Institutional racism is still alive and kicking in the workplace

“Recent studies, including those by Eddie Webster, Karl von Holdt and Andries Bezuidenhout, have confirmed that, although the formal colour bar was codified by apartheid, this situation remains mostly unchanged. Even when black people occupy senior positions, they usually earn less, and have fewer benefits and less responsibility than white people. Increasingly, black applicants are required to have higher qualifications for jobs once done by less-qualified white people”

An Associate Professor at Wits School of Governance, William Gumede.

..Institutional racism is deeply ingrained in the corporate culture of many South African organisations. Its undermining of the wellbeing of black people, labour and racial peace and its effects on productivity are devastating. But many deny its existence, which means solutions will remain elusive.

Institutional racism is an assault on the dignity of black people. It undermines their health, causes anger and poisons their personal relations. It causes black people to continue to distrust white people, destroying the brittle social cohesion and pushing black people to seek answers in populism, such as calls for wholesale nationalisation.

Colonialism and apartheid were all-encompassing systems, involving not just individuals but also institutions, professions and the public and private sectors.

Sri Lankan race scholar Ambalavaner Sivanandan has described institutional racism as residing “in the policies, procedures, operations and culture of public or private institutions, reinforcing individual prejudices”. In short, it constitutes the “routine ways” in which organisations treat black people.

Because of this, black people receive less favourable treatment than white people. Such differential treatment need not be intentional, and may be practised by white managers whose professionalism is exemplary in all other respects.

Colonialism and apartheid made the dehumanisation of black people in all facets of life, including workplaces, normal. The treatment of black people in organisations is therefore based on the assumption that they are inferior to white people.

In the colonial and apartheid eras, organisational culture was based on the structuring of workplace power based on race — a clear racial division of labour, space, facilities and benefits. There was a racial hierarchy that reserved professional jobs and skills, top management positions and boardrooms for white people.

The workplaces were segregated, from having separate toilets and eating places for white people to lower salaries and less or no benefits and pensions for black people. Until 1994, some skills were reserved for white people only, and some properties were closed to black people.

The colonial and apartheid corporate model is generally based on low wages, minimal skills transfer and minimal rights for the predominantly low-level black employees. In contrast, mainly white executives receive huge remuneration, profit shares and benefits. Basic benefits such as housing, skills upgrades and medical aid are hard to come by for such low-level black employees.

During colonialism and apartheid, there were no obligations on organisations to regulate the health and safety of black employees, who were seen as inferior and therefore not in need of rights. So many black South Africans were victims of mine-related diseases, like asbestosis, which can be directly linked to institutional racism at mining companies and which made black people and their lives dispensable.

In the post-apartheid era, institutional racism is disguised in standard operating policies, whether it’s in the criteria for appointment or promotion, the measuring of competency or the valuing of ideas. The stereotype of black people as inferior has become embedded and white people’s interactions with black people are still largely based on the latter being staff with low pay, low skills and low benefits.

White privilege — still a dominant force in organisations — automatically renders white employees competent and black employees less competent, prone to corruption and having to prove themselves.

Recent studies, including those by Eddie Webster, Karl von Holdt and Andries Bezuidenhout, have confirmed that, although the formal colour bar was codified by apartheid, this situation remains mostly unchanged. Even when black people occupy senior positions, they usually earn less, and have fewer benefits and less responsibility than white people. Increasingly, black applicants are required to have higher qualifications for jobs once done by less-qualified white people.

Another manifestation of racism is the expectation that black employees should work harder than white employees and, because they are black, they should get less remuneration and fewer benefits because they can supposedly make do with less.

Black people in senior positions often have less decision-making power than white people in similar positions, but are expected to do more. Input by black people is often ignored, but if a white employee makes the same suggestion it is taken seriously and acted upon.

There has to be an unequivocal acceptance that institutional racism is widely entrenched. Organisations, especially those that predate 1994, should own up to institutional racism and perhaps set up their own truth and reconciliation commissions to investigate past racist practices. They should pay reparations to current and past employees, and should pursue genuine affirmative action.

Black employees must be treated with dignity, equality and respect. They need to remunerated at the same rate, receive the same benefits and have the same workloads as their white counterparts. Organisations must value black employees’ contributions.

All organisations should introduce compulsory awareness programmes on prejudice and diversity and should do regular race climate surveys to test institutional racism. Diverse workforces are needed to end institutional racism.

The Class Character of a Constitutional State

It can therefore be logically concluded that the Constitutional state is not only reformist but very much bourgeois in character” Argues Khubone

South Afrika is a constitutional democratic state. Essentially, this means that the conduct of all citizens, organisations and institutions ought to abide by the constitutional principles.

What is the class character of a constitutional state?

This question cannot be comprehensively answered without firstly conceptualising the Constitutional state as an abstract matter and secondly locating it in its historical context.

So, what is the historical materialist perspective of a constitutional state?

The concept of a constitutional state can be traced from the French philosophers who were the prominent thinkers during the Paris Commune which is also known as the French Revolution of 1789. Remember Montesquo, Diderot, Voltaire and Jean Rosseauw. See Robespierre 1793.
The essence of this historical event is firstly that it represents the overthrow of the Nobility (Ruling class) by the working class. Secondly the Paris Commune produced the 1st Constitutional state.

A constitutional state is therefore a product of struggle between the exploiting class (the Ruling class) and the exploited class (the working class). An interesting observation is that whereas the Constitution is a product of revolutionaty struggle it is not a revolutionary document. This is because it represents a synthesis that, organically, arises out of the struggle between the old thesis of the Ruling class’ exploitation and the antithesis of the revolutionary struggle. It, inherently, provides for the unity and the struggle of the opposites.

Notably, more often than not the ruling class is often formidable at a time of drafting the Constitution when compared to the Revolutionary Forces. The Constitution often results in the protection of private property and individual liberties. This means that the Constitution does not change the production and property relations in society but instead reinforces them albeit under the new regulatory framework.

It can therefore be logically concluded that the Constitutional state is not only reformist but very much bourgeois in character.

Revolutionaries should understand the Constitution as a means to a revolutionary end as opposed to it being an end in itself. Through legislative and popular mass power a Revolutionary movement must agitate for progressive constitutional change that will decisively change production and property relations. It is the decisive change in production and property ownership patterns that can progressively shift power relations in society.

Rhabula Speaks

The Fallacious nature of the Last Man Standing Approach.

“Meanwhile the opposition benches in parliament took the center stage and effectively led the direction of the debate on Nkandla, although in most times unceremoniously. ANC MPs, who had assumed the role of a mass choir for the president, dug in their heels, heckled and brilliantly argued for the lost cause”   Argues Siboniso  Ndlovu

“It would have been wrong, militarily, to fight to the last man.” That’s how Chris Hani explained the decision to retreat to Botswana during Wankie Campaign in 1967.

Let me sketch a brief background to the Wankie Campaign and that decision. By 1967, the military wing of the ANC, Umkhonto Wesizwe had been in existence for less than a decade. That countries bordering South Africa were still under colonial governments which were allies of the apartheid regime, meant that MK could not establish rear bases from which to launch sabotage attacks inside the country. As a result MK guerillas were stuck in camps in Zambia and Tanzania; getting frustrated at not being able to engage the enemy they had trained to fight. All they wanted to do was to come home and fight.

In Southern Rhodesian (Zimbabwe today), a liberation war was being fought. Angola and Mozambique were still colonial territories of the Portuguese. It was only after the Carnation Revolution of 1975 that Portugal would let its colonies go free. So a decision was taken by the military command that MK guerillas would have to fight through Southern Rhodesia into South Africa. Two units were formed in this regard comprising MK and ZIPRA (armed wing of Zapu – Zimbabwe African People’s Union). Such cooperation was necessary because Zipra forces knew the terrain well and understood the enemy, Southern Rhodesian security forces.

Shortly before the combatants set sail for the mission, tragic news came that the president of the ANC, Chief Albert Luthuli had died. The two units were named the Luthuli Detachment in honour of his memory. Once inside Rhodesia, the Luthuli Detachment fought running battles with detachments of the Rhodesian security forces and were constantly bombarded from the air.

Despite not having lost a battle, the sudden change of the terrain after they had passed the Wankie Game Reserve and were approaching Plumtree towards Matebeleland compelled those in command to review their tactics. Suddenly there were no mountains, nor trees nor cover in terms of vegetation. They had become a sitting dark for ariel bombardments by the enemy.

After some disagreement, they decided to retreat to Botswana which was already an independent African state enjoying good relations with the ANC. Hani said, that decision was taken in order “to build up our forces, as well as to re-establish contact with headquarters in Lusaka”.

“…TO FIGHT TO THE LAST MAN”

Why is it wrong, militarily? I’m not an expert in guerilla tactics, let alone any war tactic but even to a civilian, any war fought until the last soldier is killed, is a war of attrition. There can be no purpose to it other than martyrdom. The Nazis and the Italians did it during the Second World War. Hitler and Mussolini were killed in action. This tactic is reactionary.

Maybe by way of example. Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, landing three million soldiers in what is dubbed as the biggest military invasion in history, Operation Barbarrosa. In the winter of 1945, after brutal years of fighting, victory loomed for Germans as Moscow was within sight. And yet the cruel Russian winter had taken its toll on the Germans, their supplies were running dry and the Russian civilians had joined in repelling the invasion using even the basic implements like ice picks. The advancing German army had been reduced from three million to 900 000. To add to their woes, they were encircled. In response to the situation, the commander in charge sent a telegram to Hitler requesting permission to surrender.

Hitler’s response has now become infamous: “surrender is forbidden…you can show your soldiers one of two ways in the battlefield; one which leads to victory or one which leads to death.” So they continued fighting until eventually the commander defied Hitler and surrendered. By then his troops had been decimated to less than 100 000.

There! Right there lies the shortcoming of fighting to “the last man”. It’s pure attrition, aggression and cruelty, no morals, nor politics, nothing .

“FIGHT TO THE LAST MAN” on Nkandla

Since the Nkandla scandal broke in 2009, the ANC strategy to deal with it was flawed. In fact there never seem to have been a well-thought-out approach from the start. The tactics were always tweaked and adjusted to counter the rising protestations of whistle-blowers, civil society, opposition parties and finally the Public Protector.

Today we are almost unanimously agreed that things went horribly wrong in that “project”. Yup! But not at first. The scandal was initially played down. It was denial after denial. The spins sought to ring-fence the debate to be exclusively for the security experts. Somehow Minenhle Makhanya’s credentials in this regard were overlooked.

MDM structures were mobilised (or mobilised themselves) to aid in the cover-up. Meanwhile the opposition benches in parliament took the center stage and effectively led the direction of the debate on Nkandla, although in most times unceremoniously. ANC MPs, who had assumed the role of a mass choir for the president, dug in their heels, heckled and brilliantly argued for the lost cause.

Then the matter landed on the desk of the Public Protector and the tailspin began. A formidable team of cabinet ministers (Nxesi – Dpt. of Public Works, Mthethwa – Dept. of Police then, Cwele – State Security, Hadebe – Presidency) was assembled to effectively throw mud at the investigation of the PP. They tried to interdict the PP report being released. That created more controversy and in a sense whipped up public curiosity as to what the report would reveal.

As expected, a storm erupted when the PP released her report. The firepower directed at the PP intensified. Not only was the authority of her office undermined and questioned, her bona fides became the subject of slander as well. She was said to be a cabled CIA agent; a very serious and irresponsible allegation.

At that stage, parliament was brought to the battlefront. Or the battlefront changed location to parliament. The net was closing in, most definitely but still nobody had the premonition nor foresight that, eventually, the last man, the president would soon draw fire. When the opposition ultimately failed to amass enough support to hold the president accountable for Nkandla in Parly by implementing the recommendations of the PP, they referred the matter to the Constitutional Court.

All knew then that the battle had been lost. But what did they do? They ran straight into that ambush where they knew the risk was going to be high. At that battlefront, among others the President and the speaker of the National Assembly would be in the firing line. In fact the President actually became the first line of defense. Organizationally, that was a foolish thing to have done. With no one else left to repel the attack, the very last man was brought to fight. But the last man was exposed.

The last man saw that the battle had been lost and he surrendered by capitulating in the Concourt. Unfortunately it was a little too late. So why did the organization and the last man not make the strategic retreat right when the saga started? My subjective opinion is that President Zuma knew very well the authority of the institution of the PP.

After Mbeki removed him as deputy president in 2005, a power struggle ensued in which state organs were drawn in. Zuma lodged a complaint with the Public Protector, then Advocate Lawrence Mushwana. Mushwana found that his rights had been violated. Emboldened by that finding, Zuma traveled the length and breadth of the country doing organisational work and mobilising support for the challenge he was mounting for the ANC presidency. He often quoted the PP’s finding to elaborate on the conspiracy theory about being prevented to contest the position of president. Guess what? It worked!

So he clearly knew how monumental and sacrosanct the institution of the PP is. As for Nkandla, he gambled on the thought that he would be an exception, that somehow it would be toothless against his mass defence. Even so, he knew the position he had taken was doomed. So he carefully avoided having the PP’s findings on Nkandla being court reviewed by filling for judicial review. He resorted to cowardly “second-guess” the PP’s report and intimidate the PP with his mass support and state machinery.

The other day he apologised to the nation for his actions, citing ignorance of the law as an excuse. Again I’m no legal guru but I remember being informed that ignorance of the law doesn’t exempt an offender from liability. Yet it is strange that a person who was involved in the process of drawing up the constitution would act contrary to such a constitution, without knowing and whilst getting high level legal advice.

In a nutshell Mr President, your apology is still being processed. More than anyone else, you would know what that means.

-Siboniso Ndlovu is a frequent Contributor to Cheman Views- The People’s Blog.