Part 1 – Defining White Monopoly Capital

Reviewing the aftermaths of apartheid on the economy, various unresolved misconceptions and mumblings overshadow cooperation in post-apartheid countries.

The sensitive bone of contention and frictions hinder future economic development’s decision-making. The intra-racial feelings breed silent disputes which weaken the muscle of our economic strengths. Hence, we have committed to co-exist in the same democratic country. The racial gap is an unequivocal threat to prosperity, as much as any other unprecedented force of disruption. Also, the silent racial war on white monopoly capital may be subtle, but can fracture the economic backbone of our fragile post-apartheid nation. There is a need for constructive dialogues to settle any misgivings.

Independence can only mature at the pace at which reforms are applied on the former oppressive laws of apartheid.

Reachable development goals require triumph over inequality, and we must iron out strategies to resolve the hostile threats and challenges that emanate from the past, present and future. Major development goals in Namibia are crafted without clear insight on the pre-and post-apartheid impacts on the economy, which leaves strategies on harmony void of pragmatism. My suggestion is that true technocrats from various racial backgrounds can combine their intellectual arsenal, and dispel the ideological differences and introduce harmonising roadmaps.

The Native Building Workers Act, 1951 (Act No 27 of 1951; subsequently renamed the Bantu Building Workers Act, 1951 and the Black Building Workers Act, 1951) legalised the training of blacks in skilled labour in the construction industry, but limited the places in which they were permitted to work. Sections 15 and 19 made it an offence for blacks to employ whites performing skilled labour in their homes.(Wikipedia.org)

The apartheid legal reforms were drafted by technocrats with legal and economic insight who knew how to bend legal and financial instruments as well as nationalistic strategies in their favour. The well-orchestrated apartheid system was effective enough to capture institutional compliance within a few months, and lasted for over 42 years. According to Wikipedia, the racial laws had 57 legislations which ruled in favour of delivering the supreme wishes of the minority, which comprised less than 10% of the population, both in Namibia and South Africa.

The Industrial Conciliation Act, 1956 (Act No 28 of 1956; subsequently renamed the Labour Relations Act, 1956) racially separated branches and all-white executive committees on existing ‘mixed’ unions. It prohibited strikes in ‘essential industries’ for both black and white workers, and banned political affiliations for unions. Clause 77 legalised the reservation of skilled jobs to white workers.

The 1894 Glen Grey act under prime minister Cecil John Rhodes grandfathered the creation of forced labour laws which legalised the two aftermaths of employment and remuneration unfairness. The aftermath of forced labour discouraged innovation, diversity and creativity, which are required to resolve complex economic issues with turnkey ideas. The aftermath of unfair remuneration widened the income gap and created access to wealth for a minority, orchestrating the birth of severe low-income groups.

We have quickly omitted or derailed useful historical content on apartheid, and thus overshadowed the narrative of reform and harmonisation with confusion.

Before we march forward, the crucial resources required to reach important national goals were not at the disposal of the blacks, and some are still not reachable in the purview of development.

Subsequently, they struggle to start afresh, unless they renegotiate certain elements of control and recapitalisation. Namibia as a country has passed through three political trajectories of power and development without witnessing major changes. The three trajectories are linked to presidential eras, and the shock or awakening which each regime manifested: they are “power shock”, “tender shock” and the “debt shock”. During the first 15 years of independence under the leadership of Sam Nujoma, Namibia went through a “power shock”, as it was all about capturing power cells in the economy. Under the leadership of Hifikepunye Pohamba, it underwent a “tender shock”, where personal wealth and social development were tied to state tender dependence. Thirdly, under the current regime of Hage Geingob, the country is going through a “debt shock”, where government battles with debt constraints.

The surprising expectation is a “policy” or “regulatory” shock, when people discover the power that lies in laws and policies at the disposal of political will.

During these trajectories, development did not settle paramount issues such as land reform or equitable empowerment at national level.

I witness a correlation between resource scarcity, poverty and the lack of growth and the aftermaths of the former apartheid regulations. During apartheid, most nationals were residing in rural areas. After independence, the previously isolated labourers became liberal to migrate elsewhere, and the majority flocked to cities and urban areas to seek better standards of living. Today, the majority of the employment force is composed of unskilled labour, or people who did not obtain proper education under the apartheid regime. This skills gap is a lacklustre pad for snail-paced reforms.

In an age of information overload, Sunrise is The Namibian’s morning briefing, delivered at 6h00 from Monday to Friday. It offers a curated rundown of the most important stories from the past 24 hours – occasionally with a light, witty touch. It’s an essential way to stay informed. Subscribe and join our newsletter community.