Violent strikes and how to change them

"Violence works. It has worked in the past and it will work today." This is the rationale of workers during many strikes, according to Crispen Chinguno from the University of Witwatersrand's Society, Work and Development Institute.

In his presentation on Wednesday titled "Explaining violence in strikes", Chinguno unpacked the basis of worker violence. He was speaking at the third seminar held by the Marikana commission of inquiry to explore the underlying causes that led to the Marikana tragedy in August 2012.

"Violence is one of the means in which the workers come together for a common cause," he told the audience.

Violence is also a way of challenging an order of inequality and exploitation, and a response to structural violence in the labour processes, he said. Part of the strike repertoire, according to Chinguno, is the realisation of power. It is often in response to the fragmentation of the work force, which undermines collective solidarity.

More significant, however, is the way in which strike violence in represented. "Mineworkers are framed as primitive, illiterate, they use sangomas, they demand R12 500, which is unreasonable and outrageous – they are financially illiterate."

The significance of this, according to Chinguno, is that it shapes the responses of stakeholders. "These representations of mineworkers are used to justify low wages … it closes the dialogue with the workers, justifies the use of violence and is designed to delegitimise demands of workers."

Role of unions

Chinguno also pointed out the role of unions, employers and the state in strike violence.

"Strike violence is a means [for employers or the state] to assert, maintain, or restore control and order; or [strikers'] form of resistance to challenge or reject domination and control."

Professor Edward Webster, also from the Society, Work and Development Institute, elaborated on Chinguno's explanation for violence in strikes.

"Industrial relations involves the strategic use of power, especially in strike situations," he said. "In low trust situations, management attempts to divide the workforce, while unions will attempt to establish collective solidarity amongst its members."

In his presentation, Webster explored the possibility of an "alternative avenue for non-violent resolution of conflict".

"Workers need a sense of control within the strike," Webster said. He then proposed that two requirements be made mandatory for strike action.

"Union constitutions require a confidential ballot before a strike," he suggested. This, he said, would preempt strike action, provide an early warning to unions and would prompt negotiations. It would also ensure a democratic mandate for a strike, as there would not be a dispute about how the workers felt.

Police's role at strikes

Webster's second proposition is for companies to more involved in the picketing process. This process would include companies being notified and briefed in detail, with preparation by the employer being a key factor. Webster says unions should act to minimise injury and damage to properties and entrances and exits should not be blocked.

To better illustrate his point, Webster provided a quote by an unknown director of human resources in a parastatal: "My experience is that it is best to conclude picketing agreements as close to the site of the protest action as possible. This forces an engagement with the union and the management of the site over where picketing will take place, what is appropriate picketing, and how the situation will be managed."

The final presentation was by Graham Newham, head of the governance, crime and justice division at the Institute for Security Studies.

In his presentation, titled "How can SAPS [South African Police Service] prevent another Marikana", Newham pointed out key concerns around the 2012 massacre, which left dozens of mineworkers dead. This includes the belief by workers that the police were open to political and private pressure exerted on them.

Newham also highlighted that "the police did not appear to be primarily focussed on doing everything possible to minimise violence and loss of life on the day of the killings … The police should've done what they've always done: minimum use of force, negotiations and if you can't do this without the use of violence, retreat!"

Newham criticised the lack of investigation by the SAPS into the Marikana incident in order to identify criminality and misconduct on the police's part. "And there's a lack of any clear action plan to prevent such an incident reoccurring," he told the audience.

Preventing another Marikana

Newham's recommendations on what can be done to improve policing in South Africa and prevent another Marikana were mostly based on the National Development Plan (NDP), which was formally adopted by Cabinet in 2013.

According to the NDP, professionalisation of the police should be established through a code of conduct, where periodic checks are done to ensure understanding of the code. Additionally, a code of professional and ethical police practice should be developed, with members regularly trained and tested on this, as well as undergoing general competency assessments. Competency and excellence, in turn, should be recognised and rewarded.

The establishment of a national policing board would be able to sets standards for recruitment, selection, appointment and promotion, according to the NDP. Specialised training should also be provided for detectives, community policing and other special units.

In his presentation, Newham pointed to the failure in police leadership since 2000 – under the reigns of former commissioners Jackie Selebi and Bheki Cele, former crime intelligence boss Richard Mdluli, and current national police commissioner Riah Phiyega – as one of the main reasons for the overall failure of the police.

In his recommendations, Newham again cited the NDP's solution. "The national commissioner and deputies should be appointed by the president on a competitive basis. A selection panel should select and interview candidates against objective criteria."

Also essential, according to Newham, was the immediate demilitarisation of the police.

All of this, he said, "would ensure that SAPS becomes depoliticised and is able to withstand political pressure within its field of operation. Over time, the SAPS would see an increase in public trust and respect from communities to the benefit of all."

Published on Mail & Guardian Online on 17 April 2014. 

Human beings died that day

Death. Death. Death. Lots of death. The past two weeks have revolved around death. First in the form of the play, “A human being died that night” and this week in the form of the Marikana Commission.

I don’t even know how to write this coherently. At the moment, Lt Col Vermaak is being cross examined by Advocate Anthony Gotz (representing Amcu), who is repeatedly asking Vermaak why he did not stop the operations on the ground in Marikana when he saw from his helicopter that there were bodies on the ground, who were either seriously injured and/or dead.

Vermaak’s response was that he sent the information through to his superiors and that it was in their hands to make a call.

Gotz then asked him if he is not prepared to share in the responsibility of the deaths of the people. To which Vermaak responded that he is not, because he had done his duty by informing the relevant people.

Vermaak also said that if he was in charge he would have stopped the operation after seeing the bodies on the ground.

In the play, “A human being died that night” Eugene de Kock AKA Prime Evil is interviewed in his jail cell by Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela… As the play progresses, de Kock is humanised. And the audience is drawn in as Pumla’s resolve not to have any form of emotional connection with the man is gradually dissolved. You are drawn into her mixed emotions – disgust, confusion and dare I say sympathy?

All of this leaves me baffled at human’s capacity for violence and brutality. But it also makes me question humanity. It makes me question myself. What would I have done in those situations? What am I capable of?

Even the Oscar Pistorius trial makes me ask these questions. What kind of atrocities am I capable of inflicting on other human being? How would this sane, law-abiding, educated citizen react under those circumstances and in those contexts?

I am not in any way trying to excuse in any way what these people have done. I am just wondering whether or not the rest of us would be capable of the same.

Yesterday afternoon I attended one of the seminars organised by the Marikana Commission in order to uncover the underlying issues that led to the Marikana massacre. The topic was migrant labour. At the end of the presentations, the floor had an opportunity to engage with one another and the speakers. Many miners and family members of the deceased were there.

One widow stood up and as she addressed the audience got increasingly emotional. She comes from Nelspruit, is being put up in a hotel along with other family members of the deceased during the duration of the commission. She sleeps on a bed and gets to choose what food to eat every day. At home, she would usually sleep on the floor. Her children are sleeping on the floor at home and are going hungry. “The money you pay for the hotel is a lot of money, you should rather give that money to us,” she said through a translator.

“I want assistance. I am starving. I am sick. I am suffering from stress. My husband was always at work but I didn’t get anything [from Lonmin]. Was I also supposed to die? I’m just as good as dead.”

The distraught, inconsolable woman eventually had to be carried out of the room as she broke down.  It was heart breaking.