Gwede Mantashe’s entrance into the mining portfolio has, almost predictably, been no different from the arrogance and superior authoritarianism that has characterised the tenure of the last four ministers in this portfolio.
The consistency of the arrogance of ministers has been a hallmark of the ANC government, suggesting that this type of dismissal of groups that do not bow before the majesty of the party and its officials has become a style of "governmentality" of the ANC (its manner of governing subjects).
The manner in which the minister has dismissed the court order compelling him and the Department of Mineral Resources to consult mining communities in the "formulation" of the Mining Charter epitomises the contempt with which ministers have historically viewed the claims by mining-affected communities to be involved in their own governance.
In the first instance the minister has completely ignored the court order. In the second, he deliberately ignored correspondence initiated by mining communities through their attorneys, and in the third instance when communities eventually cornered the minister at his press conference to demand answers, they were summarily dismissed as if annoying mosquitoes.
At the heart of Mantashe’s vapid rejection of the claims of organisations such as Mining Affected Communities in United Action (Macua) and Women from Mining Affected Communities United in Action (Wamua) to be part of the formulation of the charter is the suggestion by the minister that such consultation would not be advanced through meetings with well-informed and mandated interest groups and social movements such as Macua and Wamua and that, instead, the minister appears to propose that the ministry will run a road show in which meetings will be held in each province.
There are at least three fundamental problems with this approach.
The first relates to the nature of government policy development processes. The fact that the minister has engaged with a select group of stakeholders, while excluding others, would suggest a process that starts out with a bias towards certain interest groups.
The exclusion of the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union and the National Union of Metalworkers of SA as organised unions in the sector already points to a deep bias towards the interest of the Chamber of Mines and National Union of Mineworkers.
Yet, while organised community groups affirmed by the courts as interested stakeholders who should be consulted on the formulation of the charter were excluded, the South African Mining Development Association, the organisation of Bridgette Radebe, wife of Energy Minister Jeff Radebe, was invited instead. It appears one of the criteria to be included involves the extent of one’s connection to ANC politicians.
Be that as it may, the reason the government seeks to draw together stakeholders should be based on their organisational reach and ability to speak for and represent, albeit not fully, the interests of their respective constituencies.
The practice of speaking to stakeholders in this way helps the government find amicable solutions to complex problems. In dismissing the claims by Macua and Wamua, the minister disregards the many years of community engagement that led to their formation and eventually the adoption of the People’s Mining Charter in 2016.
Macua, formed by more than 150 community and environmental activists in 2012, embarked on a three-year project to gather input from more than 150 mining-affected communities across the country. In 2015, in the lead-up to the adoption of the People’s Mining Charter, the organisation rallied together more than 19 civil society organisations and 50 affiliated community-based organisations to draw up the foundational values of a just mining regime in the Berea Declaration.
Throughout the last five years Macua and Wamua have continued to engage communities across the country through marches, community capacity-building workshops and dialogue, and have consistently made submissions to the minerals department, the minister and various legislative processes.
These organisations, together with the Mining and Environmental Justice Community Network, are by far the most organised community voices in the mining sector, and there can be little doubt that their grassroots work could greatly enhance and enrich the debates around the formation of the charter. Yet the minister, in fidelity to the dismissive governmentality that has characterised the sector, dismisses these organisations as if they have nothing of value to add to the process.
This brings us to the second concern with the minister’s approach. Instead of using organised groups to inform the formulation of the charter, the minister wishes to set up meetings where compliant ANC members can be bussed in to drown out the voices of genuine constituencies.
Mining activists and Macua have extensive experience of the type of faux consultation the minister has in mind, and should he insist on pursuing this path the chances of meeting his three-month deadline appear slim. The policy process is headed towards becoming just another in which yet another minister fails to read the tea leaves and fails to understand that, contrary to the 1980s and 1990s, when Mantashe was active as a unionist in the sector, communities are organised, informed and determined to have a say in their own governance. His glib dismissal of their claims may yet come back to haunt him.
Instead of seeing the organisations of mining-affected communities as a hindrance, the minister would be well advised to view them as potential allies that could bring a deeper grassroots calculation to the development of sustainable solutions in the sector.
This leads us to the third concern with the minister’s approach. It would appear he is dead set on imposing a solution on communities that will be drafted exclusively by his selected partners while excluding any critical voices.
Such an imposition, which has a mountain of jurisprudence up to the Constitutional Court and the most recent high court ruling against such an approach, perpetuates the colonial subjectivity of the vast majority of people who are forced to live in the shadows of environmentally and socially destructive mines.
As a government that claims to be of and for the people, we should all be deeply concerned when that same government devises spurious excuses and devious methods to avoid the constitutional responsibility to include affected parties in finding solutions to their struggles.
Such are the actions of a government that no longer has an interest in representing the interests of the poor and vulnerable.
These are the actions of a government that is increasingly committed to governing in the interest of itself and its political party.
We have a right to expect more from the new government, and every citizen should see this attack on the rights of affected communities as a precursor to inevitable attack on their rights too.
• Rutledge is a natural resources manager at ActionAid.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.