How do we challenge neoliberalism and corporate globalisation? Can we develop demands that enjoy the support of those most severely affected and simultaneously lay the ground for an alternative system? How do we develop educational programmes that encourage critical thinking in countries where such thought is actively discouraged? Can the demand for reparations for damage caused by neoliberalism and its predecessors be conceptualised as part of a process of fundamental change? These are the types of questions that are tackled in the series of articles in this week’s Pambazuka News. The articles reflect a growing debate on economic alternatives to neoliberalism from countries as far afield as Mauritius, Swaziland and Mali. In this article, guest editor George Dor, who was responsible for bringing together these articles, introduces some of the issues playing themselves out in the debate over alternatives.

The search for alternatives to neoliberalism is increasingly being identified with the need to transform the entire capitalist system. Debate on socialism is gaining increasing prominence. It is not just the nature of the alternatives that is being explored. The perhaps even more critical question of the process towards these alternatives is also a focus of increasing attention. There is a clear recognition that abstract academic formulas will not provide lasting solutions. Alternatives have to be developed from the ground through struggle. This entails the development of appropriate strategies, with workers, the unemployed and the poor at the centre of decision-making. It also entails the development of a vision of a new society as well as the values and principles that should underpin it.

Resistance and Alternatives

The debate on alternatives has its roots in the relatively recent growth of resistance to neoliberalism and corporate globalisation. In keeping with international developments, there has been an emergence of organisations across the continent around issues such as debt, trade, privatisation, land, food security, water, large dams, conflict and war.

Much of the initial emphasis in these new organisations and related networks was on resisting the very real hardships faced by people in impoverished rural and urban areas, as well as on developing a greater awareness of the neoliberal causes of these hardships. But, even as these organisations were being formed, the question of alternatives was already appearing on the agenda.

As early as 1999, newly-formed Jubilee campaigns and anti-debt coalitions met in Lusaka, Zambia, and identified the need for an “Africa Consensus” in opposition to the Washington Consensus. The concept was further developed by the African anti-debt formations at the launch of Jubilee South later in the year and was renamed the “African Peoples Consensus” in recognition of the very different class interests on the continent. It received further support at a large event of organisations representing a range of sectors and interests, held in Dakar, Senegal, at the end of 2000.

The formation of the World Social Forum sparked forums at continental, regional, country and local levels. The African Social Forum (ASF) was first held at the beginning of 2002, and the Southern African Social Forum (SASF) met before the end of 2003 and for the second time in October this year. Many countries have held national social forums. Discussion on alternatives is an increasingly prominent feature of these forums.

The African Peoples Forum

A West African initiative, the African People’s Forum, has been convening every year since 2002. Just as the World Social Forum is counterposed to the World Economic Forum, the African Peoples Forum is held in opposition to the G8, at the time of the G8 annual meetings.

The four editions of the forum have been held in different outlying towns in Mali. There has been representation from, amongst other countries, Benin, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, DRC, Gambia, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal and Togo. The forums have included large numbers of small-scale farmers from the eight regions of Mali and the forum held in Fana this year had over 1000 participants.

Mrs. Barry Aminata Toure, Chairperson of CAD-Mali, a coalition for alternatives to debt, highlighted the importance of the forum in contesting the G8 and neoliberalism: “This People’s Forum is a critical opportunity to inform and sensitise African social movements on international political and economic mechanisms, which constrain the national policies of developing countries of the South. Faced with the G8, which plays the role of a totally illegitimate world board of directors, African social movements are organising themselves to formulate alternatives to current neo-liberal policies and are firmly resolved to show their determination.”

The forum in Fana was promoted under the slogan, “From Resistance to Alternatives”. It included debates on alternatives to the system of indebtedness and structural adjustment policies, reinforcing regional integration, finding a new approach to North/South relationships, the need to reinvent the education system in Africa, public funding and community participation in the management of basic social services, the possiblity of withdrawal from cotton agriculture, alternatives to the over-indebtedness of the farming community, alternatives to rice imports from the North and rural women’s access to land and agricultural inputs.

Given the large numbers of farmers, food sovereignty was a central issue. The forum concluded: “We refuse to become the waste bin of the world. We ask for just international regulations that guarantee an equitable trade. The international community should recognize our right to maintain, protect and develop our food capacity, while respecting the diversity of our crops and without threatening other countries’ food sovereignty. This right for each country - or region - we call the right to food sovereignty.”

Debating Values and Principles

Recently, there have been various activities on economic alternatives in Southern Africa, including an afternoon seminar at the African Social Forum in Lusaka, Zambia, in December last year and an economic alternatives workshop in Johannesburg, South Africa, in May this year.

The Lusaka event was a well attended and very well received event, highlighting the importance of engaging in debate on alternatives at events of this nature with a wide range of participants from different organisations and countries. There was a tangible sense that there is a widespread desire to take forward debate on alternatives.

The Johannesburg workshop built on this event by bringing together a somewhat smaller group of participants central to the question of alternatives in their organisations, sectors and countries. The nature of the workshop allowed for a more intensive interrogation of neoliberalism and debate on the nature of economic alternatives, including the process towards developing them.

The workshop concluded that it would again be important to further the debate at the Southern African Social Forum in Harare, Zimbabwe in October this year, including discussion on the values and principles that should underpin alternatives.

The forum was organised very differently to the Lusaka African Social Forum. The organisers deliberately organised the event outdoors in the major public park in central Harare to make it more accessible to people. In general, this proved to be very successful. There was participation in substantial numbers, perhaps some 3 000 in all, including many from the Harare townships and other parts of Zimbabwe. The event had the feel of a forum, with lively discussions, heated debates and very impressive cultural activities. This represents a significant advance on previous forums in Africa, which have often been criticised for coming across more as conferences than social movement events.

However, this did have the unfortunate consequence in that the venues for the different discussions were not easy to find. The economic alternatives activities were some of those negatively affected. The forum programme included various organisations that had applied to make presentations on different aspects of economic alternatives, but only three of these organisations were able to locate the venue.

The South African Centre for Economic Justice (SACEJ) took up the role of facilitating the day-long discussion. Other participating organisations convened a discussion on socialism at a different venue on the same afternoon. Unfortunately, these events took place separately. SACEJ facilitated discussion in a way in which participants were given the opportunity to express their views as to the vision they have of an alternative society and the principles that should guide us towards the realisation of that vision.

It was stressed that current conventional development processes are not acceptable to the majority. Few have benefited. The colonialists and those in post-independence leadership “enjoying the class system hierarchy” had and have ulterior motives. It was passionately stated that “it is time to rise up as people and fight this capitalism.”

The development of alternatives by consultants from abroad and the “NGO syndrome” was criticised. It was argued that universities intellectualise knowledge and make it irrelevant. Universities are not generating holistic, environmentally and economically sustainable approaches to development. Urban, male and age biases were noted and it was asked whether we at the forum, reflecting these biases, are qualified to raise the discussion on alternatives.

It was argued that there is a need to develop theories relevant to alternative economics. Students should be drawn in. We are not sharing information and documentation. People and organisations should pull together across clusters and sectors in developing economic alternatives. There is a need to strengthen and consolidate alternative networks and develop a think tank that interrogates alternatives.

There was a fairly extensive discussion on language. This was sparked off by points raised on the corruption and the black market. The phrase, “black market”, has a negative connotation and is but one example of the way in which the word “black” is used in negative terms. It also assumes that the legal market has an ethical standing. Why not rather use a phrase such as “parallel market”?

The forum itself proved to be far from immune to the use of problematic language. There was widespread dissemination of stickers attacking “Zhing Zhong” goods, motivated by concern at the increase in imports from China, but encouraging the racist conclusion that Chinese people are the problem, masking the neoliberal roots of unfair trade.

It was argued that there is a need for a paradigm shift. We need to move beyond criticising and start the important task of identifying true values and establishing clear principles. Values have to come from the heart. We should look at ourselves. “Are we social ourselves?” Capitalism is not far away, in fact it is within us. The “I factor”, “what do I get out of this”, tends to dominate even in forums like the Southern African Social Forum. We have to change our mindsets, we have to practice the values we identify, it starts with us: “Let’s start by socialising ourselves”.

We also need to be more proactive in setting the agenda. This needs to draw on past values. We have to rethink what we have been doing. For example, in the agricultural sector, we have been changing to modern systems, thus abandoning organic farming and indigenous systems, losing a lot of traditional knowledge. We must engage in research as to what is suitable and what is not.

There were many points made on culture and values. Marginalisation and Westernisation has destroyed cultural and social values. Family forms are being eroded. People have become selfish and corruptible. All too often the poor are exploiting the poor. We need to cultivate a positive image of us as African people, as against, for example, pentecostal values that counter our values. We must introduce cultural values into educational materials and instill these values into the educational system, radio and TV.

The process towards developing alternatives was also addressed. One shouldn’t impose external alternatives. We should be mere facilitators to assist the emergence and strengthening of people’s structures. Inclusion to the benefit of people and participation in decision-making are crucial. An alternative society should embrace the positive qualities of inclusivity and maximum participation of the historically marginalised. It should take into account all of its members.
There must be democratisation throughout society. Those who produce have more control over their lives. There must be democracy in the workplace and educational institutions.

Participants tried the difficult, if not impossible, task of capturing the essence of the values and principles of an alternative society in a sentence:

- An inclusive society where processes and structures combine to allow people to coexist and actively participate in economic and social systems and live a life of dignity and justice;

- An alternative society portrays and projects positive values about human existence and livelihood into economic and social production and encourages development processes with a respect for human dignity

The discussion on values was located within the current context of neoliberal power. It was asked how we work towards a society with our values given existing power relations. Transnational corporations have financial resources, machinery, technical expertise and patents and control trade. To defeat the enemy, sometimes you have to use their tools. For example, small sugar producers should come together to increase their power. Where rights are not given, they must be taken. The building of strong organisations is central to the task of taking up the struggle against neoliberalism and for an alternative society.

It was again stressed that: “It is not supposed to end here.” The discussions need to be taken forward. It was suggested that we need to continue to engage ourselves through a centre that can take up the tasks of disseminating information and networking around the issues.

* George Dor is with the Southern Africa Centre for Economic Justice

* Please send comments to [email protected]

In the context of this week’s G8 meeting, George Dor critiques the recent debt cancellation “deal” for Africa, the Blair Commission for Africa and the rise of Paul Wolfowitz to the top job at the World Bank. He concludes that they represent “nothing other than a new means of continuing the exploitation initiated under the times of conquest, slavery and colonialism”.

The upcoming G8 meeting or, more accurately as regards economic matters, the G7, to be held in Edinburgh, UK, will put the spotlight on Tony Blair’s Commission for Africa and the issue of debt.

Much has been made of the commission on the release of its report in March and the announcement on debt consequent on the meeting of Finance Ministers in preparation for the G7. But, at most, these developments amount to little more than a reflection of the need to react to the persistence of the activities of Jubilee and other social movements over the years. A closer look at these initiatives suggests very little to celebrate.

Debt “Cancellation” and Control of Africa’s Economies

Starting with the debt issue, the ministers announced an amount of debt to be cancelled of a mere US$40 billion for African and other countries. This is a fraction of the total debt of African countries of US$300 billion and of countries in the South of US$2 400 billion. It is less than the amount of more than US$50 billion that the United States spends EACH YEAR on its illegitimate occupation of Iraq.

It also compares poorly with the G7 offering in Cologne, Germany, in 1999 of US$100 billion. Moreover, the intermittent promises of the G7 include amounts promised before but not fulfilled. In other words, they are little more than recycled promises.

In the case of the Cologne announcement, the real intention was not to provide debt relief but to rescue the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank from their crisis of legitimacy and enforce their continued control over the economic policies of the countries in the South. The institutions were strengthened in the form of the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) and Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs). Of course, these new initiatives were also quickly exposed for what they really are, structural adjustment in new guise.

Most importantly, the current offering, like that of 1999, is contingent on countries implementing economic reforms, in other words it is premised on a fundamental difference with the Jubilee South slogan, “total and unconditional debt cancellation”. This is cancellation for countries that have gone through the IMF and WB hoops, those that accept these institutions’ structural adjustment conditions. In other words, it is another deal to strengthen the IMF and WB.

Previously, the G8, IMF and WB have used debt as an instrument to dictate our economies in the form of making loans for debt servicing conditional on IMF and WB policies. Now debt relief/cancellation and grants are being put forward as the new instruments to dictate our economies. If a country wants relief, it first has to meet the prescribed conditions, it has to toe the line.

A related critical point is that debt relief/cancellation does not necessarily translate into more money to spend on meeting people’s needs. The relief may indeed result in less debt servicing, but this is only forthcoming if countries have agreed to the conditions that include cuts in government spending and promotion of the private sector. Indeed, this is the case in Zambia: in order to jump through the hoops to be included in the G7 list of 18 countries, it had to further cut state expenditure over and above the decades of cuts that the debt regime had already forced on the country. That is to say, it will get cancellation with less money to spend on people’s needs.

On the word “cancellation”, this does seem to be an advance on the previous rhetoric of debt “relief”, but the offer only covers 18 countries and it is not yet clear whether it amounts to 100 percent cancellation even for this short list of countries. In the case of the Latin American countries, for example, much of their debt is related to a multilateral institution, the Interamerican Development Bank.

The Blair Commission, Neoliberalism and the International Financial Institutions

As regards the Blair Commission, in its opening lines it states, “For its part, Africa must accelerate reform.” There are two important issues here. First, the report suffers from the recurrent syndrome of blaming the victim for corruption, conflict and war. There are indeed too many instances of African leaders who are guilty of one or more of these charges. But, the role of the Northern countries in slavery, colonialism and the imposition of neoliberal policies and the impact of these Northern interventions on poverty and death across the continent are simply ignored.

Secondly, while the report more explicitly refers to reform of political governance in order to address corruption and conflict, it also makes repeated references to various forms of “economic reforms”. In other words, in failing to address the neoliberal cause of so much of Africa’s current destitution, it simply reiterates that Africa must continue to follow this neoliberal path at a faster pace.

This is perhaps most evident in relation to the report’s treatment of the multilateral institutions. It fails dismally to address the negative impact of the World Bank and IMF on the destruction of African economies and the poverty and death that this has led to. It has been estimated that World Bank and IMF structural adjustment programmes are responsible for the deaths of 19 000 children in the world every day. Yet, the report simply asserts that “The African Development Bank needs to be strengthened… The IMF and World Bank need to give higher priority to Africa’s development.”

Paul Wolfowitz, Military Invasion and Economic War

It is no small surprise that the new President of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz, echoed this call and visited the continent immediately on assuming office. Wolfowitz was the architect of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which led to the expansion of United States military influence in the Middle East and the awarding of multi-million and billion dollar contracts in Iraq to corporations with close ties to the Republican Party leadership.

He has a history of being against détente and arms control during the years of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. He supported Asian dictators like the Indonesian General Suharto on behalf of the Reagan administration. He has been a persistently strong proponent of more spending on defense.

Wolfowitz was eagerly pushing for regime change in Iraq well before 9/11. He defined leadership as, “not lecturing and posturing and demanding, but demonstrating that your friends will be protected and taken care of, that your enemies will be punished, and that those who refuse to support you will regret having done so." He helped convince George Bush 1 to use force to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, and urged Bill Clinton to turn his attention “to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power.”

He lied about the purported weapons of mass destruction and claimed, "Intelligence about terrorism is inherently murky, and the US must be prepared to act on less-then perfect information.” He later admitted that oil was a significant reason for the invasion and occupation, stating that North Korea will only be treated to sanctions because it is not sitting on “an ocean of oil”.

The sinister combination of George Bush’s appointment of his man in Iraq to lead the World Bank with the call for the World Bank to play a more significant role in Africa is now being pushed as a boost for Africa’s development. Wolfowitz’ role in the destruction of Iraq and the World Bank’s role in poverty and death on the African continent are being brushed under the carpet. Trevor Manuel, South Africa’s Minister of Finance, described Wolfowitz as a ‘wonderful individual, perfectly capable’. Even some critics are suggesting that Wolfowitz be given a chance in his new role and that the World Bank be given yet another chance on the continent.

Wolfowitz visited Nigeria, Burkino Faso, Rwanda and South Africa from 12 to 18 June. Jubilee South Africa and the Anti-War Coalition organised two demonstrations on 17 June, one outside the offices of the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation and the other at the Gauteng Provincial Department of Finance and Economic Affairs. The message was clear: “Paul Wolfowitz is not welcome in South Africa, he must go home! The World Bank, its partner, the IMF and related international financial institutions should be shut down!”

For Jubilee South Africa, the opposition to these institutions is based on both their role in the use of debt to impose structural adjustment in the countries of the South as well as their impact on South Africa. The World Bank and IMF supported the Apartheid regime and its institutions in the form of substantial loans until they were instructed to stop doing so. They have returned in the post-Apartheid era to shape the country’s neoliberal macroeconomic and social policies, manifesting in rising unemployment and lack of access to social services.

The Blair Commission, Trade and Resources

The Blair Commission’s handling of trade issues also reflects its insistence that Africa insert itself into the neoliberal global world. It calls on Africa to produce cheaper goods for the world market and suggests that rich countries allow African goods somewhat more access to their markets. In other words, African countries are being told to continue on the path of orientating their productive activities towards exports at the expense of producing the goods and services needed by the people of Africa.

The report’s recommendations on trade must be seen within the broader context of a world in which the World Trade Organisation (WTO) has assumed enormous power and in which unbalanced regional trade agreements are being foisted on African countries. African economies are being opened up to the goods of Northern countries, undermining local production and resulting in increasing unemployment. The report’s approach will, at best, offer limited opportunities to larger-scale private sector enterprises with the capacity to engage in export activities, while continuing to undermine small-scale production, rural economic activity, food security and the like.

The commission does highlight some of the most glaring manifestations of Northern exploitation of the continent. For example, it talks of “conflict resources” and implicitly acknowledges that Northern banks are holding stolen assets, Northern corporations are guilty of making bribes, and the oil, minerals and other extractive industries are less than open about their payments. However, its recommendations in this regard are by and large vague. It notes that “assets stolen from the people of Africa by corrupt leaders must be repatriated” and “Firms who bribe should be refused export credits.” From previous experience, there just isn’t the political will or clout to give effect to these recommendations.

As for resources, the commission is very much in keeping with the meagre offerings of the Finance Ministers in relation to debt. It suggests a mere US$25 billion per year to be committed by donor countries, to be implemented by 2010. This could be doubled by 2015, subject to the condition that “good governance in Africa must continue to advance.”

It argues that half of this amount should go to education and health. It makes positive recommendations on removing primary school and patient fees, but instructions of a similar kind by the United States Congress to the Treasury, World Bank and IMF have gone unheeded before. Most significantly, the pennies proposed in the report won’t come near to restoring the levels of finance to health and education on the continent so consistently undermined by the World Bank and the IMF in the decades of imposed structural adjustment.

Finally, the report argues that a third of the 25 billion a year should go to “growth and poverty reduction”, a euphemism for an increased role for the private sector and a “doubling of expenditure on infrastructure”. This includes large, regional transport and power projects. To date, projects of this sort have realised large profits for Northern and South African corporations at the expense of increasing indebtedness and environmental destruction on the continent.

There are substantial similarities and convergences between the Blair Commission and Thabo Mbeki’s New Partnership for Africa’s Development (Nepad). This is particularly so in their neoliberal orientation towards the World Bank, IMF, trade and large infrastructure projects. The report has no qualms about exposing Mbeki’s capitulation to the neoliberal approach in stating that, “The developed world must support the African Union’s Nepad programme to build public/private partnerships in order to create a stronger climate for growth, investment and jobs.”

The Blair Commission and the G7 Finance Ministers’ announcement on debt thus represent no more than two additional moments in the decades of neoliberal exploitation of the continent. This is, in turn, nothing other than a new means of continuing the exploitation initiated under the times of conquest, slavery and colonialism.

* George Dor is Jubilee South Africa General Secretary.

* Please send comments to

In the sugar-dominated economy of Mauritius, workers demanded from their bosses that they be allowed to plant vegetables in between rows of sugar cane, the beginning of a broader campaign to convert land under sugar to land for food production and thus develop an alternative economic system. In the context of rampant neo-liberalism, how can alternatives be constructed and what are the strategies and methods that can be adopted? A recent conference entitled ‘Economic Alternatives to Neoliberalism’ took place in Johannesburg and tackled exactly these issues. George Dor from the Southern Africa Centre for Economic Justice provides more details.

Alternatives to today’s dominant neoliberal system must be built from the bottom up. They must be developed through worker and community struggles against the very real ways in which workers and communities are oppressed by the imposition of neoliberal policies.

The development of alternatives entails transforming the state from one that serves neoliberal interests to one that addresses people’s needs. It also requires doing away with certain institutions that advance corporate globalisation. In particular, the World Bank should be shut down.

Alternatives to neoliberalism should not culminate in a more welfarist version of capitalism. They need to challenge the capitalist system itself and lead to a socialist society different from the examples to date that have been called ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’.

These are some of the points that resonated at a workshop, titled Economic Alternatives to Neoliberalism, organised by the Southern African Centre for Economic Justice (SACEJ) and the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation (RLS) and held in Johannesburg, South Africa, in May.

The Growth of Resistance to Neoliberalism in Southern Africa

The workshop was an outcome of an increasing interest in debating alternatives in the region. This, in turn, is a consequence of the rapid growth of resistance in various organisational forms over the last few years contesting neoliberialism in our region.

These developments are a reflection of the international upsurge in activism against corporate globalisation, including the Zapatista uprising of 1994, the building of international solidarity in support of the Zapaptistas and against neoliberalism, the growth of the Jubilee campaign calling for the cancellation of debt, the Seattle protests against the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 1999, subsequent actions against the WTO, World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the formation of the World Social Forum (WSF) and the growth of the international anti-war movement.

Southern Africa has seen the emergence of organisation around issues such as debt, trade and war. It has also seen the mushrooming of grassroots organisations around issues affecting people’s daily lives, such as privatisation, land, water and large dams. In some countries, these organisations have come together in the form of economic justice networks and this has been complemented by various regional networks.

The formation of the World Social Forum has sparked forums at continental, regional, country and local levels. The African Social Forum (ASF) was first held at the beginning of 2002, and the Southern African Social Forum (SASF) met before the end of 2003. Last year, Malawi and Zimbabwe have held national social forums.

The development of these organisational forms has in large measure been prompted by the very real hardships faced by the vast majority of people, both urban and rural, in the countries of the region. The content of organisational activities and struggles has initially of necessity been largely one of contesting the conditions in which the majority find themselves. This has included protest against the harsh realities of life, such as non-delivery of basic needs, high charges for services of poor quality, local corruption and enrichment of the few at the expense of others, to name a few.

Many organisations and networks have played an important role in educating people about the local, national, regional and international context which results in the gross levels of poverty and inequality experienced in the region. There has been a significant deepening of understanding of the way in which neoliberalism undermines people in their places of work and in their communities. The World Social Forum, held for the first time in 2001 under the banner “Another World Is Possible”, raised the inevitable question as to how this other more people-friendly world can be built and the beginnings of attempts to address this question.

Debating Alternatives at the African Social Forum

These developments prompted the hosting of a three-hour seminar at the African Social Forum, held in Lusaka, Zambia, in December last year. It proved to be a very popular event and attracted nearly 200 people.

It was noted that the relative lack of attention to alternatives was perhaps in part due to a fear of reopening divisions that characterised the left in years past. It was also out of concern not to make the mistake of speaking on behalf of people affected by neoliberalism. Nonetheless, elements of alternatives have been part of debate and practice. For example, in Africa, documents such as the Lagos Plan of Action and the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (Uneca) critique of structural adjustment were fundamentally different to the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (Nepad). Anti-debt campaigners have called for and developed ideas around and African People’s Consensus to contest the Washington Consensus. Public sector delivery has been promoted in opposition to water privatisation. Land redistribution, agricultural support and food security have been stressed against GMOs.

The seminar debated how we start to give content to the slogan “Another World is Possible” and how do we do so in a way in which people in social movements drive the development of alternatives.

It was said that talk of alternatives from the top down will run into problems. There is a need to share collective knowledge to demand alternatives. We need social movements to catalyse social change. We must be part of building a groundswell against neoliberalism. In addition, we need to address a theoretical gap, to debate, develop and clarify our ideology. It is important to identify our enemy. We are not fighting poverty, but a system that is ripping us off. We must start to search for alternatives from a position of strength. We have to start talking about political power and collective ownership.

People continued debating in groups and added that we must discuss an alternative vision in local languages, hear people’s voices and develop this vision from the grassroots. This alternative vision must draw from local experiences and emphasize humanity. It must be community based and put people first, not profits. Debate must start on the ground and move to the national, the regional and the international levels. Debate is important because, when you define where you stand, this opens up possibilities for defining solutions. But, debate should result in concrete action and solidarity.

The level of energy and enthusiasm in the seminar and the positive response to the question of whether we should take these debates forward beyond the social forum prompted the organisation of the May workshop. It was attended by some 100 participants, including representation from the union sector, labour researchers, academics, community organisations, social movements, organisations of displaced persons, gender and youth organisations and national and regional economic justice networks.

Understanding Neoliberalism in Southern Africa

On the first day of the workshop, participants shared their collective knowledge of how neoliberalism affects the people of Southern Africa. They provided information on their country experiences, which highlighted the very similar ways in which all the countries in the region are affected.

For example, the textile company, Ramatex, played off three countries, namely Namibia, South Africa and Madagascar, against each other. The Namibian Government exempted the company from taxes, ploughed US$100 million into providing infrastructure for the company’s operations, ensured labour at rates from R300 to R600 a month, required that prospective employees are tested for pregnancy and allowed the company to operate free of health, safety and environmental regulations. The company locked up its factory in the Eastern Cape, an impoverished region of South Africa suffering from a high rate of unemployment, leaving 5 000 people without jobs, and set up in Namibia. This is portrayed by the Namibian Government as a success story.

The state subsidy of the clothing and textile companies in Namibia, Swaziland, Lesotho and other countries in the region has, at most, provided temporary employment in these countries as the imminent lifting of WTO quotas on Chinese exports will lead to a relocation of production to China.

Privatisation is a key feature of neoliberalism and is being implemented throughout the region. In Tanzania, 45 000 public sector workers lost their jobs, virtually overnight. In Zambia, the figure is 60 000. Privatisation has been accompanied by the growth of labour broking, in which some retrenched workers are hired on a contract basis as non- unionised labour at lower wages and without benefits.

The impact of privatisation is acutely felt by communities throughout the region in the form of the increased cost of services such as water and local telephone calls as well as the decline in the standard and quality of services provided. Inability to pay for housing and services has led to disconnections and evictions. Prepaid meters are increasingly being used to deny people access to services.

The workshop took place on the eve of the new president of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz, taking up office and after his stated intention to visit Africa, so the World Bank received special attention. The World Bank, together with the IMF, has used debt as a means to exert a central role in imposing neoliberal policies on countries throughout the region. In Zambia, these institutions have used the promise of ‘debt relief’ under the Highly Indebted Poor Country Initiative (HIPC) to intensify cuts in government services and force through privatisation of almost all parastatals. Teachers and nurses earn a pittance, but even so the country cannot stay within the spending limits imposed on government services. When targets are not met, the IMF and World Bank cut resource flows and signal to other funding sources to follow suit. Zambia is thus ‘condemned to debt’.

In Tanzania, these institutions are again promising ‘debt relief’, together with growth and employment, under the latest variant of structural adjustment, namely the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs). People have been called on to participate in writing these papers, but the ministry leading the process is that of finance and the international institutions continue to dictate the overarching macroeconomic policy, resulting in a widening gap between rich and poor.

The compliance of the new post-colonial elites has been a central feature in implementing these neoliberal policies. In most countries in the region, the burden of debt makes it very difficult to withstand the imposition of structural adjustment, but, in the case of South Africa, only a small portion of its debt was owed to the World Bank and IMF. Yet, the Government introduced the Growth, Employment and Redistribution Strategy (Gear), which bears all the hallmarks of a structural adjustment programme. Moreover, the South African Government has been central to launching the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, endorsing the features of and the institutions that impose structural adjustment.

This facilitates the opening up of the region to the giant corporations and finance houses of the North. At the same time, it creates opportunities for South African corporations to impose themselves on the region and across the continent. These corporations have already had a devastating impact, destroying local production and employment, plundering mineral resources and damaging the environment. Now, the United Kingdom’s Barclays Bank, a key supporter of the Apartheid regime, is bidding to take over the South African ABSA bank, with the willing agreement of the ABSA executive, because the deal will open opportunities to, in the words of the ABSA CEO, “rule the continent”.

These are some of the ways in which neoliberalism manifests at an economic level. Women bear the brunt of these policies. They bear the cost of the failure of neoliberalism to provide services, both financially and emotionally. Women fetch water, bring up children and take care of the sick. This burden is increasing as the impact of HIV/Aids intensifies. The youth in the region are misplaced, unable to find jobs and therefore not in a position to participate economically in society.

The cumulative impact of neoliberalism, structural adjustment and corporate greed is perhaps most starkly illustrated by the deep decline in infant survival rate and life expectancy throughout the region.

But neoliberalism cannot be seen merely in economic terms. Its disastrous consequences inevitably generate resistance, involving various levels of organisation. The implementation of the neoliberal project thus entails both ideological and repressive elements.

At the ideological level, neoliberalism hides behind the façade of democracy. The G7 governments and the international financial institutions have blamed governments in countries suffering the consequences of structural adjustment and the new international trade regime for being corrupt and engaging in wars. The response in the form of Nepad and from many individual countries has been to agree to multiparty democracy and a limitation in presidential terms of office. Yet, policies such as Gear and Nepad and the macroeconomic elements of the PRSPs are strictly non-negotiable.

Neoliberalism also relies on the media, educational institutions and the homogenisation of culture to impose a set of ideas at odds with reality. People are told there is no alternative to the status quo, that this is the way it is. The youth are encouraged to aspire to be rich, in an environment where there are few job opportunities. They are inculcated with notions that individualism and greed are necessary qualities to this end. Lack of service delivery is accompanied by housing lists, prepaid meters and other mechanisms of control that escalate individualism into competition amongst the poor for insufficient resources, fuelling antagonisms such as xenophobia. People are encouraged, from an early age, through advertising and Western forms of culture to aspire to the individual purchase and ownership of commodities and property.

When these mechanisms fail to stem the collectivisation of anger into increasingly organised forms of resistance, the neoliberal system resorts to repression in the forms of legislation restricting protest, national intelligence gathering and the use of the police and military forces. In the case of Zimbabwe, the introduction of structural adjustment led to the free fall of the Zimbabwean dollar, dramatic cuts in services and jobs, resistance and repression. The emergence of the opposition party from the labour movement led to an intensification of violence. The combination of lack of economic opportunities and political violence has resulted in millions of Zimbabweans fleeing the country. Those that have tried to settle in South Africa are continuously harassed by the South African neoliberal state that also faces a crisis of unemployment.

The workshop participants were quickly disabused of the notion that South Africa has moved beyond its violent Apartheid past through the showing of video footage of a peaceful demonstration protesting the lack of service delivery in Harrismith, a small town in the Free State province. The police suddenly, without warning, fired into the crowd, resulting in instant chaos and killing one person. Violence is thus not merely a manifestation of the rule of undemocratic leadership in counties such as Zimbabwe and Swaziland. It is, rather, an essential feature of neoliberalism.

This is not the only way in which violence occurs. The region, in particular the Democratic Republic of the Congo, is a battleground between competing corporate interests. At an international level, the appointment of Wolfowitz as President of the World Bank is perhaps the most graphic illustration of the interrelatedness of neoliberalism and war.

Towards Alternatives to Neoliberalism in the Region

On the second day, the workshop moved towards debating alternatives on the basis of the collective understanding developed on the first day. An initiative was started last year, called Alternatives to Neoliberalism in Southern Africa (Ansa). It has been developed by researchers and research institutions affiliated to labour movements in the region. A concept paper was presented to and debated by the regional trade union body, SATUCC and it was agreed to do various sectoral studies. This process is nearing completion and the intention is now to debate the concept paper and sectoral studies amongst unions and social movements at national level.

The Ansa initiative identifies the state as a crucial site of struggle and sees the transformation of the state as critical to the implementation of alternatives. There was extensive debate about the nature of the state in Southern Africa. It was argued, on the one hand, that the nature of the state is essentially capitalist and that Southern African states are cogs in the big machine of global capitalism and, on the other, that the state is inherently neutral and can be reclaimed. The notion of the state as a capitalist state and as an institution that needs to be transformed thus requires much more debate.

It was also argued that the state is under siege, that it is disappearing and that it is becoming non-existent. This was countered by the perspective that the North needs the Southern African states, but in changed form, as vehicles to open up the region to Northern interests. The state is thus increasingly disappearing as a provider of services and a mechanism for regulating corporations and, simultaneously, increasingly visible as an instrument of repression.

The Ansa initiative also defines Africa as badly integrated into the global economy. It was integrated under colonialism and continues to be integrated in a way that reinforces exploitation. This requires selective delinking from the global economy and relinking on Africa’s terms. Related to this point is that of poor cooperation between states in the Southern African region and the domination of the South African economy over the other countries of the region. It is thus important to build a strong and balanced regionalism to both allow for integrated development across countries of the region and generate the economic weight to relink into the global economy on the region’s terms.

The bottom-up approach to developing alternatives, as so clearly stressed at the Lusaka seminar, was reiterated throughout the workshop. Alternatives must be based on the here and now. They have to be developed within the ambit and experience of the working class. We have to support grassroots struggles and become part of the rank and file. We must point the way forward beyond what already exists and challenge the rank and file towards developing a vision.

It was suggested that there are fundamental differences between neoliberalism and welfare capitalism and that there are many similarities between Keynesianism and Marxism. But it was countered that welfarism is introduced at times when capitalism is being challenged, in order to protect the rule of profit and the capitalist system. Neoliberalism is, in turn, introduced at times when the capitalist system encounters problems of accumulation, in order to address the crisis of profitability. There was broad support that an alternative vision needs to look beyond the capitalist horizon and identify methods and actions to challenge the rule of capital. Accommodation within the capitalist system will not provide a lasting solution. We need a different world “for all workers, at all places, for all time”.

The campaign for an alternative economy in Mauritius, led by Lalit, provides a good example of how to link the here and now to the development of an alternative economy. It entails building confidence through struggle. This requires the development of reasonable and winnable demands. These demands, in turn, need to be consistent with the development of an alternative economy, in this way functioning as the germs of a new society.

The Mauritian economy is based on the sugar, textile and tourism industry, all of which are in crisis. Lalit held discussions with workers in the sugar and agricultural industries who were anxious about their jobs. This led to a small pamphlet that served as a tool to initiate discussion. A demand that did not directly threaten the bosses was developed, namely to interline the rows of sugar cane with vegetables. This was followed by a demand that government taxes the sugar cane fields that are not interlined. This is now part of a broader campaign to convert land under sugar to land for food production, a key element of an alternative economy.

Various specific alternatives were explored, including the development of cooperatives and participatory budgeting. The Malawi Economic Justice Network, in its short few years of existence, has already grown to the point where it develops detailed analyses of the national budgets, educates parliamentarians on budgetary issues and influences government in its budgetary decision-making.

It was noted that cooperatives and participatory budgeting do not necessarily constitute the building blocks of alternatives to the neoliberal system. They can be used for strengthening the system or for fighting against it. Cooperatives must be economically successful, inspire confidence and be part of democratic movements in order to be part of the solution. Likewise, participatory budgeting must start from the ground and must incorporate more than just shifting money into different categories towards changing the way in which government works.

It was suggested that all too often organisations are focused on their own issues and concerns. Building alliances, demonstrating solidarity with other struggles and engaging in joint campaigns are vitally important. For example, the region has been so decimated by the World Bank and IMF that organisations across countries need to stand together in opposing these institutions. The Wolfowitz presidency provides the ideal opportunity to link with the anti-war movement to build an international coalition against the role he played in the “military war” against Iraq and role he is now assuming in the “economic war” against Africa. This is a key moment to intensify the call to shut down the World Bank and other international financial institutions. Of course, this in turn provides the opportunity to debate the forces behind these institutions and identify further strategies against the G7 governments, transnational corporations and finance capital.

Any attempt to build economic alternatives to neoliberalism also needs to take account of its ideological and repressive elements. As potentially viable alternatives are developed, the neoliberal system will do all in its power to repress these initiatives. Therefore, as well as being visionary and identifying offensive demands towards realising that vision, attention must also be given to defending the space that is available to develop alternatives. The closing down of forms of expression, passing of restrictive legislation and acts of violent repression must be resisted together with the building of alternatives. Maintaining the space to be able to develop alternatives is thus an integral dimension of the struggle for alternatives.

Taking the Next Steps

The final day of the workshop considered practical ways forward. It was noted that the workshop was perhaps a first of its kind in bringing together such a wide range of organisations and movements for a rigorous discussion of this nature. In particular, it was recognised that the participation of people from the labour sector together with people from social movements and economic justice organisations was a major step forward.

Two divergent experiences of the unions and social movements were highlighted. In Angola, trade unions have only emerged in the last decade or so and are concerned primarily with wages. For example, the teachers union is not yet taking up issues relating to the lack of classroom facilities, syllabi, books and the like. There is very little interaction with other organisations.

In Namibia and South Africa, the unions were a central force for political change in the years of Apartheid. But they have since separated themselves from their social base in the communities. The unions engage in dialogue with government and business, the social movements resist neoliberalism in the streets.

This workshop thus signifies an opportunity to forge new alliances and to overcome divisions and rebuild old alliances.

All participants at the workshop will take forward the issues and debates in their organisations. National networks will share the debates amongst their members. Regional networks will identify ways in which to take forward joint campaigns, two of which include the campaigns to shut down the World Bank and against Barclays and ABSA. The Ansa initiative and SACEJ will explore ways to deepen debate between unions and social movements.

Finally, an event to share and take forward the debate will be organised to take place at the Southern African Social Forum, scheduled to take place in Harare, Zimbabwe, in October this year.

* Please send comments to [email protected]