Please enter your login details

You can also sign in with your Sowetan LIVE
and Sport LIVE account details.
   Sign Up   Forgot password?

Sign in with:

 
  • All Share : 40784.31
    UNCHANGED0.00%
    Top 40 : 3387.09
    UNCHANGED0.00%
    Financial 15 : 11117.02
    UNCHANGED0.00%
    Industrial 25 : 46858.79
    UNCHANGED0.00%

  • ZAR/USD : 10.2286
    UP 0.41%
    ZAR/GBP : 15.7859
    UP 0.11%
    ZAR/EUR : 13.5465
    UP 0.08%
    ZAR/JPY : 0.1050
    DOWN -0.41%
    ZAR/AUD : 9.4454
    DOWN -0.05%

  • Gold : 1341.7700
    DOWN -0.12%
    Platinum : 1411.5000
    UP 0.25%
    Silver : 21.0907
    DOWN -0.56%
    Palladium : 688.5000
    DOWN -0.07%
    Brent Crude Oil : 104.400
    DOWN -1.62%

  • All data is delayed by 15 min. Data supplied by I-Net Bridge
    Hover cursor over this ticker to pause.

Thu Jun 20 08:55:22 SAST 2013

Socialist party needed: iLIVE

Margaret Ferguson, Cape Town | 03 September, 2012 00:09
Cosatu general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi. File photo
Image by: THULI DLAMINI

As a former regional politician from the UK who specialised in education, I have followed the politics of South Africa with interest for the years I have been here (without a vote).

What I find frustrating in such a poverty-ridden country is that there is not a socialist party to represent the poor.

Trade union federation Cosatu is the obvious group to spearhead such a party, but with Zwelinzima Vavi at the head, it is in an "unholy" alliance with the ANC. Why an "unholy" alliance? Vavi frequently puts his finger on a point correctly, but has to find a compromised way forward with the ANC. This leads to a frustrated workforce that feels its interests are being compromised.

Ceduma Nocubhe asks in his letter "Vavi is correct about Cosatu" (August 30): "Is Vavi ready to lead the new breed of revolutionaries who will steer South Africa to economic freedom?"

That is like asking: "Will he set up a new political party?"

True socialism has hardly shown a successful economic face internationally, but now capitalism is beginning to show its ugly face, too.

Socialism is the obvious development needed for a realistic and viable alternative government, given the dissatisfaction and protests across South Africa.

This is not a criticism of the DA, but with the history of South Africa and the continuing divisions, a socialist party is probably the only type that could attract a large number of disgruntled (mainly black) urban voters.

Rural voters, as in my home country, tend to be traditional thinkers and voters, and I doubt that would change a great deal here.

But the urban vote is likely to be more volatile.

It would also develop a better democratic system if the government were truly threatened by a realistic opposition, even if a coalition was needed.

Of course decent education is a key factor needed for a break from traditional collective thinking and seeing opposition as "public enemy No 1" to more personally accountable decision-making.

Has South Africa got the time to wait for that to happen? Would the likelihood of the Marikana disaster have been reduced if the miners had the hope of a socialist party representing their interests?

An analogy I make from the UK is Winston Churchill leading an alliance of parties in World War 2. They subsumed their individual ideologies to win a war led by Churchill, just as an alliance of interests in South Africa had one purpose during apartheid - to break the system.

In both cases a conflict situation of national importance united the efforts for a single outcome.

But in peacetime, the individual ideologies emerge, so it becomes an "unholy" alliance.

"Collective" politics is untenable in a peacetime democracy.

SHARE YOUR OPINION

If you have an opinion you would like to share on this article, please send us an e-mail to the Times LIVE iLIVE team. In the mean time, click here to view the Times LIVE iLIVE section.