“The landing of the employees of the Dutch East India Company at the Cape of Good Hope 326 years ago, in 1652, represented in embryo the emergence of class society in our country. And that class society was a bourgeois society in its infancy.”
Thabo Mbeki, 1978.
The Black Proletariat’s Right to Define Human Rights in 25 years of Democratic South Africa.
In the backdrop of the 60th commemoration of human rights day, the South African political landscape remains one that is complex both historically and contemporarily; this is mostly as a result of additional social contradictions in the form of tribal, racial and ethnic variations within the countries populace exacerbated by an unjust economic system that is founded on apartheid capitalism. Therefore in South Africa contradictions are not only market or class-based but there are secondary contradictions that add to the contradictory class interests. It, therefore, becomes incumbent and mandatory that when one gives a scientific analysis of human rights, democracy, and the implications of the economic base to also appreciate these socio-political variations as a superstructure. As a point of departure, one needs to understand what are “human rights” in order to understand what one is commemorating and has he/she realised those rights? Although there is a mainstream definition of human rights that is readily available in any English dictionary one cannot help but question if the interests of the proletariat can ever lead them into having the same connotation/meaning of “human rights” as that of the bourgeoisie? One cannot help but question if the proletariat’s cultural, religious, a social trajectory in SA would lead them to the same conclusion when defining human rights? Subsequently one cannot help but ultimately question if human rights can be universal and class neutral?
In applying a dialectical critique, human rights are not universal or class neutral and can never be in a class-divided society. In his essay, “The Jewish Question”, Karl Marx argues that there is a difference between human emancipation and political emancipation. He further argues that we are fundamentally human and in sync with being human comes an inherent definition of being free which he calls freedom from alienation. In layman’s English human emancipation is being in line with whom you really are. “Whom you really are” is defined by material conditions which include the primary economic material conditions and secondary social material conditions (e.g. class and race). In the South African context, the “whom you really are” of the black working class would never be universal or identical to that of a capitalist, hence their class interests are in contradiction. On the other side, political emancipation is usually is expressed in the realms of law and constitutionality. As said by Marx “Bourgeoisie jurisprudence is nothing but the will of the ruling class put into law for all”. Political freedom claims to be universal and to encompass everyone’s human rights, while it is fundamentally just the views of the ruling class formally put into law to protect the class interests of capitalists. Therefore political emancipation is a façade for universal human rights when In essence it is a stumbling block in the path of total human emancipation and both cannot coexist.
The interests of capitalism are confirmed in three principles: Accumulation, Surplus Value, and Protection of private property. The ANC was founded in the interest of fighting for the land, but 108 years later and more than 25 years into our beloved democracy we are still wandering in the abyss of infinite darkness on the land question. The notorious section 25 of our constitution which is a section that safeguards not only the land but also safeguards capitalism’s general interest in protecting private ownership/property. This principle is legalised and canonized into a section in the constitution, thus said to be “politically correct”, while it deprives the dispossessed and landless the human right to common ownership of the means of production. This is just a drop in the ocean of the myriad of bourgeoisie interest inspired sections of the constitution filled with bourgeoisie jurisprudence which is paraded as universally encompassing to such an extent that it receives applause from capitalists across the world while local victims and civilians resenting it with the utmost contempt.
As one of the youngest democracies while also being the most socially and demographically complex we should use microscopic lenses to clearly understand the ideal South Africa we want; a South Africa that is enjoined in universal human rights perched on the triumph of the human spirit. This is achievable only through socialism as the above problems of inequality are inherent in a capitalist setting. If we are to really achieve the ideals of our forerunners who fought for human rights in the Sharpeville massacre 60 years ago and build a non-sexist, non-racial, democratic and prosperous South Africa we need to have a no-compromise attitude towards building socialism. Comrades lets rally behind the program to build scientific socialism and bring it to a victorious conclusion, for it is our only hope, “socialism is the future build it now”.
*Cde Ayanda Zikhali is a
Branch Secretary of Khulekani Mhlongo (Unizulu) and writes in his personal capacity*
1 Comment. Leave new
The article is well articulated. I like the most the part that speaks about the section 25 of the constitution stating that it safeguards the interests of the bourgeoisie while neglecting the human rights of the landless people to have access to the land. The land is in possession of the minority for economic rights and that turns to be contrary to the human rights. The reality of the matter is that we haven’t achieved human rights dispensation in its true sence. There struggle for human rights for all continues and needs to be intensified in order to shorten the way towards it.