-democratic regimes, once the mantle of democratic and representative government was achieved, dilemmas emerged regarding the degree of independencethe trade union movement mustseekto retain from government, as well as the extent of use of traditional strike and stayaway weapons. Jeremy Baskin’s contribution (Chapter 2) sets the parameters for alternative categorisations of policy options available for future sustainable development. Rejecting the deregulation approach, he argues for a form of ‘bargained corporatism’ and ‘concertation’ as the appropriate framework for the successful development of labour relations in South Africa. But he is emphatic that the success of this strategy requires a strong labour movement, not only in terms of ‘numbers and muscle’ (2000:54), but also on ideas and capacity. Furthermore, it requires a collective bargaining environment more structured and centralised than at present and giventhe ‘difficult’ context of globalisation — an approach fundamentally different from that adopted in the heyday of welfarism in a numberofindustrialised countries. The warning sounded by Baskin in the concluding paragraphofhis contributionis relevant: This imposes a heavy responsibility on organised labour.It suggests the union movement needs a renewal strategy, a revisiting of organisational structure, capacity constraints and its vision of social and economic transformation. Withoutthis the unions are unlikely to makethe transition from resistance to engagement. Either they will engage with tripartism and concertation without the active support of their members, or they swing inconsistently between cooperative and conflictual strategies. For labour the answers may not be clear. But, certainly, if unions act as if little has changed they will marginalise themselves and may even provoke a backlash which may undermine the democratisation process. (2000:54-55) Review In Chapter 3, Ian Macun presents a historical overview, and useful set of statistics on the more recent growth, structure and power of unions in South Africa. The racial nature of unionisation in South Africa could be considered a reflection of the ‘racist’ practices of the long-standing employer-worker relationship in South Africa, and, as long as this social context dominates,is likely to boost unionisation. Butthe ability of the union movementto achieve greater unity and cohesionis ultimately dependenton an ability to shape and influence macroeconomic managementandthe political process (2000:73). Sakhile Buhlungu’s contribution (Chapter4) highlights the manifold capacity problems faced by trade unions in South Africa — problems that became evident even before the consolidation of democracy phase occurred. Apart from substantial capacity enhancementthe credibility of the union movement for the future must ensure democratic decision-making and workercontrol, leadership accountability and proper servicing of union members. Karl von Holdt’s analysis in the form of a case study of NUMSA’s experiences atSTEELCOin Mpumalanga (Chapter5) highlights the difficulties unions have in forming a collective voice among vastly disparate interest groups. The next two chapters focus on what many regard as the point of departure, depicting the tensions within the tripartite alliance — the adoption of GEAR asthe democratic government’s flagship economic strategy,signifying a blatant rejection of the Reconstruction and Development Programme to which the union movement madeanintegral contribution. In PG Eidelberg’s contribution (Chapter6) the authortraces the formation and early evolution of the tripartite alliance between the ANC, COSATU and the SACP. Apart from the critique that the thrust of GEAR was regarded by COSATU and the SACP as being neo-liberal and antithetical to the broad objectives of the union movementand the CommunistParty,the ‘non-consultative and non-negotiable’ mannerin which it was adoptedstill represents a severe bone of contention. Eidelberg explores the options available to the ANC’s partners in the alliance and concludes thatthe latter might have to consider the option of reconciling themselves to a reduced role within the tripartite alliance. Breakaways could condemn them tothe political wilderness (2000: 156-7). Graeme Gotz (Chapter 7) arguesthat the ‘regovernmentalisation’ ofthe principles ofthe RDP brought about through union pressure could prove the saviour of a future labour movement— althoughthe possibility of this falling foul to forms of economic rationalism looks the more likely scenario (2000:188). Thefinal contributionto the collection is provided by Steven Friedman and Mark Shaw.This analysis focuses on the part played by South African labour 105 Harry Zarenda ; unions in the multinational negotiating forums which emergedin the early 1990s and continuedafter 1995, ie the National Economic Forum andNational Manpower Commission, which later were transformed into NEDLAC. The limited successes achieved by the labour movement in these negotiating forums have broughtinto question not only the value of corporatism as a way forward, but also the viability of a more militant radical reform strategy. The evidence discussed here suggests that participating in forums has at the very least, ensured labour’s continued role in policy-making... But the evidence suggests too that havinginserteditself into the policy process, labouris not assured of exerting substantive influenceonit. The fact that NEDLAChasbeen established does not mean thatit is assured of survival, nor that it is guaranteed influence, nor that labour is guaranteed either influence or poweron it. (2000:206-7) Friedman and Shaw are somewhatsceptical about the ability of the labour movementto embark seriously ona radical reform strategy-taking into account the substantially changed global environmentand the capacity problems ofthe union movement, drained of key personnelas a result of the transition. The crucial issue in the present context relates to whether unions, having asserted their right to become an influential social partner, can retain and sustain influence in the post-transition phase. In the authors’ opinion, this will ultimately dependonthe strategic choices which unions make (2000:210). The above contribution by Friedman and Shaw serves not only as an informed,critical, well-articulated summary ofthe issues presented throughout this excellent book, but also poses questions regarding a strategy agenda for the future. The pursuit of the above-mentioned agenda for South Africa’s labour movement is not going to be an easy task. As Duncan Inneshasrecently pointed out — it has become apparentthat the honeymoonperiod is over and the ‘pendulum has begun swinging back’ (a referencenotonly to the ending of the ‘cosy’ ANC government/labour unionrelationshipbutalso to ideological shift of the State to the embrace of much moreinternationally-induced orthodox economicpolicies) (Innes 1999). The State’s determinationto reinstate South Africa’s economy (as well as other African economies) into the global economy oughtnot to be underestimated and as such is regarded by someas being primarily responsible for many of the recent tensions inherent in the State’s alliance with the union movement.It could be that the union movement in South Africa is being subjected to the problems experienced by labour unions worldwide. That these have cometo this country rather suddenly, and induced tensions of the sort that the various contributions to the Adler and 106 Review Webster collection indicate, can be attributed to rather late re-emergence of South Africa into a profoundly-changed world economyafter the prolonged period ofisolation. The changedstructural featuresofthe end-of-the millennium world economy has induceda crisis for the labour movementuniversally that ought not to be underestimated in terms of its widespread significance. Coincidental to the appearance of the Webster/Adler edited work, a recently published book by GuyStanding (himself a co-author of what many regard as oneofthe recent definitive studies on the South African labour market) deals with the broad issue ofglobal marketflexibility (Standing 1999). He details the characteristics of this post-Taylorist phenomenonand the essence of this argumentis that flexibility spells doom for unionsin their present form. Countries worldwide are exhibiting shrinking union membership density. The shift from blue- to white-collar occupations, the disproportionate growth in small firm production, the general decline in employment, the shift in global production to non-unionised countries as well as the increased participation and incorporation ofwomen,youth and part-time workers whoseless than firm attachmentto the labour force makes union organisationdifficult — all combine to spell doom for trade union movements, according to Standing. The ‘New (market-regulated) Economy’ can beinterpreted as a system characterised by more insecurity, socio-economic fragmentation and detachment. Theera of market regulation will not be the ‘end of history’. Each era of flexibility and insecurity offers an opportunity to usher in a new schemeofdistributive justice. The twentieth century has seen the rise and fall of a schemethat placed labouratthe heart ofthe strategy for justice. Dominated by the image of the industrial society, with laws and regulations to keep the balance between capital and labour, and with labourprotection being the essence ofsocialprotection, in the end distributional conflicts could not be overcomeby statutory regulations and the enhancementoflaboursecurity. For a while, the welfare state achieved great progress. However, no schemefits all societies, and models devised in the twentieth century may not match the needsofthe coming era. (Standing 1999:337, italics added) Standing’s critical contribution in this extensively researched work suggests an innovative(if not entirely feasible) way out of the above impasse faced by union movements in the present global environment, a strategy that could have implications for impacting on the way in which the trade union movementin South Africa could attempt to resolve the dilemma of how positively and substantially to shape economic reconstruction in South Africa’s era of 107 Harry Zarenda consolidating democracy. He advocates a form of ‘voice regulation’ — Hirschmanian in essence and representing a stark contrastto the characteristic notions of ‘statutory and market regulation’ which dominated much of the previous century. This implies enabling all groups to put pressure on the powerfulto redistribute the gains ofgrowth. Institutions and processes mustbe sufficiently representative to promote distributive justice and dynamic efficiency. Standing advocates a network of citizenship/industry/company/ enterprise-based-union organisational structures, which would notall necessarily require central union affiliation — but would cut acrossspecifically functionally defined structures — as a mechanism forsuch voice representation. Community unions or citizenship associations (or, to use Heckscher’s term ‘associational unions’) which could incorporate not only the employed, but ' also flexiworkers and marginal wage earners as well as the unemployed — associated either on a geographical or more micro-based community basis and with a much moreactive role envisaged for personnel and placement agencies ’ (whoin turn could act as an intermediary voice — offering training, advice,etc) could suggest a way forward. The broad conclusionthat ‘... economic democracy within the production processis essentialif political and social democracyare to be meaningful and sustainable’ (Standing 1999:398) has immediate relevance to several of the issues raised in the Adler and Webster book. Standing’s contribution to the debate suggests a more fundamental and grassroots notion not only of democracy, but also ofthe labouring classes. Possibly the concepts of‘radical reform’ and ‘democratisation’, used so extensively in the most recent South African analysis by Adler and Webster, could assume new meaningin the ' context of Standing’s more global analysis? References Innes, D (1999) ‘Thabo Mbeki and organised labour’, The Innes Labour Brief 11(1) September. Standing, G (1999) Global Labour Flexibility: seeking distributivejustice. London: Macmillan Press. 108