Alea iacta est …

Now that the die has been cast — a predictable roll of the dice, mind you — all South Africans who care about their and the country’s future no doubt have something on their minds. For some, this assumes the form, mainly, of misgivings; for others, especially the poor, of hope. And if the impression that Jacob Zuma’s constituency includes the poor is correct, I, for one, hope that Zuma will not forget that their hopes and aspirations are set on him, and that he — assisted by able and knowledgeable advisers — will find creative ways to empower them economically, not only by means of handouts in the guise of social grants, but by increasingly creating conditions that will involve them in the economy.

And for this he cannot only depend on a capitalist economy, although growth in the economy does usually entail the availability of jobs. Instead, he should, in my humble judgement, find a compromise between a capitalist economy — which will, in all probability, still be with us for a long time to come, unfortunately — and that kind of democracy which is not only sustained by a progressive, human rights-oriented constitution as well as a corresponding justice and legal system, but also has a sense of what “distributive justice” means.

An analogy may help clarify what I mean. After the transition to democracy in early 19th-century France, peasants found themselves in a situation very similar to that of the poor in South Africa today, namely that they enjoyed “equality” (in principle, at least) with other citizens before the law, but continued to experience material or economic inequality. In the words of a member of philosopher Michel Foucault’s seminar group that researched the reasons for the brutal crimes in France during that time, the concrete violence inflicted on peasants during the preceding despotic regime of the aristocracy and royalty made way, in the newly democratic France, for “the abstract violence of money”. And it should not be difficult to understand that money (or lack of it) can be every bit as violent as the physical kind.

Anyone who has had experience of the difficulties involved in securing access to legal representation when it became necessary either to defend oneself in court or to attempt to “pursue justice” by taking someone else to court without large financial reserves at one’s disposal will know that so-called “justice” all too often seems to favour the wealthy. I recall a film, years ago, titled Justice for All, which commented wryly on this cruel irony of life. (In South Africa, admittedly, we have the fine institution of the Legal Aid Board, which, as far as I know, assists the impecuniary among us to gain access to appropriate legal representation — but it takes no genius to realise that the wealthy will always have greater access to high-flying lawyers and advocates than those that legal aid can provide.)

Hence, to return to the meaning of “distributive justice” — unless a society finds ways to create mechanisms (through taxation, for example) by which some of the wealth generated by an economy is collected for purposes of redistribution, “the abstract violence of money” will take its toll among the poor, and return to haunt it in the shape of excessive crime, for instance. Again, mere social grants will not suffice, although one should acknowledge that the Mbeki government, through its programme of extending social grants to several categories of people in South Africa, was in the process of promoting social welfare substantially.

Zuma, as newly elected president of the ANC, should strengthen and extend this programme in innovative ways — ways that go hand in hand with job creation in partnership with the private sector. As the experience of the social effects of the “dole” in the United Kingdom shows, people who survive on a social handout alone, minus the concrete experience of earning a living by working, seem to lack even the motivation to live meaningful lives. Only when one has the opportunity to work for a living can one be expected to become a self-respecting human being who lives a fulfilling life.

Needless to say, the capitalist private sector would not do this on its own. Seldom, in the history of the world, have the wealthy shown much concern for the poor — in the economic sphere, “self-love” reigns supreme, as Adam Smith (among others) noted more than two centuries ago. A quid pro quo is required — something that business needs must be exchanged for something the country’s poor need, namely jobs. Business needs circumstances where it can flourish (which a well-functioning government can provide); the poor need jobs. Is it asking too much that some of the profit that business makes (some of which it spends on colossal salaries for its executives — salaries certainly not necessary for living comfortably) should be channelled into job creation? Can one put a price on the future security, or the security of the future, for that matter, of this beautiful country?