Only the colour of cash matters

Several trade unions and many protesting #FeesMustFall students have directed their anger at the wrong targets in the past week.

The unions demanded decent work from the private sector; the students wanted free education from university administrations.

But the private sector is not in the business of creating jobs or providing decent work.

And university administrations do not have it in their power to provide free education, something several student leaders have now, perhaps belatedly, acknowledged.

“White monopoly capital” was also targeted by elements in both protesting groups.

But the only colour business cares about is the colour of money.

And just as it is against the interests of the private sector to create more jobs than are absolutely necessary for each enterprise, so it is not in the interests of this sector to pay more than the lowest wages it can get away with.

Profit is essential for business to survive in a competitive environment that is managed and regulated by government.

University administrations, on the other hand, have little control over the imposition or level of fees, and rely on government subsidies to function and survive. Yet government’s contribution to tertiary education has steadily declined.

The promised move towards free as well as equitable education has long fallen by the policy wayside.

This was a fact 20 years ago in the form of what Cosatu and the SA Communist Party (SACP) refer to as the “1996 class project”.

All this means is that government – to which both the SACP and Cosatu are allied – had by 1996 embarked on policies that benefited business and, therefore, damaged labour.

And since the sellers of labour are far and away the largest segment of society, this pandering to a minority is fundamentally undemocratic.

But then our parliamentary democracy is a far cry from the ideal of rule by the people for the people. In fact, the partial – even farcical – democracy we now have is actually a recipe for patronage, nepotism and other forms of corruption.

By operating, at a national level, on a party list system, voters have no control over their supposed parliamentary representatives who make the rules that govern our daily lives.

The power lies with the party and within the party, with its executive, and, ultimately, with the leader.

Because election campaigns cost money, political parties rely on funding, which comes largely – and secretly – from the private sector.

So, every five years, voters troop off to ballot boxes to effectively hand over the power they collectively have to a party and its bosses, who may already be deeply indebted to the funders.

This situation is not unique to South Africa, but the list system and secret funding make state capture so much easier.

Buying number one on the winning party list can be enough to ensure sweet deals and policies.

It should also be clear that it is not in the interests of the private sector to provide decent work any more than it is to fund education, health and other essential public services. The crucial question, therefore, is not only who governs, but whose interests the government serves.