STEVEN FRIEDMAN: Saftu has no more power over ANC politics than any other citizen group does

Has the cavalry arrived to rescue the union movement? Or are the rescuers themselves too captured to help?

The formation of a rival to Cosatu, the South African Trade Union Federation (Saftu), may have little immediate effect on who runs the country. But it could tell us whether the labour movement can shake off the malaise that now grips it: this may be every bit as important to democracy and the economy as the fight to control the ANC.

Since the ANC leadership battle seems to be the only political game in town, interest in Saftu’s launch has focused on its impact on this contest. So it is not surprising that it has not attracted much attention: the new federation’s launch will have little influence on the choice of ANC leader. Unlike Cosatu, it is not allied to the ANC — or any other party.

This does not mean that Saftu is not political: any union federation that wants to give its members a voice must take political stands. But it says it will avoid linking to a particular party which, given the damage factional ANC politics caused Cosatu, is not surprising. And so it has as much influence on ANC leadership politics as any other citizens’ organisation, which means virtually none at all.

Much discussion of the ANC leadership battle assumes that it is a contest for voter support: candidates’ strength is judged by what they say in public. But the public does not elect the ANC leadership — ANC members do and it is not clear how influenced they are by public opinion. This is why citizens organisations like Saftu can say what they like about ANC leaders but this may have no impact on its choice. It and its members have no greater influence than any other group of voters.

The importance of Saftu’s launch lies elsewhere: in its potential to save unions from their current rut. As this column has pointed out, the labour movement has become a symptom of that which it was meant to challenge. Despite two decades of democracy, millions remain economic outsiders, unable to play a role in the formal economy. Union members are insiders in the sense that they have jobs (the outsiders do not) but some insiders are more equal than others. Some simply earn a wage or salary, others enjoy business opportunities and the lifestyle they bring. So there are insiders and outsiders even within the insider club.

The union movement’s problem is that many of its leaders have been more interested in joining the insider club than in changing it. In many cases, leadership positions are access cards to seats on boards and deals which union members have no hope of enjoying and so the insider-outsider divide runs through the union. If we add the reality that union leaderships often become complacent once they have a guaranteed membership, a growing divide between leaders and members becomes inevitable.

This has weakened the unions but has not benefited employers. It does not reduce workplace conflict because union members continue to make demands and to strike — but union leaders are less likely to ensure that worker demands produce workable agreements and so conflict become more difficult to manage. Union members miss out on the economic citizenship which an effective union movement brings.

In theory, Saftu’s launch should change this. Not because its leaders and members are the good guys and Cosatu’s are the bad guys, but because common sense suggests that, if union leaders must compete for workers’ support, they will be forced to take members more seriously than many do now because they will lose them if they do not. If Saftu can compete with Cosatu for support, it should shake up the union movement, narrow the gap between leaders and members and quite possibly regain for the labour movement the effectiveness it once enjoyed.

What is not clear is whether it is up to the task. There are reasons to wonder whether it has enough muscle to give workers a choice between it and Cosatu because its attempts to mobilise workers publicly have received limited support.

Some labour insiders believe that Saftu won’t shake up the union movement because, in their view, the movement’s problems are so deep rooted that even union leaders who project themselves as an answer to the pattern that separates leaders from members, are part of the problem they want to challenge. If they are right, Saftu may find that it is too distanced from workers to organise effectively at the grassroots and thus to woo Cosatu members. Or it may make progress in the private economy but fail to challenge Cosatu in the public sector, in which case there would be little contest between them.

It is far too early to judge whether the sceptics are right. Saftu may well show that it can become a cure for the labour movement’s ills rather than another symptom. What is clear is that, if its launch does not produce the membership contest that could begin to restore unions’ former glories, it is hard to see from where else a cure might come.

• Friedman is research professor in the University of Johannesburg’s humanities faculty.