Read this article in:
15 March, 2001The role of the trade unions in South Africa has completely changed, says Silumko Nondwangu, Numsa's general secretary since August last year.
BY OLA SÄLL
Seven years into the new democratic South Africa, the labour movement finds itself adapting to a new set of circumstances. After a long history of political struggle against the white apartheid government, it now has to deal more with basic labour issues.
But Silumko Nondwangu, general secretary of the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (Numsa) has realised that the struggle is far from over. This time it is not against a minority government, but against what he describes as a ruling ANC party with more conservative and neo-liberal values than ever before -- privatisation leading to retrenchments, rapidly increasing unemployment and harsh consequences of globalisation. According to Nondwangu, everything could be different if only the ANC had chosen a different path.
He gives strong signals of tensions within the powerhouse of South African politics: the tripartite alliance between the ruling African National Congress (ANC), the South Africa Communist Party (SACP) and the Congress of South Africa Trade Unions (Cosatu).
Silumko Nondwangu rose to the position of general secretary at the age of only 36, but his history in Numsa goes back some 13 years. He was working in the industrial town of East London for a supplier to the car manufacturer Daimler when, in 1989, he was dismissed for attending a Cosatu special congress protesting against the Labour Relations Act. The matter went before the Industrial Court where he and his colleagues demanded to be reinstated but lost their case.
Soon he made a career inside Numsa as a local organiser in Queenstown and advanced to regional education officer. In 1997, he was appointed regional secretary for the Eastern Cape province and last year elected to the top job of the union.
OUR ROLE HAS CHANGED
Q: How was the situation when you were elected?
A: At the time of the congress, we had serious organisational problems. After the 1994 election, we lost a number of capable comrades who went over to politics. Our membership is decreasing. It's quite bad. Today, we are 220,000 members in Numsa, down from 280,000 in 1994. But maybe we have lost even more than 60,000 because in some small factories no figures are provided in regard to job losses. There are massive dismissals in the small companies.
Q: How has the role of the trade unions changed from pre-94 until today?
A: A strategic change. Before 1994, we struggled to ensure that we had a democratic government. We continue to define this new government as much more sympathetic to the interests of the working class than the previous one. Hence, the federation took a decision to forge an alliance with the ANC.
Since 1994, we struggle to ensure that those things we had envisaged before 1994 were put in place, such as the rights of workers enshrined in the constitution, new conditions of employment, ensuring that the labour market is completely structured. But also ensuring that the labour movement is part of the transformation and reconstruction of the country. So the role has completely changed.
Q: Would it be correct to say that Numsa and other Cosatu unions have toned down the political issues to focus more on labour issues?
A: I don't think so. In as much as you have the ANC and the Communist Party as political movements, I think there remains a role for the labour unions to play a much more strategic political role. You can't separate macro-economic issues from the broader political questions. To reshape the macro-economic strategies of the government you must also debate the political environment. What is the balance of forces on an international level? Globalisation? USA? How does all that impact on our South African situation?
Q: So you still want to be a part of the political transformation?
A: Yes certainly. As the labour movement, we have to participate in various structures, set up by the democratic movement, to ensure there is transformation and that our members in various constituencies benefit from that process.
We strongly believe that the centre of power lies in the tripartite alliance and in particular the ANC. Therefore, it becomes important for us that if there are problems within the alliance, the alliance must begin to deal with those problems.
MEMBERS DISILLUSIONED
Q: There was a draft resolution at your last congress suggesting that the Communist Party should replace the ANC as the leader of the alliance. Why?
A: That resolution stemmed from the economic crisis in our country. We had observed, as workers, that there had been a gradual shift on the part of the ANC from the kind of policies which were crafted jointly as an alliance. Gradually, the ANC was moving towards conservative neo-liberal policies. Hence, one region -- the Mpumalanga -- proposed that the Communist Party, as a working-class party, could lead the entire working class, including the labour movement, towards a socialist vision. That resolution was raised on the basis of our members being disillusioned with some of the macroeconomic policies of the ANC-government. But the resolution never went further. The congress reinstated the relevance of the alliance, and in particular the ANC, as leaders of the national democratic revolution.
Q: Where do you stand yourself?
A: I am bound by the resolution taken by the congress. My responsibility is to do my best to pursue that resolution until the next congress. And therefore, any problems which arise within the alliance must be dealt with much more vigorously by the federation without any fear or favour to any component of the alliance. That's where I stand.
Q: 500,000 jobs have been lost in South Africa since 1994. Whom do you blame, the ANC or other factors?
A: Both. There are some factors beyond the government's control and some within. We continue to argue that when South Africa opened up the economy in 1994 and became part of the World Trade Organisation negotiations to reduce tariffs, we did so much more than was requested of us. But we did not develop an industrial policy to cushion the effects with a human resources strategy, like skilling the employees, ensuring that those sectors which would not be able to compete in the global economy could benefit, and create jobs in the domestic market instead.
Those companies which took advantage of globalisation by exporting their products at the same time restructured operations and shed jobs. There were factors which the ANC could have controlled in regard to trade, tariffs, liberalisation and development of an industrial policy.
WORKDAYS LOST IN STRIKES DECREASED
Q: The opposition parties in South Africa say that you only look after your members, not the unemployed?
A: We have a track record that we bargain also in the interest of the entire unemployed constituency. To stimulate economic growth is one of the central themes in Cosatu. An impression is created that those employed have narrow and elitist interests of their own at the exclusion of the unemployed. But take a black family; in the past you had an extended family of say five people you were responsible for. With increasing unemployment, an average employed person is supporting ten other people. There is, therefore, no justification to suggest for a moment that employed workers have narrow interests.
Q: The number of workdays lost in strikes decreased from 3.1 million in 1999 to 1.4 million last year. Is that due to better relations on the labour market?
A: There are two reasons. One relates to the fact that we are no longer negotiating with the employers on a yearly basis. We have concluded three-year agreements. The second aspect is this: Even though there has been GDP growth and some foreign direct investment, it has not translated into new jobs. Foreign investment has mostly been capital intensive. Therefore, we are losing jobs. In that environment, it is difficult for those who hold jobs to contemplate to go out and strike.
LESSONS OF VOLKSWAGEN
Q: You have been involved in several major conflicts last year. The largest was at Volkswagen where 1,300 employees were dismissed in February. What have you learned from these conflicts?
A: There are quite a few lessons. Remember I was a part of the conflict at Daimler in 1990. So what happened at Volkswagen was not entirely new. Some of the lessons drawn was that militancy not always translates into a strong coherent organisation in a particular factory.
Let me elaborate: there had been a history of illegal strikes at VW about issues which directly affected our members. That constituency was very militant, driving struggles on its own, with disregard and contempt for the leadership of the union, thinking they were a trade union of their own. The union was in many instances caught in a situation where we would, in the middle of a strike, be called to intervene. In the past there were serious legal and financial implications if members were to embark on an illegal strike. You could be sued, your members could be instantly dismissed. Numsa did not begin to deal with the root cause of the illegal strikes in that factory, impacting negatively on building the trade movement.
Almost all political leaders in the federation have come and gone in that factory, persons like Jay Naidoo, Sam Shilowa and many leaders of the Communist Party and ANC. That created an impression among our members that they were above Numsa.
So one important lesson was that militancy on its own does not translate into qualitative thinking. A lot of work has to be done. We had militancy but not an organisational structure which could build on that militancy.
GLOBALISATION WITHOUT A HUMAN FACE
Q: Whether you like it or not, globalisation is here. Capital and companies move as never before. From the foreign investor's point of view, why should he choose South Africa, where the trade unions and labour regulations are strong, rather than the Far East where they are weaker?
A: That depends on your definition of globalisation. It must have a human face, but at present it does not.
Q: That is a good wish, but who can order an investor to have a human face? Capital goes where it finds an environment for growth.
A: As the trade union movement exists on national and global level. It's a struggle.
Q: But do you in your internal discussions sometimes contemplate if you perhaps scare investors away by being too strong and militant?
A: Certainly not. Just as capital has got rights, so have workers. And their rights must be respected. This argument is completely a myth; take Angola for example. It is war-ravished, there is war, yet capital invests there.
Q: Only in the oil sector . . .
A: Yes, so the issue of the strength of unions is not a big factor for capital. Even in that environment, capital is able to maximise profits.
OPPOSED TO IDEOLOGICALLY DRIVEN PRIVATISATION
Q: I know that you are against the ongoing privatisation of state-owned enterprises. But how would you rather see them utilised? After the National Party (NP) had won the 1948 elections, it used the public sector to pull the poor white Afrikaners out of poverty, improved their standard through the public sector. Would you prefer that the ANC did the same thing now for the black people?
A: In regard to restructuring of state enterprises, there are some which have a strategic role in the restructuring of our country: Telkom (telecommunications), Eskom (electricity), Transnet (transports), Denel (arms manufacturer), and some others. Given the legacy of the past, they would have to be restructured to be responsive to the democratisation and transformation of our country. In the event that one of them runs at loss, we have to find partners overseas to get new technologies and to tap on foreign direct investments. That is our position. But we are opposed to ideologically driven privatisation. By ideologically driven we mean that they are sold only for foreign capital to make profit out of them, and in the process jobs are lost massively.
So we are not propagating the same policy as the NP did in 1948. There are quite a number of sales of state enterprises that were never opposed since they were white elephants.
Q: Of course you must fight retrenchments, that's what you are paid for. But can you, on the other hand, understand when globalisation, lower tariffs on imported cars and stiffer competition give the automotive industry the choice to retrench or close down?
A: It is unavoidable that some companies must close down due to competition. The role of the nation-state is critical. The decision to integrate in the global market is not taken by capital, but by governments. Once you open up the economy, the government must say: these industries will maybe not be able to compete internationally, and therefore we must ensure that they diversify. They must concentrate on the domestic market or look at other sectors which can absorb those employees who lose their jobs. Look at the agricultural sector. They haven't done anything to the land reform programme.
Q: You mean a proper land reform could save retrenched people . . .
A: It is a major problem that massive numbers of people are moving from rural to urban areas because they have absolutely no livelihood. There is no strategy for the rural areas; we have concentrated on industrialisation. Even if, as the ANC puts it, they have policies which attract foreign investors, the trickle-down effect has not worked anywhere in the world.
Q: Well, it worked in Europe and in the USA . . .
A: But the conditions are different here.
Q: But if you see success, shouldn't you copy it?
A: Yes, but you must be able to adjust that to your own conditions.
"WE ARE NOT SOCIAL DEMOCRATS"
Q: If you look at the world map, aren't the successful countries in Europe and North America the ones with a liberal economy?
A: They have only succeeded for a limited section of the population, but the majority lives in squalid conditions.
Q: And you should not copy failure?
A: Exactly. We have copied failure. Neoliberalism has not worked anywhere. Look at Britain. The services which should have been provided by the state in Britain, such as water and houses, are provided by capital at a huge cost to the population in that country. Q: Numsa describes social democracy as "A political system that relies on the ability of various social forces to make compromises in order to attain consensus. Such compromises more often than not are to the benefit of capital rather than the working class. This is not the point at which we find ourselves." If Numsa is not promoting social democracy, as the ANC does, what do you promote?
A: No, we are not social democrats. We strive for a socialist society. Social democracy has failed its subjects.
APPENDIXES TO THE POLITICAL PARTIES
Q: Numsa is by far the best organised metalworkers' union on the African continent. How can it assist the other unions on the continent to develop?
A: One of the themes I have raised in the IMF is that a major problem with trade unions in Africa is that they have a legacy to carry, a legacy completely different from the evolution of the movement in South Africa. For instance, take trade unions in Angola or Zimbabwe. In their struggles for national liberation, you had in the centre guerrilla armies led by the liberation movements. They did not build strong organisations that pursued the struggle in civil society, like we did here. Their trade unions emerged from initiatives by the liberation movements, not necessarily because of the conditions of the workers. Therefore, they became appendixes to the political parties. One thing we have to deal with in the trade union movement is the independence from those parties, which has been a major problem.
Q: Do you mean they should be encouraged to be more self-reliant?
A: Self-reliant and independent and self-sufficient, but not necessarily separated from the governing party -- only so far as they have a distinct constituency situated at the point of production. There are quite a number of general secretaries of trade union movements who are paid directly by governments. That way you can't have an independent and critical union.
Q: But your own movement has an alliance with the ruling party. What is the difference?
A: The difference is that we have a strong base by ourselves. Our decisions in the congress are primarily decided by our own constituency.
PREPARED TO LISTEN TO OTHER UNIONS
Q: Numsa and the South African trade unions are considered to be leaders in Africa. Are you worried that you might be caught in this leadership role, that it can be a burden?
A: We don't necessarily want to play a leading role in Africa. We have to be very careful. There are certain sensitivities in regard to other trade unions in Africa, concerning the role that South Africa as a country is playing on the continent. What we are prepared to do as Numsa is to assist other trade unions, which we have been doing in the past, for instance in Namibia and Mozambique. To share our experiences. But we don't want to impose our labour regime and how we operate in South Africa. We want to assist and cooperate with them in building strong trade unions, rather than being seen as imposing ourselves on them.
Q: But you have something to teach them?
A: We have something to teach and something to learn from them.
Ola Säll is a free lance journalist, based in Cape Town, South Africa.
But Silumko Nondwangu, general secretary of the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (Numsa) has realised that the struggle is far from over. This time it is not against a minority government, but against what he describes as a ruling ANC party with more conservative and neo-liberal values than ever before -- privatisation leading to retrenchments, rapidly increasing unemployment and harsh consequences of globalisation. According to Nondwangu, everything could be different if only the ANC had chosen a different path.
He gives strong signals of tensions within the powerhouse of South African politics: the tripartite alliance between the ruling African National Congress (ANC), the South Africa Communist Party (SACP) and the Congress of South Africa Trade Unions (Cosatu).
Silumko Nondwangu rose to the position of general secretary at the age of only 36, but his history in Numsa goes back some 13 years. He was working in the industrial town of East London for a supplier to the car manufacturer Daimler when, in 1989, he was dismissed for attending a Cosatu special congress protesting against the Labour Relations Act. The matter went before the Industrial Court where he and his colleagues demanded to be reinstated but lost their case.
Soon he made a career inside Numsa as a local organiser in Queenstown and advanced to regional education officer. In 1997, he was appointed regional secretary for the Eastern Cape province and last year elected to the top job of the union.
OUR ROLE HAS CHANGED
Q: How was the situation when you were elected?
A: At the time of the congress, we had serious organisational problems. After the 1994 election, we lost a number of capable comrades who went over to politics. Our membership is decreasing. It's quite bad. Today, we are 220,000 members in Numsa, down from 280,000 in 1994. But maybe we have lost even more than 60,000 because in some small factories no figures are provided in regard to job losses. There are massive dismissals in the small companies.
Q: How has the role of the trade unions changed from pre-94 until today?
A: A strategic change. Before 1994, we struggled to ensure that we had a democratic government. We continue to define this new government as much more sympathetic to the interests of the working class than the previous one. Hence, the federation took a decision to forge an alliance with the ANC.
Since 1994, we struggle to ensure that those things we had envisaged before 1994 were put in place, such as the rights of workers enshrined in the constitution, new conditions of employment, ensuring that the labour market is completely structured. But also ensuring that the labour movement is part of the transformation and reconstruction of the country. So the role has completely changed.
Q: Would it be correct to say that Numsa and other Cosatu unions have toned down the political issues to focus more on labour issues?
A: I don't think so. In as much as you have the ANC and the Communist Party as political movements, I think there remains a role for the labour unions to play a much more strategic political role. You can't separate macro-economic issues from the broader political questions. To reshape the macro-economic strategies of the government you must also debate the political environment. What is the balance of forces on an international level? Globalisation? USA? How does all that impact on our South African situation?
Q: So you still want to be a part of the political transformation?
A: Yes certainly. As the labour movement, we have to participate in various structures, set up by the democratic movement, to ensure there is transformation and that our members in various constituencies benefit from that process.
We strongly believe that the centre of power lies in the tripartite alliance and in particular the ANC. Therefore, it becomes important for us that if there are problems within the alliance, the alliance must begin to deal with those problems.
MEMBERS DISILLUSIONED
Q: There was a draft resolution at your last congress suggesting that the Communist Party should replace the ANC as the leader of the alliance. Why?
A: That resolution stemmed from the economic crisis in our country. We had observed, as workers, that there had been a gradual shift on the part of the ANC from the kind of policies which were crafted jointly as an alliance. Gradually, the ANC was moving towards conservative neo-liberal policies. Hence, one region -- the Mpumalanga -- proposed that the Communist Party, as a working-class party, could lead the entire working class, including the labour movement, towards a socialist vision. That resolution was raised on the basis of our members being disillusioned with some of the macroeconomic policies of the ANC-government. But the resolution never went further. The congress reinstated the relevance of the alliance, and in particular the ANC, as leaders of the national democratic revolution.
Q: Where do you stand yourself?
A: I am bound by the resolution taken by the congress. My responsibility is to do my best to pursue that resolution until the next congress. And therefore, any problems which arise within the alliance must be dealt with much more vigorously by the federation without any fear or favour to any component of the alliance. That's where I stand.
Q: 500,000 jobs have been lost in South Africa since 1994. Whom do you blame, the ANC or other factors?
A: Both. There are some factors beyond the government's control and some within. We continue to argue that when South Africa opened up the economy in 1994 and became part of the World Trade Organisation negotiations to reduce tariffs, we did so much more than was requested of us. But we did not develop an industrial policy to cushion the effects with a human resources strategy, like skilling the employees, ensuring that those sectors which would not be able to compete in the global economy could benefit, and create jobs in the domestic market instead.
Those companies which took advantage of globalisation by exporting their products at the same time restructured operations and shed jobs. There were factors which the ANC could have controlled in regard to trade, tariffs, liberalisation and development of an industrial policy.
WORKDAYS LOST IN STRIKES DECREASED
Q: The opposition parties in South Africa say that you only look after your members, not the unemployed?
A: We have a track record that we bargain also in the interest of the entire unemployed constituency. To stimulate economic growth is one of the central themes in Cosatu. An impression is created that those employed have narrow and elitist interests of their own at the exclusion of the unemployed. But take a black family; in the past you had an extended family of say five people you were responsible for. With increasing unemployment, an average employed person is supporting ten other people. There is, therefore, no justification to suggest for a moment that employed workers have narrow interests.
Q: The number of workdays lost in strikes decreased from 3.1 million in 1999 to 1.4 million last year. Is that due to better relations on the labour market?
A: There are two reasons. One relates to the fact that we are no longer negotiating with the employers on a yearly basis. We have concluded three-year agreements. The second aspect is this: Even though there has been GDP growth and some foreign direct investment, it has not translated into new jobs. Foreign investment has mostly been capital intensive. Therefore, we are losing jobs. In that environment, it is difficult for those who hold jobs to contemplate to go out and strike.
LESSONS OF VOLKSWAGEN
Q: You have been involved in several major conflicts last year. The largest was at Volkswagen where 1,300 employees were dismissed in February. What have you learned from these conflicts?
A: There are quite a few lessons. Remember I was a part of the conflict at Daimler in 1990. So what happened at Volkswagen was not entirely new. Some of the lessons drawn was that militancy not always translates into a strong coherent organisation in a particular factory.
Let me elaborate: there had been a history of illegal strikes at VW about issues which directly affected our members. That constituency was very militant, driving struggles on its own, with disregard and contempt for the leadership of the union, thinking they were a trade union of their own. The union was in many instances caught in a situation where we would, in the middle of a strike, be called to intervene. In the past there were serious legal and financial implications if members were to embark on an illegal strike. You could be sued, your members could be instantly dismissed. Numsa did not begin to deal with the root cause of the illegal strikes in that factory, impacting negatively on building the trade movement.
Almost all political leaders in the federation have come and gone in that factory, persons like Jay Naidoo, Sam Shilowa and many leaders of the Communist Party and ANC. That created an impression among our members that they were above Numsa.
So one important lesson was that militancy on its own does not translate into qualitative thinking. A lot of work has to be done. We had militancy but not an organisational structure which could build on that militancy.
GLOBALISATION WITHOUT A HUMAN FACE
Q: Whether you like it or not, globalisation is here. Capital and companies move as never before. From the foreign investor's point of view, why should he choose South Africa, where the trade unions and labour regulations are strong, rather than the Far East where they are weaker?
A: That depends on your definition of globalisation. It must have a human face, but at present it does not.
Q: That is a good wish, but who can order an investor to have a human face? Capital goes where it finds an environment for growth.
A: As the trade union movement exists on national and global level. It's a struggle.
Q: But do you in your internal discussions sometimes contemplate if you perhaps scare investors away by being too strong and militant?
A: Certainly not. Just as capital has got rights, so have workers. And their rights must be respected. This argument is completely a myth; take Angola for example. It is war-ravished, there is war, yet capital invests there.
Q: Only in the oil sector . . .
A: Yes, so the issue of the strength of unions is not a big factor for capital. Even in that environment, capital is able to maximise profits.
OPPOSED TO IDEOLOGICALLY DRIVEN PRIVATISATION
Q: I know that you are against the ongoing privatisation of state-owned enterprises. But how would you rather see them utilised? After the National Party (NP) had won the 1948 elections, it used the public sector to pull the poor white Afrikaners out of poverty, improved their standard through the public sector. Would you prefer that the ANC did the same thing now for the black people?
A: In regard to restructuring of state enterprises, there are some which have a strategic role in the restructuring of our country: Telkom (telecommunications), Eskom (electricity), Transnet (transports), Denel (arms manufacturer), and some others. Given the legacy of the past, they would have to be restructured to be responsive to the democratisation and transformation of our country. In the event that one of them runs at loss, we have to find partners overseas to get new technologies and to tap on foreign direct investments. That is our position. But we are opposed to ideologically driven privatisation. By ideologically driven we mean that they are sold only for foreign capital to make profit out of them, and in the process jobs are lost massively.
So we are not propagating the same policy as the NP did in 1948. There are quite a number of sales of state enterprises that were never opposed since they were white elephants.
Q: Of course you must fight retrenchments, that's what you are paid for. But can you, on the other hand, understand when globalisation, lower tariffs on imported cars and stiffer competition give the automotive industry the choice to retrench or close down?
A: It is unavoidable that some companies must close down due to competition. The role of the nation-state is critical. The decision to integrate in the global market is not taken by capital, but by governments. Once you open up the economy, the government must say: these industries will maybe not be able to compete internationally, and therefore we must ensure that they diversify. They must concentrate on the domestic market or look at other sectors which can absorb those employees who lose their jobs. Look at the agricultural sector. They haven't done anything to the land reform programme.
Q: You mean a proper land reform could save retrenched people . . .
A: It is a major problem that massive numbers of people are moving from rural to urban areas because they have absolutely no livelihood. There is no strategy for the rural areas; we have concentrated on industrialisation. Even if, as the ANC puts it, they have policies which attract foreign investors, the trickle-down effect has not worked anywhere in the world.
Q: Well, it worked in Europe and in the USA . . .
A: But the conditions are different here.
Q: But if you see success, shouldn't you copy it?
A: Yes, but you must be able to adjust that to your own conditions.
"WE ARE NOT SOCIAL DEMOCRATS"
Q: If you look at the world map, aren't the successful countries in Europe and North America the ones with a liberal economy?
A: They have only succeeded for a limited section of the population, but the majority lives in squalid conditions.
Q: And you should not copy failure?
A: Exactly. We have copied failure. Neoliberalism has not worked anywhere. Look at Britain. The services which should have been provided by the state in Britain, such as water and houses, are provided by capital at a huge cost to the population in that country. Q: Numsa describes social democracy as "A political system that relies on the ability of various social forces to make compromises in order to attain consensus. Such compromises more often than not are to the benefit of capital rather than the working class. This is not the point at which we find ourselves." If Numsa is not promoting social democracy, as the ANC does, what do you promote?
A: No, we are not social democrats. We strive for a socialist society. Social democracy has failed its subjects.
APPENDIXES TO THE POLITICAL PARTIES
Q: Numsa is by far the best organised metalworkers' union on the African continent. How can it assist the other unions on the continent to develop?
A: One of the themes I have raised in the IMF is that a major problem with trade unions in Africa is that they have a legacy to carry, a legacy completely different from the evolution of the movement in South Africa. For instance, take trade unions in Angola or Zimbabwe. In their struggles for national liberation, you had in the centre guerrilla armies led by the liberation movements. They did not build strong organisations that pursued the struggle in civil society, like we did here. Their trade unions emerged from initiatives by the liberation movements, not necessarily because of the conditions of the workers. Therefore, they became appendixes to the political parties. One thing we have to deal with in the trade union movement is the independence from those parties, which has been a major problem.
Q: Do you mean they should be encouraged to be more self-reliant?
A: Self-reliant and independent and self-sufficient, but not necessarily separated from the governing party -- only so far as they have a distinct constituency situated at the point of production. There are quite a number of general secretaries of trade union movements who are paid directly by governments. That way you can't have an independent and critical union.
Q: But your own movement has an alliance with the ruling party. What is the difference?
A: The difference is that we have a strong base by ourselves. Our decisions in the congress are primarily decided by our own constituency.
PREPARED TO LISTEN TO OTHER UNIONS
Q: Numsa and the South African trade unions are considered to be leaders in Africa. Are you worried that you might be caught in this leadership role, that it can be a burden?
A: We don't necessarily want to play a leading role in Africa. We have to be very careful. There are certain sensitivities in regard to other trade unions in Africa, concerning the role that South Africa as a country is playing on the continent. What we are prepared to do as Numsa is to assist other trade unions, which we have been doing in the past, for instance in Namibia and Mozambique. To share our experiences. But we don't want to impose our labour regime and how we operate in South Africa. We want to assist and cooperate with them in building strong trade unions, rather than being seen as imposing ourselves on them.
Q: But you have something to teach them?
A: We have something to teach and something to learn from them.
Ola Säll is a free lance journalist, based in Cape Town, South Africa.