South Africa is a country in crisis with a glaring need for a national economic debate, a panel of leading representatives from business and civil society told the audience at a recent GIBS Forum.

Joel Netshitenzhe, executive director of the Mapungubwe Institute and Commissioner of the National Planning Commission (NPC), said the protests at Marikana and De Doorns in 2012 are the danger signals that something needs to be done: “There needs to be recognition that the current levels of poverty and inequality will imperil both the poor and the rich of South Africa. If the country’s microeconomic dynamics continue as they are, we won’t be able to build walls high enough to stop the poor from invading our homes. A debate is in the common interest of society.”

“Frankly, the need for an economic Codesa is a no brainer. The powers that be have not seriously thought through how to manage the economy,” CEO of the Chamber of Mines of South Africa Bheki Sibiya said.

He argued that the South African economy is characterised by high and unsustainable levels of unemployment, inequality and poverty and an extremely low rate of transformation.

“The present situation amounts to a crisis. The status quo cannot and should not be the way forward.”

Clem Sunter, international scenario expert, futurist and author, argued that South Africa is at a crucial turning point in the form of an economic crossroads. He warned, “If we take a wrong turn, we will undo all the hard work achieved by our political transformation.”

Netshitenzhe concurred with this and said that all countries that have succeeded in delivering consistently high rates of growth and brought their people out of poverty have had a social contract. “We need a dialogue among South Africans to take the political programme to its logical conclusion.”

Executive Chair of Stratalign Charles Nupen said that in order to develop a programme of national recovery to fundamentally transform the economy the following factors were crucial:

That key social and political actors have a shared vision;
That all stakeholders strive to develop a shared diagnosis and understanding of the problems facing the country; and
That leadership is critically important – the debate has to be driven and implemented from the top, with government taking the lead and business and labour allowing for trade-offs.
Also incredibly important to the process, he pointed out, was the recognition by all stakeholders of the seriousness of the situation that the country faces.

Dr Miriam Altman, distinguished research fellow at the Human Sciences Research Council and commissioner of the NPC, said that any possible economic accord would need a vision and shared understanding. “This underlies everything and we definitely don’t have it at present. We have yet to reach consensus that there is in actual fact a crisis.”

Altman said that there is no need to be suspicious of debates and that as a “deeply fractured society” there is a pressing need to mobilise the people: “We have to get back to the organising spirit of the 1980s where we drew people into a national vision. A high-level agreement won’t capture hearts and minds.”

Nupen said that before instituting a process of a national economic debate, it would be necessary to change the nature of our national discourse, which he said is characterised by “a highly aggressive, naming, shaming and blaming game. With this attitude, we won’t be able to move forward”.

Sunter said that to reach an accord, compromise in the form of concessions would have to be made by labour, business and government.

For example, in order to promote economic growth and job creation by small businesses, there would have to be a change in the labour laws, which would require concessions by the unions. A reduction in red tape for small businesses would similarly require concessions by government.

“Unless the key social actors come to the table being prepared to give, a debate won’t succeed in achieving anything,” Nupen said.

The panellists agreed that any potential discussions cannot consist only of big business, labour and government, but would have to include ordinary citizens and entrepreneurs. The process must be as inclusive and participatory as possible, with all manner of civil society contributing in order to raise the credibility of the discussions.

Netshitenzhe warned that there needed to be an appreciation in the ruling party and the state that while they “can propose policies, they will still have to interact with society to make policy a reality. Their word is not the be all and end all”.

Sunter added to this and said, “A consultation process is necessary, but I don’t want to have the sort of consultation process that we’ve had with e-tolling”.

With regards to finding the appropriate forum to host a national economic debate, panellists were in agreement that the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) would be unsuitable.

Sibaya called Nedlac “very ineffective and bedevilled by politics,” while Netshitenzhe said the organisation’s interactions have become to routine and representations juniorised.

A process that is comprehensive, mandated and holistic is needed and that no single stakeholder acting alone, whether government, business or civil society, can design and unilaterally implement the changes that South African society requires, he added.

Nupen said the country has been through a period of learning and is beginning to acknowledge that there are no easy solutions.

“South Africa is steeped in a tradition of social dialogue, which helped to deliver our political miracle. But it gave us a misguided sense of optimism regarding economic transformation. We have had various summits and policy instruments over the past 18 years that have delivered very little.”

“It will take hard, dedicated work and leadership, and there is a growing recognition among those in government, business and labour that the country is in crisis. If we don’t address our problems, we will find ourselves in a lot of trouble,” he concluded.