Nepad: goodbye to colonialism?
For South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki, the evictions of land protestors and the drive to privatisation are central to his vision of a supposedly modern South Africa in a supposedly modern Africa. One illustration of the road he is travelling is the role Mbeki has played in the replacement of the Organisation of African Unity, which for all its weaknesses promoted itself as a tool of liberation struggles, with a new neo-liberal institution, the African Union.
Here we print a article written for Indymedia South Africa in July, by Dale McKinley , on behalf of the Anti-Privatisation Forum (Johannesburg)
Recent issues in the South African mainstream media certainly give the impression that there are precious few South Africans offering dissenting voices aimed at the soon-to-be launched continental institution, the African Union (AU), and its programmatic sidekick, Nepad.
The consistent and lavish praise heaped on both of these endeavours, and on their main architect, President Mbeki, paint a generally uncritical picture (save for a few disgruntled northern NGOs).
We are led to believe that the AU and Nepad present an unparalleled historic moment in which Africa will say goodbye to the "epoch of colonialism and neo-colonialism", enter into a relationship of mutual respect and fairness with the core capitalist countries (the G-8) and embark on a fast-track path towards "good governance", economic growth and social equality.
Why on earth would any South African (or African for that matter) want to go and spoil this glorious picture by raising voices of critical dissent?
The answers are simple. First, the ideological basis for both the AU and Nepad, a supposedly African version of a "reformed" and/or "ethical" capitalism, is grounded in exactly the same exploitative productive and social relations that have historically underpinned the real (not rhetorical) relationship between the capitalist North and Africa.
In other words, capitalism by any other name is still capitalism, whether is it labelled post-colonialist, modernist or Africanist. While a sugar coating might make things initially look and taste sweeter, ordinary Africans are the ones who will be left eating the bitter core of a re-made imperialism.
Second, there is absolutely nothing unique, home-grown or mutually affirming about tailoring Africa’s national or international political economy to fit the contemporary ‘rules’ of the global capitalist game: it is simply a matter of saying and doing what the G-8 demand.
True sovereignty is an extremely poor cousin of effective capitulation, no matter how much President Mbeki and other African politicians like to believe that their numerous international bosberads and agreements represent a sea change in global power relations.
Third, key policies envisioned as underpinning the modus operandi of the AU and Nepad, such as ‘free trade’, privatisation and labour market ‘flexibility, have already practically failed the empirical ‘test’ of improving the lives of the vast majority of Africans.
Like GEAR here in South Africa, there will be very little trickle-down but plenty of trickle-up combined with lots of talk about entrepreneurship and self-help minus the political will, fiscal prioritisation and public sector institutional support necessary to meet the most basic needs of ordinary Africans.
While the political and economic elites celebrate the launch of the AU and Nepad, residents of Soweto will continue to resist electricity cut-offs, in Tafelsig and Tembalihle people will not halt their struggles against forced removal, and inhabitants of Chatsworth will persist in the battle for free water. There are many dissenting voices here and across the continent, and they will increasingly be heard.