Notions like labour, class, economy, worker, and capitalism are often thought of as neutral concepts. However, each of these concepts is defined by gender and race dimensions.⁽²⁾ The emergence of capitalism in Africa centred on exploiting cheap (if not free) labour during the processes of colonisation and very often (if not always) this labour was divided on racial grounds. A division between paid and unpaid labour, or productive and reproductive labour, kept women in the domestic realm,performing unpaid, under-valued care and reproductive work. This status quo maintained the productive workforce (men) at the time, and reproduced the next generation of workers. Today, the world’s labour force is still divided largely along race and class lines. However, the gendered and racialised character of the class is frequently overlooked.

This CAI paper recognises that class is gendered and racialised and that there is increasing inequality in today’s globalised landscape. It provides a briefdiscussion ofthe global division of labour as related to Africa.

Division of labour

Numerous authors point out other axis upon which labour-related notions rest. Joan Acker, for example, emphasises the role of organisations, whilst Nira Yuval Davis focuses on nations. However, there is a common consensus amongst analysts that the increasing levels and speed of globalisation are further impacting the divisions of labour. In other words, as labour becomes increasingly globalised it is also becoming increasingly divided. This division is discussed in Globalization and social change: People and places in a divided worldby Diane Perrons.⁽³⁾ She considers the effects of globalisation, specifically its relationship to inequality, and questions the effectiveness of the neo-liberal era and its ability to create a fair world.

“The point is that the public never has the opportunity of voting on the State system itself; they are caught up in a system in which coercion over them is   inevitable.” Murray Rothbard – Power and Market, pp. 1065 – 1066

The famous science fiction writer of the Pern series of books, Anne McCaffrey, was once allegedly criticized for creating a fictional world without religion. Being a lady of fine persuasion she remarked that as a writer of science fiction, Pern was her world and she could do in it what she wanted. McCaffrey noted that in her fictional world – her sandpit – she’s allowed to write the rules as she pleases.

Fortunately for us, we do have a choice of participating in McCaffrey’s world. It is simple if you don’t like the rules of McCaffrey’s world, you don’t have to participate. You can choose not to play along. Opt out, just don’t read her books. We all have choices in consumption, and that is what is great about free markets.  In a true free market, you can choose not to consume McCaffrey’s fiction, along with a wide array of other goods and services, you may not wish to consume.

There is however one organization in society that gives us very little choice in consumption, an organization from which it is nearly impossible to opt out from. This ever expanding organization is the state and its associated legislation and services.

Unlike in McCaffrey’s sandpit, the governmentally imposed ‘sandpit’ allows for very little choice. In essence, we are forced by law to play along.

But is it not the nature of governments to exercise power; to coerce people into following the rules of the ‘sandpit’? Whether by the sword, the gun, or the threat of jail, we all are forced to participate. At the core, this seems to be an advantage that governments have, that the free markets do not. True free markets are based on voluntary exchanges.

Although the political ideal of ‘African solutions to African problems’ continues to inform the policies and perspectives of the African Union (AU) and regional bodies, there is little clarity as to what exactly it entails. There is no doubt that this ideal has achieved some prominence in the discourse on security on the continent, so much so that it is being turned into a cliché. Because its prominence is not matched by a shared understanding of what it means, African solutions to African problems has come to mean different things to different people. While this lack of clarity has bolstered the position of sceptics of this ideal, it also tends to create disillusion among its supporters.

As a starting point, it is important to note that although this ideal achieved its current status in the context of the transformation of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) to the AU, it is much older in African political thought. The essence of African solutions to African problems was formulated as far back as 1967 in the well-known Kenyan scholar Ali Mazrui’s seminal work, Towards a Pax Africana. In the words of Mazrui, ‘Pax Africana asserts that the peace of Africa is to be assured by the exertions of Africans themselves.’

In the context of the transformation of the OAU to the AU, what led to the elevated status of this ideal was the reluctance of the international security system to adequately respond to African crises.

Should South Africans be worried about the double speak from the ANC concerning transformation of the judiciary? Speaking to journalists in parliament on 28 February 2012, the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ), Jeff Radebe asserted that the government had no interest in reducing the powers of the Constitutional Court. Radebe was visibly irritated by this line of questioning at the press conference and took umbrage with what he saw as unnecessary concerns each time the ANC debates the transformation of the judiciary. Radebe stated that cabinet intended assessing how “Constitutional Court rulings have impacted on the lives of ordinary South Africans” and how “challenges” to the goals of transforming South African society could be better addressed by the judiciary.

In the preface to the Discussion Document on the Transformation of the Judicial System and the Role of the Judiciary in the Developmental South African State released in February 2012 by the DoJ, Radebe argues that, “the transformation of the judicial system is a constitutional imperative which is entrusted upon the government as a branch of the state, assigned the responsibility of developing and implementing national policy and of initiating legislation, among others.”