POLITICAL STRIKES AND THE LIMIT OF LEGITIMATE INDUSTRIAL ACTION IN NIGERIA: POLICY ISSUES, EMERGING CHALLENGES AND WAY FORWARD
By
Femi
Aborisade[1]
Labour
Consultant and Attorney-At-Law
aborisadefemi@gmail.com
Introduction
My interpretation
of the above topic given to me is that there is a concern that labour
should realise the necessity to organise politically for a radical transformation
of society in view of the legal constraints on trade unions to use industrial
action for political objectives.
Outline
Assuming that I have correctly interpreted the topic
as perceived by the organisers, this paper is based on the following outline:
1.
Definition
of terms: Legitimate, Strike, Political Strike.
2.
Theorising Trade
Union Goals And Methods Of Organising.
3.
The
relevance of Anthony Gramsci’s Hegemony and Counter Hegemony in Redefining the
Political Task of Trade Unions Today.
4.
Conclusion.
Definition
of terms
‘Legitimate’
The Free
Online Dictionary[2]
defines ‘legitimate’ (adj) as:
·
Being
in compliance with the law; Being lawful.
o
Example:
embarking on a legitimate business.
·
Being
in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards.
o
Example:
engaging
in legitimate advertising practices.
An important conclusion we need to draw immediately
from the definition of ‘legitimate’ is that while trade unions operate within
some legal framework today, the historical development of unionism is
rooted in defiance of the law. The union thus tends to maintain a delicate balance between the two ‘Cs’ –
cooperation and contestation, depending on the balance of forces and the
issues involved.
‘Strike’
The ILO[3]
defines strike as any work stoppage, however brief and limited.
The Trade Disputes Act (S. 47) defines strike only
in connection with employment
relationship. The legal definition of strike under the Trade Disputes Act
contains seven (7) elements as follows:
1. Cessation
of work
2.
By a body of persons (i.e. collective cessation of work, not individual
action)
3.
Who are employed
4.
(and) who act in combination or concerted effort
5.
With
the goal or purpose of:
a. Refusing
to continue to work for an employer
b. Compelling
an employer to accept or not to accept a term of employment or physical
condition of work, or
c. Aiding
other workers to compel their employer
to accept or not to accept terms and physical conditions of work
6.
The action must be in consequence of a trade dispute.
7.
The
form of action may include:
a. Deliberate
refusal to work (wild cat strike), or
b. Deliberately
working at less than usual speed or with less than usual effectiveness.
Thus,
for example, striking against fuel price increase would not qualify as a lawful
strike under the Trade Disputes Act, strictly speaking.
‘Political
strike’
Political strike is one of the recognised typologies of strikes. The ILO Committee of
Experts[4]
classifies strikes based on the nature of demands or objectives of strikers and
therefore presents the following categorization of strikes –
·
occupational strikes (seeking to guarantee
or improve workers’ working or living conditions),
·
trade union (seeking to guarantee or
develop the rights of trade union organizations and their leaders),
·
sympathy strikes (where workers come out
in support of another strike, and
·
general
and political strikes
Just as the definition
of strike under the Nigerian Trade Disputes Act does not accommodate political
strikes as lawful, so also, the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association[5]
considers that ‘strikes of a purely political nature … do not fall within the
scope of the principles of freedom of association” (ILO, 1996 para. 481).
From the standpoint of
the Committee, while the right to strike does not cover strikes of a purely political
nature, it covers those which seek a
solution to major issues in economic and social policy. Thus, within the
framework of this ‘principle’, it appears strikes against increases in the
price of petroleum products would be lawful while the popular strikes declared
by the labour and trade union movements in support of the annulled June 12,
1993 election to enable MKO Abiola actualize his mandate and to terminate
military dictatorship would be fit for restraint and repression.
Indeed, in Adams Oshiomhole and Nigeria Labour Congress V. Federal Government of
Nigeria and Attorney-General of the Federation[6],
the Court of Appeal declared a strike action against imposition of a N1.50 fuel
tax (effective from 1st January 2004) illegal. The court held that
the Nigeria Labour Congress had no right to call out workers on strike against
general economic and political decisions of the Federal Government because such
had nothing to do with breach of individual contracts of employment with
various employers as envisaged in the Trade Disputes Act.
THEORISING TRADE UNION GOALS AND METHODS OF
ORGANISING
Part of the
challenges confronting trade unionism in the 21st century is the
need to rethink trade union goals and how best to organise to attain them.
The task of
redefining trade union goals and roles in the political development of Nigeria
has become more pertinent than ever before in view of excruciating poverty
pervading the land. Yet, we need to appreciate that poverty is a creation of politics. The problem of poverty is a product
of political choices or decisions. Thus, the poor are poor because the rich are rich. The
process of enrichment of the rich is the process for the dispossession of the
poor.
Examples:
·
Income
Inequality:
The
resources of the country are used first
to satisfy the greed of the rulers and the crumbs that remain are used to
attend to the need of the majority. That is why a typical Senator earns more than two times what the
US President earns while the official
minimum wage is only N18, 000! The US President earns only about N60 million per year compared to a
Nigerian Senator who earns at least N163
million per year. That is why the National Assembly has refused to obey a
recent court order, which ordered it to publish budgetary allocations it has
received.
·
Privatization:
The rich
Nigerians dispossess society of the common patrimony and enrich themselves in
the name of privatization. Privatisation is looting (of common inheritance) by
the ruling class.
·
Social Services: The rulers go abroad for medical care and send
their children abroad for education, using public resources, while they refuse to implement constitutional
provisions, which mandate them to provide cost-free education and health care
for the masses.
·
Housing Demolition: The rich live in mansions and demolish the shanties where
the masses live in order to build houses, which only the rich can afford.
·
Aiding developers to rob people
of their land: The
ruling class helps enrich so-called private developers with land compulsorily
acquired from poor people under the Land Use Act. Many of the so-called private
developers lack the capacity to provide houses. So, they end up selling the
land at exorbitant prices to individuals. Alternatively, they demand initial
mortgage deposits, which only people who have taken questionable government
contracts can afford.
·
Bank salvage: While thousands
of bank workers lost their jobs on the basis of bank consolidation and reforms,
the bank owners were helped with huge resources to save their investment and
prevent bank failure. Meanwhile, education, health, housing for the poor, and
so on, remain underfunded. As at 2009 when I religiously tracked the CBN
injection of funds into the banking sector to salvage the banks from collapse, the
CBN had committed not less than N1.82trillion[7].
·
Establishment
of AMCON: AMCON stands for Asset Management Corporation
of Nigeria. It was established in 2010 following the promulgation of its
enabling Act. It is a Special Purpose
Vehicle (SPV) through which non-performing loans (loans which the
beneficiaries are no longer repaying) would be absorbed by the CBN. In line
with this objective, according to the CBN Governor, Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi[8],
the CBN has recently acquired the non-performing risk assets of some banks
worth over N1.7 trillion. The AMCON is funded mainly by the CBN
contributing N50 billion annually
into a sinking fund while the banks contribute only 0.3 per cent of their total assets. According to the press, President Jonathan’s Economic Advisers are
among the debtors, owing N1.3 trillion of the debts absorbed by AMCON[9].
The AMCON list of debtors[10],
according to the 17 September circular issued by the CBN comprised 113 companies and 419 individuals. The
companies included Femi Otedola’s Zenon Petroleum and others that were
allegedly involved in the fuel subsidy scam, estimated at US$6.5bn[11].
·
Corruption:
According to the IMF[12],
over $700bn had been realized in oil
revenues alone since 1960. Eighty five
per cent (85%) of this sum accrues to only 1% of the population.
Also, Ribadu[13] asserts that ‘Between 1960 and 1999, Nigerian officials had
stolen or wasted more than $440billion.
That is six times the Marshall Plan…’ - the total amount that was used to
rebuild the whole of Western Europe after the massive destruction produced by
the 2nd World War. In spite of the oil wealth, there is an alarming incidence
of poverty, which has turned the country into host to 6% of the core
chronically poor in the world[14]. The APRM Report on
Nigeria asserts that the country is host to the third largest concentration of
poor people in the world after China and India and is among the top 20
countries in the world with the widest gap between the rich and the poor.
Historically, trade union goals can be
conceptualised within the framework of two extremes – pure trade unionism and
radical or revolutionary unionism. The goal, which characterises a particular
trade union, tends to define its organisational methodologies, effectiveness
and social relevance.
To this extent,
trade union goals and methods of organising to attain them may be broadly
classified as follows:
1.
Apolitical
pure or economistic trade unionism
2.
Syndicalist
trend
3.
Social
Movement Unionism, which has different variants, including:
a.
Partnership
unionism
b.
(Traditional)
democratic political unionism
c.
Cosmopolitan
(broad-based, alliance seeking) unionism
d.
Moral
and ethical unionism
e.
Radicalized
political unionism
Let us briefly
examine each of the above.
1.
Apolitical pure or Economistic Trade Unionism
The economistic
theory looks at trade unions as purely organisations concerned with the
employment relations. It therefore denies workers or trade unions a political
consciousness. To this theory, workers
are and should just be concerned with ‘negotiable’ employment issues – wage
increase, improvement of working conditions, etc. According to this theory,
trade unions should just be concerned with collective bargaining, lobbying
legislators and government to pass favourable legislation, embarking on
‘responsible’ strikes aimed at settling terms and conditions related to
problems arising out of the employment relationship. This kind of reasoning informed successive
governments in Nigeria labelling strikes against increases in the prices of
petroleum products as ‘political’ and therefore outside the scope of ‘trade
unionism’.
In fact, a court
judgment has backed up this economistic perspective of the role of trade
unions. This was the case in the June 2007 nationwide strike action. As
recorded in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Adams Oshiomhole and Nigeria Labour Congress V. Federal Government of
Nigeria and Attorney-General of the Federation[15],
the court declared the strike illegal. The major issue in the case was the
imposition of a N1.50 fuel tax with effect from 1st January 2004 by
the Obasanjo regime. Labour and other civil society organizations declared a
strike against it. The court held that the Nigeria Labour Congress had no right to call out workers on strike
against general economic and political decisions of the Federal Government
because such have nothing to do with breach of individual contracts of
employment with various employers as envisaged in the Trade Disputes Act.
The above
decision of the court however runs counter to the principle established by the
ILO Committee on Freedom of Association, which stated that the occupational and
economic interests which workers defend through the exercise of the right to
strike do not only concern better working conditions or collective claims of an
occupational nature, but also the seeking of solutions to economic and social
policy questions[16].
In the same spirit, the Committee stated that workers and their organizations
should be able to express their dissatisfaction regarding economic and social
matters affecting workers’ interests in circumstances that extend beyond the
industrial disputes that are likely to be resolved through the signing of a
collective agreement[17].
The classical right-wing
definition of trade unions was offered by Sidney and Beatrice Webb, almost a
century ago and also subscribes to this view of trade unions as economistic
organisations: ‘a continuous association of wage earners for the purpose of
maintaining or improving the conditions of their working lives’.
The Nigerian
legal definition of trade unions in The Trade Unions Act also restricts the
role of trade unions to the economic disputes/issues at the workplace. The Act
defines a trade union as ‘any combination of workers or employers … the purpose
of which is to regulate the terms and conditions of employment of workers’.
From the
foregoing, those who restrict unions to economistic roles do so for either of
two reasons as Lenin (1970) pointed out: hypocritical screen for counter
revolution or a complete lack of class consciousness. This means either a conscious attempt
to ideologically enslave the working class to the bourgeoisie, or (ii) unconscious enslavement of the working
class to the bourgeoisie. The latter reflects a low level of class
consciousness.
However, the
weakness and bankruptcy of the economistic theory is that economic decisions are products of political decisions. The
wage structure and pricing of petroleum products, prospects for job security,
pension and gratuity matters, elongation of retirement age, and so on, are
politically determined. Why then should
the workers and their unions not be involved in conscious political activity to
reshape their future? In situations where the oppressed classes are not
significantly involved in political decision making processes, meeting basic
needs and solving poverty issues will remain a mirage.
2. The Syndicalist Trend
Syndicalism was a
reaction to reformist ideas and bureaucratic wariness in trade unions.
The Syndicalist trend
constitutes a variety of revolutionary but non-Marxist approaches to workers’
struggle. This is because the trend emphasizes economistic struggle but one
that looks at the General Strike alone
as a way of overcoming capitalist state power, without paying attention to the
need to build working people’s political organisation, which draws within it,
all the other oppressed strata traders, student youths, unemployed, farmers,
and so on.
The
Syndicalists are partially right. The power of the
working class is revealed during any general strike. One powerful truth will be
realized by all: the operation of the
capitalist society depends entirely on the working class. When workers
withdraw their labour, everything comes to a standstill. Contrary to the saying
that ‘nobody is indispensable’, a general strike reveals that workers are
indispensable in the smooth-running of the society.
But
on the other hand, the Syndicalists are wrong because the General Strike also
reveals the weakness of the trade union movement alone in changing society. AGeneral
Strike action raises the question of control
of state power: “Who rules, the capitalist or the working class?” The ruling class will not willingly give
up power. It will therefore move to decisively defeat the strike, either by
crushing it militarily or by inducements, tricks and maneuvers. To that extent, a General strike cannot persist,
indefinitely. Within a period of days or at most, a week or two, the issues
must be resolved, in victory or defeat for either class. For the eventual
political defeat of the capitalist ruling class therefore, there is a need for
mass-based political organisations of the working class, based on the ideas of
socialism, which draw behind them all the other oppressed strata.
Syndicalism
is therefore a revolutionary but non-Marxist trend, which:
·
Believes in militant trade unionism as
the mechanism for overthrowing capitalism.
·
Rejects the idea of passive strikes
wherein workers simply down tools and wait for results. Instead, they advocate
marches, mass pickets, secondary picketing of other workplaces, blacking of
goods, sympathetic strike actions in solidarity.
·
Does not regard ‘employment contract as
sacrosanct which should not be broken. As James Conolly[18]
puts it: “No consideration of a contract with a section of the capitalist class
absolved any section of us from the duty of taking instant action to protect
other sections when said sections were in danger from the capitalist enemy. Our
attitude always was that in the swiftness and unexpectedness of our action lay
our chief hopes of temporary victory...”
·
States that since the root of the
capitalists is economic, the axe must be applied to the root. This conception
means a subordination of politics to economic struggles. They thus hold the
view that any politics outside economic struggles are irrelevant. They felt a
socialist society would organically spring up out of a General Strike.
·
has contempt for unions with reformist
or reactionary leaderships, which are regarded as rotten. They argue that ‘to
talk about reforming these rotten graft infested unions which are dominated absolutely
by the labour boss, is as vain and wasteful of time as to spray a cesspool with
attar of roses’[19]
·
Syndicalists would therefore not work in
the existing unions contrary to Lenin’s position which argued that to withdraw
from the official unions because of the reactionary and counter-revolutionary
character of the trade union leadership would be the greatest service
Communists could render the bourgeoisie. Rather than abandoning unions with
reformist leaderships, Lenin urged that the rank and file could be organised to
put pressure on the official leadership.
3.
SOCIAL MOVEMENT
UNIONISM (SMU)
Social movement
unionism is a reflection of the tendency of trade unions to change their
strategies as the environment in which they operate changes. There tends to be
a relationship between trade union
methods of struggle and the operating context. As the environment in which
trade unions operate become more hostile, unions
tend to develop an orientation towards societal justice movement in which trade
unions assume the role of the tribune of the downtrodden against state and
corporate injustice. In a hostile
environment, trade unions often find out that to retain the loyalty of
their own immediate members and wage successful strike actions, they need to build some form of alliance or show social
relevance or sensitivity towards wider socio-economic cum political issues
affecting the generality of the society as a whole.
WHAT IS SOCIAL MOVEMENT UNIONISM (SMU)?
Tattersall
(2005) has drawn attention to heterogeneous
terminologies, which refer to variants of SMU. These include
‘union-community coalitions, social unionism, community unionism, social
justice unionism or citizenship movement unionism’, and so on. However, a
central feature of SMU is coalition-building with organisations
beyond the workplace.
Bronfenbrenner
and Juravich (1998) have identified a variety of organising approaches, which
typify SMU. These include:
1.
anti-corporate
campaigning,
2.
union-community
coalitions and alliances,
3.
internationalism,
and
4.
outreach
to non-traditional members.
The social
movement orientation is recognised to be most
strongly associated with trade unions in the Global South, where workers’
organisations have often been central to widespread societal justice movements.
3 (a).
PARTNERSHIP UNIONISM AS A VARIANT OF SMU
Partnership Unionism
is characterised by entering into a kind of Partnership with the government. It
often occurs where a government that is perceived to be pro-labour is in power.
The goal of the partnership is often to restrict trade union action since it is
perceived that government is more or less jointly run with the inputs of
labour. This kind of unionism tends to lead to Government-inspired (or employer-inspired/Management-inspired) unionism.
This method of
union organising does not tend to see much need for alliance building with
civil society organisations. The leadership that embraces this kind of union
organisation tends to rely more on the
goodwill of government (or management) rather than the loyalty of members to
achieve members’ demands.
A key weakness
of this mode of union organisation is that once the membership knows that the
concessions they enjoy are borne out of the goodwill of government/management
rather than the organisational muscle of the union, their loyalty will shift
from the union to the government/ management. The long-run implication is a
weakened union.
3 (b). (TRADITIONAL) DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL UNIONISM
The traditional
democratic political unionism, unlike economistic unionism, recognizes the role of power in human relationship. It recognizes that the balance of forces
within individual enterprises and the larger society is largely determined by
the political decision at the level of the larger society. The perspective therefore encourages alliance building on the
recognition that unions have a role to
play in extending workers’ rights to have a say in decisions which affect
them both in the micro and macro
environments.
However, the
political role assigned to labour by the ‘Democratic’
perspective does not give room for the aspirations of the workers to seize
political power and re-organise the whole society on a new basis. The political role expected of labour by this
perspective is to be within the framework
of existing production relations and power structure.
We can establish
examples of concern for wider national issues (which have nothing to do with
employment relations) at every stage of labour’s history in Nigeria. The point is that while it has a lot of
value, the ‘democratic’ perspective concedes
the right to govern to some so called professional politicians while labour’s
role (as a group/class) is restricted to pressure group activity - asking
government to rule with some humaneness. However, the class that wields
political power would usually use it, mainly, to advance its own interests. Therefore,
unless the working class and the poor are politically empowered, sustaining the
welfare of ordinary people, in terms of basic needs cannot be guaranteed.
3(c). COSMOPOLITAN (BROAD-BASED, ALLIANCE SEEKING)
UNIONISM
Cosmopolitan
unionism encourages full blown alliance building with workplace and
non-workplace, civil society organisations in mobilising support for workers
and community struggles. However, because of the heterogeneity of the goals of
the organisations involved in the alliance, it tends to become depoliticised,
lacking political agenda. An example in Nigeria is the LASCO – Labour and Civil
Society Coalition.
While this kind
of alliance-building may succeed in building groundswell of support for unions
in action, it is doubtful whether a depoliticised movement, lacking a political
ideology, which is focused on regime and system change, could engender an
enduring change. At the same time, it is recognised that an ideologically and
politically committed organisation that lacks the capacity to build social
support for popular workers’ and community struggles can hardly succeed in
winning the confidence of a critical mass of the downtrodden.
3 (d). MORAL AND
ETHICAL UNIONISM
This perspective
of unionism essentially assigns a role to trade unions from a religious and
moral point of view. It is based on the
belief in the ‘brotherhood of man’ and the consequent mutual obligations based
on compassion for the unfortunate and the belief that evil in society emanates
from incessant accumulation of riches and interpersonal competition.
From the point of view of this perspective, the
emergence of trade unions, the idea that binds unionists together, the tonic
that keeps the union going and sustains it, the rationale and justification for
the existence of the union is the extent to which it is committed to upholding
and defending certain societal ethics and morals, which make the welfare of the
disadvantaged the focus of its activity.
What sustains
the loyalty of some members to the union could be its commitment in defence of
the poor. The Late Chief Gani Fawehinmi,
in an interview with the Tell magazine expressed this religious factor
to explain his commitment to the people’s cause:
By
all standards I am not a poor man. I am convenient and comfortable and I
believe that if I don’t do what I am doing for those who are not as opportune
as myself, God will punish me. Apart from that, I am always at home fighting
for the deprived, the neglected, the repressed and the oppressed. If I have no cause to fight for, I am like a
fish out of water. What sustains me is
the struggle. What gives me blood is my
conviction and what propels me is my dedication to that conviction. And so, if
I have no genuine cause to fight for, I die[20].
Although the
influence of religious beliefs has waned in explaining the character of trade
unions in our time, it has transformed into concern for ‘justice’. Flanders points out that the capacity of the
trade unions to survive the hostility of the State and sustain the loyalty of
union membership is hinged on commitment
to justice:
The trade union movement deepened its
grip on public life in its aspect as a sword of justice. When it is no longer
seen to be this, when it can no longer count on anything but its own power to
withstand assault, it becomes extremely vulnerable. The more so since it is as a sword of justice
rather than a vested interest that it generates loyalties and induces
sacrifices among its own members and these are important foundations of its
strength and vitality (Cited in Aborisade, 1994).
The ethical and
moral theory means that the strength of
the trade union movement in its activities and struggles lies in its capacity to win popular support.
Winning popular support is also predicated
on the types of issues taken up by the trade unions.
Sam Omatseye,
writing in The Nation[21]
gave us the practical lesson in the electoral victory of Obama as President of
the United States
‘I think Obama is also being rewarded
for being good to his fellow people. After a Harvard law degree, he could have
earned millions of dollars on Wall Street. But he abandoned all of that and
went into community organizing, helping people who could not find meals or
homes or get education. It was the benefit of that experience that helped him
to craft the spectacular victory for the ages. Nigerians should learn that
money is not everything. Only love for your fellow human can even give us the
success we want.
That is the lesson of Obama’s triumph.
We must ponder this while we celebrate’.
If fighting for
the vulnerable classes can earn an individual such victory, how much more could
the trade union movement advance the cause of fighting to win basic needs for
all?
3 (e).
RADICALISED POLITICAL UNIONISM
Radicalised
political unionism is a variant of the Marxist perspective, which encourages
trade unions to fight for reforms (improvement in the day-to-day material lives
of the working masses) as a way of building the organisational capacity of an
alliance of the oppressed classes, led by the working class, to bring about a
revolutionary overhauling of the existing capitalist social order.
As Marx and
Engels (1971) wrote in the Communist Manifesto, every class struggle is a
political struggle. Therefore, the question for any trade union or
unionist is not whether or not to be involved in politics, the question is which
type of politics: politics to influence those in government or politics to
seize political power?
The Marxist
theory of the state maintains that the state is an instrument of class
domination. Whichever class wields political power uses it to advance the
interests of its members by oppressing the other class. In a capitalist
society, the state is ‘the executive committee of the bourgeoisie’; it protects
the property of the capitalist classes and adopts whatever policies, including
violence, to sustain the status-quo. Within the capitalist context, the
property-less class is taught to understand that it is in its interest, and
within the limits of its capability, to revolt, in the striving to defend its
interests by fighting against political and/or economic exclusion. Hence, to
Marx and Engels, classes seek to protect the self interests of their members:
The bourgeoisie …has left remaining no
other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash
payment’. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of
chilvarous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of
egotistical calculation (Marx and Engels, 1933:62).
Friedrich Engels
expresses similar idea in explaining that social classes pursue the self-interest
of their members:
Bare-faced covetousness was the moving
spirit of civilization from its dawn to the present day; wealth, and again
wealth, and for the third time wealth; wealth, not of society, but of the puny
individual was its only and final aim (cited in Bober, 1948:72).
The foregoing
underscores the reality of life that in
class societies, the ruling class struggles to retain political power and
protect the economic wealth of its members while the expropriated, the
disadvantaged are compelled to struggle to end their exploitation and
repression. Therefore, the source
of development and general wellbeing of the ordinary people in a capitalist
society like Nigeria is not the ruling class but organized labour – both the
waged and unwaged when they form joint platforms for struggles.
That is why Ake (1989:43) argues that development is agency-determined:
‘somebody has to determine that development is desirable, that a particular
kind of development should be pursued and in a particular kind of manner’. This
shows that desirability of development, the kind of development and the manner
of attainment are neither accidental nor objectively determined. According to
Ake (1989), since the capitalist state is a specific modality of capitalist
domination, the ability to maintain the
capitalist hegemony on society and the capacity of the dominated and oppressed
classes to deploy effective counter force in reaction to their domination goes
a long way to condition the possibility of development. The degree of
resistance put up by the dominated tends to determine the extent to which the
state uses scarce resources, which should have been invested in developmental
programs into maintaining opulence for the bourgeoisie and building the arsenal
of terror and a militarized state.
The Need for Declaration on Political Party
Nigeria has
witnessed governance by bourgeois politicians, both at the centre and state
levels. All they can afford to give Nigeria is unprecedented poverty and
insecurity. There is a need to build a Socialist Labour Party or parties,
based on the mass of the working class and its allies. It is not sufficient to
have a labour party. It is imperative to have a labour party (or parties) that
would openly and unapologetically:
·
Be
the voice of workers and the poor in the legislature
·
Declare
support for the day-to-day industrial struggles of workers and wider issues
being fought in the communities and nationally, and
·
Declare
socialism as its ideology. The unprecedented degree of social conflicts and
insecurity in Nigeria today means nothing but the inability of the capitalist
system to take society forward. The pervasive and excruciating poverty in
Nigeria today shows there is a vacuum which only a socialist party can fill,
based on a programme of eliminating economic inequality and making majority of
human beings in the society - the poor - the ultimate beneficiaries of any
government policy. Such a party will not be enslaved to maintaining the
existing social order; it will campaign for the need to carry out a system
change based on the masses stamping their feet on the sand of history and
demanding change.
Three key
tendencies have emerged in the attempts and experiences of organised labour to
be involved in electoral politics, as follows:
·
In
the 1950s, during the anti-colonial struggle, the central labour organisation,
the Trade Union Congress, TUC, merely affiliated
to the NCNC, instead of undertaking the formation of an independent
workers’ party. Though Chief Fagbenro Beyioku, speaking for the conservatives
who opposed workers involvement in politics, raised the option of the TUC
forming an independent workers party, it was widely perceived that the goal was
just to get the TUC to break from NCNC, as nothing was done by the
conservatives to initiate the formation of a workers’ party[22].
·
In
1983, labour’s attitude, as symbolised in the May Day Address of the NLC
President, was a call on workers ‘to vote for only pro-labour politicians in
all the political parties’[23].
·
Since
the 1960s, socialist intellectuals and labour bureaucrats have laboured to form
socialist and labour parties. Examples included The Socialist Workers and
Farmers Party (SWAFP), the Nigerian Labour Party, the Working People’s Party,
etc. The common bane of those efforts and sacrifices was that the parties lacked mass base of support among rank and
file workers.
o
As
Prof. Olorode observes, the current Labour Party today serves mainly as the
platform for all manners of politicians who lack a labour background to contest
after they have lost out in the nomination process in the main bourgeois
parties. Politics of exclusion and lack of commitment to working class
programme tend to be the bane of parties formed mainly by union leaders[24].
The objective we
seek to achieve by giving the above historical outline of organised labour’s
attempts at ‘partisan’ political party involvement is not to lament or bemoan
the past. Rather, it is to allow us to note that any current efforts are not
strange. What we need to do is to draw lessons from past experiences.
First, the
successes of the Labour Party in winning some seats in the 1964 elections, the
victory of the former President of the NLC, Adams Oshiomhole, as Governor of
Edo State, the fact that Dr. Mimiko won the Governorship position in Ondo State
on the platform of the existing Labour Party, no matter its weaknesses, all
show the potentials that exist for a Party built on:
·
the
mass of the rank and file workers and the other poor strata, and
·
a
program of defending the interests of the poor and the working class.
Second, there is
always a need to build an independent
workers party or parties, which could enter into electoral alliances or
form joint action committees with other radical or pro-labour parties or
organisations. Labour deserves to have an independent political party to politically
support struggles on industrial and other wider issues, rather than having to
lobby ‘friendly’ politicians (whose primary loyalty is to their bourgeois
parties) at critical moments. The experience of encouraging workers to vote for
‘pro-labour candidates in all parties’ also tends to strengthen ethnic/regional consciousness and divide workers along
the ethnically-based bourgeois parties[25].
Third, trade
unions and labour leaders have ‘ready-made’
national structures and mass base of social support, based on traditions of
labour struggles, which the ordinary politician lacks. Labour candidates
therefore stand a better chance of success in elections than other politicians,
provided the party can demonstrate
practical commitment to the cause of all the poor strata, including
students, traders, unemployed, farmers, and so on.
Fourth, in order
to avoid domination of the party by top union leaders, efforts should be made
to win the support of the rank and file
union membership for the formation of workers party, through referendum and
adoption of a resolution to that effect at unions’ special congresses. Such
an approach will ensure a steady source of funding for the parties, through
direct union-funding, apart from
contributions by individual workers.
Fifth, the trade
union movement has a duty to embark on a campaign for law reform for the
abrogation of all anti-labour provisions and laws. To this effect, the
following provisions pose daunting challenges to developing the political
muscle of the working class on militant tradition:
·
S. 15 of the Trade
Unions Act, which prohibits trade unions
from applying its funds, directly or indirectly, for political objectives.
·
S. 30(6) of the Trade
Unions Act, which prohibits strikes or
lock outs in any essential service. The definition of ‘essential services’ in S. 9 of the Trade Disputes Act is so broad that it embraces almost
all sectors of the economy – persons employed in civil capacity in the armed
forces of the Federation; persons employed in any enterprise engaged in the
production of any materials for use in the armed forces of the Federation; any enterprise in the private or public
sector connected with the supply of water, electricity, power, fuel, sound
broadcasting, postal, telegraphic, cable, wireless or telephonic
communications; ports, harbours, docks, aerodromes; transportation of goods,
persons, or livestock, by road, rail, sea, river or air; hospitals, burial of
the dead, sanitation, cleaning, disposal of night-soil and rubbish; outbreak of
fire, teaching, banking, Nigeria Security Printing and Minting, Central Bank of
Nigeria, and so on. In contradistinction to the Nigerian Trade Disputes Act,
the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association[26]
has stated that in a general sense,
the following sectors do not constitute essential services, in the strict sense
of the term: radio and television; the petroleum sector; ports (loading and
unloading); banking; computer services for the collection of excise duties and
taxes; department stores; pleasure parks; the metal sector; the mining sector;
transport generally; refrigeration enterprises; hotel services; construction;
automobile manufacturing; aircraft repairs; agricultural activities; the supply
and distribution of foodstuffs (ILO, 1996a, para 545).
·
S.
42(1)(A)&(B) of the Trade Unions Act, which has the effect of depriving
striking workers of the right to picket. The abrogation of the right to picket
is contained in the Trade Unions (Amendment) Act of 2005, which provides as
follows:
o
S. 42(1)(A) No
person shall subject any other person to any kind of constraint or restriction
of his personal freedom in the course of persuasion;
o
S. 42(1)(B) No
trade union or registered Federation of Trade Unions or any member thereof
shall in the course of any strike action compel any person who is not a member
of its union to join any strike or in any manner whatsoever, prevent aircrafts
from flying or obstruct public highways, institutions or premises of any kind
for the purposes of giving effect to the strike.
o
The
provisions of S. 42(1)(A) and (B) of the Trade Unions Act have the same effect
as the judgment of the judicial bench of the House of Lords in the case of Taff Vale Railway v. Amalgamated Society of
Railway Servants (1901) wherein the court held union funds liable for
damages arising from strike actions.
·
Ss. 137 and 182,
CFRN, 1999:
The trade union movement has a responsibility to canvass for constitutional
amendment and law reform such that public sector workers who seek to contest
elective offices only need to apply for ‘leave
of absence’ rather than the Constitutional and statutory requirement of having
to resign 30 days before the date of election[27].
Sixth,
the Nigerian labour movement should learn from the process leading to the
formation of the British Labour Party. The agitation for a
distinct labour voice in parliament, in recognition of the ‘class war’ was
initiated, not only by a few individuals within the society as a whole but also
within the trade union movement. The decision of the TUC to establish a labour
Representation Committee (LRC) followed a motion sponsored by only two unions.
The motion called on the Leadership of the TUC ‘to devise ways and means for
securing the return of an increased number of labour members to the next
Parliament’. Mortimer[28]
however notes that the decisive factor in strengthening the trend towards
support for independent labour
representation was not a product of ideological debate but a product of the
judgment of the judicial bench of the House of Lords (the highest court in the
UK), which made unions and their funds liable for damages arising out of strike
actions. That judgment immediately
raised concern that labour ought to be represented in Parliament so as to
change the law and restore trade union immunity against claims for damages
arising from strike actions. The
particular case in point was the case between Taff Vale Railway v. Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. The
Railway workers went on strike in 1900. The House of Lords gave its judgment in
July 1901. The Labour Party emerged in 1906 by virtue of the name adopted by
the MPs elected under the platform of the LRC. The existence of multiple
draconian provisions in labour laws in Nigeria makes it imperative for a labour
party that is committed to the cause of the workers to emerge to change the
law, as part of the first steps.
Seventh,
the Nigerian labour movement should also learn from the history of Solidarity
in Poland, which effectively combined economic/industrial and political struggles,
in spite of threats of clampdown.
In 1980, Poland was
engulfed in non-violent strike waves, which paralysed the entire country. The
strike started over economic issues, including rises in meat prices and demand
for wage increases. The Stalinist regime tried divide and rule tactics by
granting concessions to only strategic industries. But this only encouraged
more workers to join the strike.
However, a qualitative
twist occurred in the strike at the Gdansk Shipyard, where the workers made a
list of 21 economic and political demands, including release of political
prisoners, reinstatement of sacked workers, erection of a monument in memory of
workers who had been killed in 1970, acceptance of free trade unions,
the right to strike, freedom of speech and access to the media for people of
all faiths, and wage increases.
The strike was
organised under the platform of Inter-Factory Strike Committee, called, MKS,
similar to the Russian Soviets or Workers’ Councils, made up of democratically
elected workplace delegates, who in turn elected a Presidium.
In
spite of the threat of clampdown by the Stalinist
Polish authorities, the strike, which involved factory occupations and street
protests, spread to over 750 sites around the country and involved over a
million workers. Talks between the MKS and government representatives were
occasionally broadcast live to the shipyard workers.
The regime attempted to
isolate the Gdansk workers. Concessions were made to some segments of workers in
order to discourage them from striking. But the strike movement spread like
wildfire.
The strike snowballed into a general strike and
a dual-power situation developed. The strikers took control of public
transport, health service, food distribution, among others. For the duration of
the strike, sale of alcohol was banned, including consumption of alcohol by the
strikers.
Under
the pressure of the strikes and international concentration of attention on
Poland, the regime was isolated and weakened to the extent that it was unable
to use the armed forces to suppress the strike as it was not sure on whose side
their loyalty lied. Indeed, segments of the rank and file
members of the ruling Communist Party (Polish United Workers Party, PUWP)were
part of the strike and came in opposition to the top leadership of the Party.
It was estimated that about a third of the MKS members were PUWP members.
On 31 August 1980, the
regime caved in to all the 21 demands of the strikers and signed an agreement,
the Gdansk Agreement. The Agreement included acceptance of free trade unions
and the independent Self-Governing Trade Union, known as ‘Solidarity’ was
formally born. After the formal signing of the Agreement, it took the
leadership of the strike as well as the Catholic Church, to urge the strikers
in various parts to end the strike. Meanwhile, the strike had forced hundreds
of party secretaries and factory managers to resign their positions.
Two weeks after the
strike, membership of Solidarity reached 3.5million and within a short time, it
rose to 10million. Solidarity then became the most powerful organisation in
Poland.
Unfortunately, however,
nine years later, in 1989, in the first open and free election[29]
since 1946, Solidarity won all but one of the seats contested into the
Parliament (Sejm) and subsequently entered into a
coalition government, which restored capitalism through market reforms.
The restoration of
capitalism was not however the original programme of the strikers. Graffiti
on the walls in Gdansk showed that the workers were consciously or
unconsciously aiming at political revolution against state capitalism: ‘Socialism yes! But without distortions!’
But the leaderships of Committee for Workers Defense (KOR), MKS and Solidarity,
Lech Walesa and others, had limited perspectives.
The collapse of the economy caused by the absence of democracy and the
privileges of the ruling bureaucracy prepared the ground for the appeal of
capitalist restoration through market reforms. However, this only compounded
the economic problems as mass unemployment of over 20 per cent resulted within
the following two years.
General
Lessons from the experiences of Solidarity (Poland) and British Labour Party
The lessons of Solidarity in Poland and the Labour Party in Britain are that trade
unions need representation in parliament.
However, the political and
economic wings of labour should work together to gain strength from each other. They
should not restrict the activities of the other wing. The trade
union wing needs to be deeply political and the political wing needs to rely on
the collective strength of the trade unions. Strikes
should continue until working class demands are met or favourable legislation successfully
passed in the parliament. Parties
and politicians should support strikes and street protests of trade unions and
the poor.
RELEVANCE
OF ANTHONY GRAMSCI’S[30]
HEGEMONY AND COUNTER HEGEMONY IN REDEFINING THE POLITICAL TASK OF TRADE UNIONS
TODAY
The task of redefining trade union roles in transforming society could also
benefit immensely from an understanding of Anthony Gramsci’s ‘hegemony’ and
‘counter-hegemony’.
Gramsci explains that the dominant groups maintain their domination of
society through imposition of their ‘hegemony’
and that it would be necessary for the subordinate groups to develop a ‘counter-hegemony’.
Hegemony
Gramsci postulated that the hegemony or power of the ruling class over
society is not just maintained through sheer force or coercion[31]
but through a mix of ‘sheer force’ and
‘consent to domination’. Indeed, the state or the dominant group only
resorts to coercion as a means of disciplining those who refuse to consent.
Gramsci maintains that consent to domination is manufactured in the
sphere of civil society, through various social institutions, the church, the
educational system, the press, cultural activities and several other forms of
social interaction, which shape behaviour, thought process and perceptions
consistent with accepting existing hegemonic social order.
Counter-hegemony
Gramsci explains that developing the counter-hegemony involves two
methods:
·
A ‘war of maneuver/ movement’, and
·
A ‘war of position’.
‘WAR OF MANEUVRE/MOVEMENT’
According to Gramsci, the ‘war of maneuver’ involves direct
confrontation with the state through armed uprising, general strikes, and so
on, resulting in the subordinate groups physically overwhelming the coercive
apparatus of the state[32].
However, the success of the ‘war of maneuver’ is determined by the
success of the ‘war of position’. Therefore, Gramsci opines that “one should
refrain from facile rhetoric about direct attacks against the State and
concentrate instead on the difficult and immensely complicated tasks that a
‘war of position’ within the civil society entails[33]”.
What, therefore, is ‘war of position?’
‘WAR OF POSITION’
Gramsci explains that ‘war of position’ entails a process of resisting domination with culture. This
means developing a strong culture, a philosophical world outlook, which is
capable of establishing the necessary institutions for subverting hegemony. This means the culture which makes people to acquire the ability to question their
current undesirable state of life, to desire changes, to imagine how changes
might be brought about and to be convinced that change is feasible.
To Gramsci, issues of culture lie at the heart of the task of
revolutionary transformation of society.
In the final analysis, Gramsci’s
‘war of position’ may be interpreted as meaning the capacity of the dominated
to question the legitimacy and
continued existence of a social order and the system of government holding the
social order in place. The political hegemony of the ruling class is largely entrenched by the legitimacy
accorded the government by majority of the people – the belief and popular acceptance that public
officers’ actions, inactions, policies and decisions are an appropriate use of
power by a legally constituted governmental authority. Without the consent
of the majority, the domination of the dominant class would not have been
possible. The critical challenge therefore is to empower ordinary people to
accept that any government loses legitimacy the moment it begins to rule
without their consent or against their interests and that such a government
loses the right to continue to rule.
Gramsci’s stress on ‘war of position’ should however not be
misinterpreted to mean folding one’s arms in the face of tyranny and oppression.
Rather, to strengthen the ‘war of position’, Gramsci encourages the building of
alliances and a test of strength in series of dress rehearsals. According to
Gramsci,
“The
proletariat can become the leading and dominant class to the extent that it
succeeds in creating a system of alliances
which allows it to mobilise the majority
of the population against capitalism and the bourgeois state[34]”
In Gramsci’s view,
the working class could only become hegemonic if it transcends its own class
interests by articulating demands, which embrace the interests of other
marginalised classes. Thus, at the phase of the “war of position”, the working
class has to build alliances with other organisations of the poor and forge a shared ideology, capable of isolating
and weakening the power of the ruling class[35].
CONCLUSION AS WAY FORWARD
The central
message I wish to pass with the various theories on trade union goals and
Gramsci’s concepts of hegemony and counter-hegemony is that certain principles
inform the praxis and practice of trade unionism. It is risky to have unionists
who do not understand the world views of the employers and the working class as
well as the principles influencing the activities they have freely chosen to
engage in, at every point in time.
Generally, trade
unionism may be approached with two optional mindsets:
·
trade
unionism as a career, or
·
trade
unionism as a mission
Depending on the
mindset of individual unionists, the import of the above theories is that
adopting appropriate organisational and political strategy might indeed be a
necessary weapon in unions’ arsenal if they are to strengthen their power and
influence in the 21st century.
The alternatives
open to trade unions may be displayed on two dimensions, which have been
developed by Upchurch and Mathers[36]
1.
On
the first dimension, trade unions may either choose an integrative
approach, which involves coalitions and social pacts with governments
and employers or an oppositional approach, involving alliance building with workers
and communities, creating industrial and political organisations for combative mechanisms
of protests and electoral contestations.
2.
The second dimension involves either the
continuance of a national orientation to problem-solving, which relies on the
maintenance or creation or recreation of sympathetic Government/employer
support for the aims and objectives of organised labour, or an international
orientation, which supplements national initiatives to organizing with
establishing solidarity with working class organizations internationally and
learning from them.
The
two operational dimensions are presented in the diagram below:
ALTERNATIVE TRADE UNION FUTURES
(Reliance on the maintenance or
(re)creation of sympathetic Government support for the aims and objectives of
organised labour)
NATIONAL
Productivity coalitions
with employers Developing
combative and militant
and social pacts with
governments mechanisms of
protest and dissent
Productivity coalitions with employers Developing combative and militant
and social pacts with
governments
mechanisms of protest and dissent
INTERNATIONAL
(Supplementing
national initiatives with adoption of better forms of struggle from the
international arena and establishing international solidarity with working
class organisations)
I
recommend a reliance on an oppositional
approach combined with an internationalist orientation.
Within
the recommended framework, it will not be difficult to freely find the way to
the appropriate political direction to move.
In
the final analysis, the choice is for the unions/workers to make.
Philosophers
have interpreted the world, the task is to change it.
[1] Being Paper delivered at the
workshop on ‘SETTING AGENDA FOR LABOUR
IN A DEMOCRATIC DISPENSATION: EMERGING ISSUES.’ Organised by the Food, Beverage
and Tobacco Senior Staff Association (FOBTOB) in conjunction with the Friedrich
Ebert Stiftung on 9 – 10 November 2012 at Grand Inn and Suites, Stadium Road,
GRA, Ijebu-Ode, Ogun State.
[3] ILO Committee of Experts. 1994.
Cited in Aborisade, F. 2008. ‘The Right to strike in Nigeria and ILO Principles
on the Right to strike’, in F. Adewumi & S. Fajana. 2008. Workers’ Rights and Labour Standards in Nigeria.
Lagos: FES & Dept of Industrial Relations & Personnel management,
University of Lagos, pp. 70-91.
[4] ILO (Committee of Experts),
1983, para. 217], cited in Gernigon, B., Odero, A. And Guido, H. (2000). ILO
Principles Concerning the Right to Strike (3rd ed.). Geneva: ILO.
[5] International Labour
Organisation (ILO). (1996a). Freedom of association: Digest of decisions
and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing Body of
the ILO. Fourth (revised) edition. Geneva: ILO.
[6] (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1035) at
page 58.
[7] Evidence: According to Olubu (2009: 17 & 36) the CBN had
lent over N400 billion to the banks,
as at May 2009 (See National Daily, 18-22 May: 17 & 36). The loans were advanced from the CBN’s
Expanded Discount Window (EDW). The EDW was created by the CBN to prevent bank
failures under the weight of the global economic recession. Under the EDW,
banks can borrow for up to 360 days. Before the crisis, they could only borrow
over night. Previously, overnight borrowing by the banks attracted 14.75
percent. Under the EDW, interest rate dropped to 17 percent per annum. Earlier
in the year, the Nigerian Compass (6
January 2009:1& 5), had reported that the CBN had salvaged the banks from
going under by not less than N800billion,
‘without following due process in order not to send the wrong signal to the
troubled financial services system’. The third reported injection was the
pumping of N420 billion into five of
the banks – Intercontinental Bank, AfriBank, Finbank, Oceanic Bank and Union
Bank (The Guardian, 15 August 2009:
1 & 49), to salvage them from
collapse. According to the Governor of the CBN, this facility would be for a
period of between five and seven years. (The
Guardian, 29 August 2009: 1 &50). The CBN Governor later clarified that
‘much of that money will never come back because the bulk of the money is in
the stock market’ (The Nation, 2
September 2009: 1). There was also the fourth injection of about N200bn into the banks, after the August
N420bn. Altogether, as at the fourth
injection, the CBN pumped over N1.82
trillion into the banks to salvage their
collapse. The sum of N1.82 trillion
injected to save the banks as at 2009 amounts to 54% of the N3.4 trillion 2009 Federal Budget. If the Federal
Government had committed the N1.82 trillion pumped into the banks as a salvage
measure into any social service for the welfare of the poor, radical changes of
revolutionary proportions would have been recorded in such sector.
[9] Saharareporters internet post of
21 September 2012.
[10]
Allafrica.com/stories/201210050236.html (retrieved on 13 October 2012).
[11] Sahara Reporters’ internet post
of 21 September 2012.
[12]
Cited in M. Watts (2009). ‘Crude
Politics: Life and Death on the Nigerian oil Fields,’ (Working Paper No.
25). Washington DC: Institute of International Studies, University of
California, Berkeley, USA, available online at
<oldweb.geog.berkeley.edu/ProjectsResources/ND%20Website/Nig...> accessed
on 22 May 2012.
[13] ‘Capital Loss
and Corruption: The Example of Nigeria: Testimony before the House Financial
Services Committee, 19 May 2009, available online at www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs.../ribadu_testimony.pdf accessed on 22 May 2012.
[14] African Peer
Review Mechanism (APRM), 2008, paragraph 427 p.142.
[15] (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1035) at
page 58.
[16]
ILO, 1996a, para. 481, cited in Gernigon, Odero, and Guido, 2000.
[17] ILO, 1996a, para. 484.
[18] J. Connoly, ‘Old Wine in New
Bottles’, available online at www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1914/oldwine.htm (cited in International
Socialism, Issue 121 of 2 January 2009. Available online at www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=516issue=121 retrieved on 20/10/12).
[19] Quoted in Theordore Drapper,
‘The Roots of American Communism. Elephant, 1989, p19. (cited in International
Socialism, Issue 121 of 2 January 2009. Available online at www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=516issue=121 retrieved on 20/10/12).
[20] cited in Dateline, No.
13, March 30, 1995.
[21] 10 November 2008: back page
[22] F. Aborisade (1992). Nigeria Labour Movement in perspective. Lagos:
The Effective Company, p. 17.
[23] Id.
[24] O. Olorode (ND). ‘Trade Unions
and the Political Process: The Quest for Democracy in Nigeria’.
[25] NLC (2007).
Nigeria Labour Congress Policy Document, available online at http://www.nlcng.org/policydoc.pdf. Accessed on 19
May 2012.
[26] International
Labour Organisation (ILO). (1996a). Freedom of association: Digest of decisions
and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing Body of
the ILO. Fourth (revised) edition. Geneva: ILO.
[27]
Ss. 137 & 182, CFRN, 1999 for disqualification factors for
Presidential and Governorship candidates respectively; S. 107, Electoral Act,
2010 (as amended) for disqualification grounds for contesting an Area Council
election.
[28] J. Motimer (2000). ‘The
Formation of the Labour Party: Lessons for Today’. Available online at http://www.socialisthistorysociety.co.uk/MORTIMER.HTM. Accessed on 19 May 2012.
[29]
The election held on June 5 1989. Only 35 per
cent of the seats were by election while the rest were filled by PUWP and its
allies.
[30] A. Gramsci. 2003. Selections from the prison notebooks.
Hoare, Q., Nowell, S. G., eds. New York: International Publishers.
[31] According to Simon (1991), the
use of force or coercion is the domain of what Gramsci calls ‘political
society’, meaning ‘the armed forces, police, law courts, and prisons, together
with all the administrative departments
concerning taxation, finance, trade, industry, social security, etc’. (R.
Simon. 1990. Gramsci’s Political Thought: An Introduction. 2nd Ed.
Lawrence & Wishart). See also www.warofposition.com/?page_id=94 accessed on 23 October 2012).
[33] Cited in J. A. Buttigieg. 2005.
“The contemporary discourse on civil society: A Gramscian critique” Boundary 2, 32(1), 33-52. (accessed in www.warofposition.com/?page_id=94 retrieved on 23 October 2012).
[34] Cited in Simon, 1990,op.
Cit. (accessed in H. Jauch. ‘Namibia’s labour movement: Exploring the potential for radical change’
Paper presented at a conference for Socialist Action, Windhoek, 22 September
2012.
[35] Ibid.
[36]
Upchurch, M. & Mathers, A. (ND).
Social Movement Theory and Trade Union Organising (Available online at www.mdx.ac.uk/Assets/SMTOrganisingAM.doc, accessed on30 July 2012)
Comments
Post a Comment