'Strike Season' in South Africa

With a strike by South Africa's civil servants well into its third week and by current prospects heading for a fourth week, President Jacob Zuma is presenting as an increasingly embattled leader. For some analysts, the dilemma that he is confronted with seems however to have more to do with political jockeying for power than genuine labor issues.

'Strike season' in South Africa traditionally begins around March and extends through the winter months, but by spring disputes have usually been settled. One reason that the current strike has deviated from this trend is that, by several accounts, government and organized labour agreed to a truce of sorts ahead of the FIFA 2010 World Cup in South Africa. Indeed, the largest and most powerful union, COSATU (Congress of South African Trade Unions), had adopted strong rhetoric in threatening to bring the World Cup to a standstill, arguing that the sustainability of workers' livelihoods was of far greater significance to the union than a one-off sporting event. Frantic behind-the-scenes discussions – which are believed to have been brokered by Zuma himself – led to COSATU backing down, albeit with an ominous warning that once the final whistle of FIFA 2010 had blown the gloves would come off. With government's seemingly reasonable compromise rejected in the current impasse, the powerful union would appear to be set to make good on its threat. Indeed, the initial notification of an intention to strike was submitted even before the last of the World Cup tourists had departed from the country.

Considered in this light, there is a case for arguing that notwithstanding the impact of the current strike, COSATU has nonetheless kept to its side of the deal. This may go part of the way to explaining the apparent resolve that the union is now displaying, together with its newfound motif of  the importance of 'sustainability'. As senior unionists explained in their rejection of a seemingly reasonable compromise by government, what matters is the long-term future of workers' welfare, not the short-term sacrifices that may have to be made. Were it not for the fact that union leaders have been far less vocal in condemning the actions of those who have literally pulled nurses out of operating theaters and prevented pregnant women from accessing maternity wards, the union may even have succeeded in winning a degree of public sympathy for its cause.

For President Zuma, however, the situation may well appear to present him with lose-lose scenarios. Does he hold out, knowing that the necessity to earn a living makes the end of the strike an ultimate inevitability. Or does he instruct government to surrender to the demands of the unionists. As a result of political tensions within the ruling alliance (ANC, COSATU and South African Communist Party), either course of action may bear a significant degree of risk for Zuma. Giving in to the unions could cost him the support of both big business and that of a conservative faction within the ANC that has stood by him through one scandal after another and that proved to be a vital support in his tense stand-off with ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema. Indeed, the support of the conservatives seems to have played a key role in shifting public opinion steadily in favor of Zuma since it hit an all-time low during his corruption trial. Without their support, Zuma could also be vulnerable to hostile moves by a leftist faction within the ruling party, with possible support of the Youth League.

On the other hand, standing firm against the unions may hold as much risk for Zuma's political future as being seen to give in to their demands. The ANC simply cannot afford to lose the support of organized labor, and COSATU has on previous occasions (including Zuma's election as ANC leader) proved that it can take on the role of kingmaker. While COSATU's threats to shift its support to an opposition party hold little credibility (one cannot easily see COSATU leader Zwelinzima Vavi voting for Patricia de Lille or Helen Zille), the movement could readily shift its support to a Zuma opponent at the critical 2012 party congress that will determine if Zuma retains the cherished Presidency for a second term or not.

Faced with this dilemma, Zuma appears to be erring on the side of retaining the support of the unions, going so far as to publicly rebuke his ministers for not working sufficiently hard to find a point of common ground with the unions. Now that the unions have rejected the latest offer, the dilemma may begin all over again for Zuma. For a leader who has tried to keep all of the people happy all of the time, it is a tough position to be in. For investors and business, the hope is that he will respond in a way that is best for the interests of the country, keeping in mind the simple reality that by current metrics government cannot afford to meet the unions demands without either hiking taxes or cutting back on strategic projects relating to infrastructure, health, education and job creation. Already, however, South Africa has one of the highest per capita public sector wage bills in the world, and it makes little sense to drive the country deeper into debt. On the other hand, a workable solution may be to adopt a strategy employed by the private sector when it was faced with wage demands during the recent global financial crisis: we can meet your wage demands, but will then be forced to slash the size of the workforce. While this may exacerbate the unemployment problem in South Africa, there may also be a case to be made for a public sector that is better paid but also more competitively minded and therefore more competent.