The unfolding leadership dispute in the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (Numsa) raises a question that goes beyond general secretary Irvin Jim, president Andrew Chirwa and the battle for control of the union: are South African trade unions still driven by the workers they represent, or have some become institutions in which leadership positions matter more than the members themselves?
Recent developments, including the decision to strip national leaders of their powers and the subsequent attempt to overturn it, have exposed divisions in one of South Africa’s prominent trade unions. Whatever the eventual outcome, the situation invites a broader conversation about accountability, internal democracy and leadership renewal.
Trade unions were built through the sacrifices of ordinary workers who stood together against exploitation and injustice. Their strength came from the factory floor, where workers elected representatives to speak on their behalf. Union leadership was not intended to become a permanent entitlement. It was a responsibility entrusted to individuals expected to advance workers’ collective interests.
There is nothing inherently wrong with serving as a union official for many years. Experience brings institutional knowledge, continuity and an understanding of the struggles workers face. But when leadership becomes a lifelong career, difficult questions arise about succession, accountability and whether fresh voices are being given an opportunity.
One wonders what ordinary Numsa members make of these developments. While leaders contest positions and constitutional powers, workers continue to face retrenchments, rising living costs, workplace grievances and uncertainty about their jobs. Who is speaking for them while their representatives fight among themselves?
These questions matter because workers do not join trade unions to participate in leadership battles. They join because they need protection, representation and a collective voice in workplaces where the balance of power often favours employers. Every hour spent on internal disputes is an hour that could otherwise be directed towards addressing the challenges confronting members.
Perhaps workers are not necessarily tired of trade unions. Perhaps they are questioning whether some leaders have become too comfortable in positions originally entrusted to them by the membership. There is a difference between loyalty to a union and loyalty to an individual. Unfortunately, the two can become blurred when personalities begin to overshadow the institutions they lead.
These questions matter because workers do not join trade unions to participate in leadership battles. They join because they need protection, representation and a collective voice in workplaces where the balance of power often favours employers.
The world of work is also changing. Automation, outsourcing, insecure employment and technological advancement are reshaping industries and the expectations of employees. Younger workers entering the labour market face challenges that require unions to rethink how they organise, communicate and remain relevant.
For many of these workers, the historical reputation of a union leader may carry less weight than the practical benefits of membership. They want to know whether their union can protect their jobs, negotiate better conditions and respond when they experience unfair treatment. They also want to see opportunities for younger members to participate meaningfully in leadership and decision-making.
This is why leadership renewal should not be viewed as a threat to experienced officials. It should be part of building sustainable organisations. A union that develops capable shop stewards, encourages open debate and allows leadership transitions demonstrates confidence in its own democratic foundations.
Numsa’s difficulties should therefore encourage reflection across the labour movement. Are unions developing the next generation of leaders? Can ordinary members question decisions without fear of victimisation? Are leadership elections genuinely democratic, and do members have sufficient influence over the direction of their organisations?
South Africa still needs strong trade unions. Workplace inequality, exploitation, unfair labour practices and economic insecurity have not disappeared. If anything, changing employment arrangements makes effective collective representation increasingly important.
But trade unions cannot demand accountability from employers while appearing unwilling to confront difficult questions about accountability in their own structures. Their credibility must begin with the democratic principles they expect others to respect.
The real question is not who emerges victorious from Numsa’s leadership contest. It is whether workers will emerge with a stronger voice and greater confidence in the institutions established to represent them. Trade unions belong to workers, not to those who occupy their offices.
• Nkwenkwe, a researcher and author, is a PhD candidate in industrial relations.
Business Day
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.