Workers of Africa: The Unfinished Struggle for Liberation
Image: AFP
Mbuso Ngubane
AFRICA Day is not a day for celebration in the narrow sense. It is a day of remembrance, reflection, and recommitment.
We do not mark the birth of the Organisation of African Unity on the 25th of May 1963 with song and dance alone. We mark it with struggle. The very idea of Africa's unity, and its promise of liberation, has always rested on the backs, and in the hands, of its workers.
Not just those who labour in mines and factories, but also those who clean homes, till the soil, sew clothes, raise children, and build roads. It is working-class men and women, those who carry the continent's burdens daily, who have borne the cost of empire, and it is they who have carried the fight for freedom across generations.
Africa's liberation has never been the product of state declarations or elite negotiation. It has always been forged in protest, in strike, in sweat, and often in blood. When Ghana rose under Nkrumah, it was the strikes of railway and cocoa workers that shook the colonial economy. In South Africa, it was not the ballot box alone that broke apartheid.
It was the power of the organised working class, from the 1973 Durban strikes to the formation of militant unions like the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa. The same can be said of Guinea-Bissau under Amílcar Cabral, where the peasantry and rural workers were central to building a people's war. Cabral was clear: 'Tell no lies, claim no easy victories.' And we must now also be clear. Africa is not yet free.
The great betrayal of African independence was that while flags changed and national anthems were composed, the economic system remained intact. The colonial economy, rooted in extraction and exploitation, continued to thrive. This time under African managers, but still under the same logic of capital.
Workers remained landless, poor, and expendable. Their voices were marginalised in the very nations they had helped to liberate. As Thomas Sankara warned, political independence without economic justice is merely the illusion of freedom. Sankara, a revolutionary of rare honesty and vision, called for a break with neo-colonialism, for land redistribution, for women's emancipation, for a new economic order rooted in self-reliance. He was murdered by the very forces that feared what might happen if workers truly led.
And today, we must ask: what has changed? In South Africa, nearly 50% of young people are unemployed. Women continue to carry the burden of unpaid reproductive labour, while also surviving on precarious wages in the care and retail sectors.
Miners die underground, farm workers live in shacks, domestic workers are denied basic protections, and informal traders are harassed and criminalised. The economy remains colonial in structure. It exports raw materials, imports manufactured goods and services for the profits of capitalists while communities go hungry. This is not transformation. It is continued dispossession.
The same conditions exist across much of the continent. In Nigeria, oil workers face mass retrenchments while the profits are repatriated to multinational giants. In the DRC, children dig for cobalt with their bare hands, fuelling a so-called green economy that has no place for them.
In Kenya and Uganda, trade union leaders are imprisoned or assassinated. In Morocco and Tunisia, workers organising for dignity are crushed under anti-terror laws. From the Sahel to the Cape, Africa's workers face a coordinated attack by capital, both local and global, backed by the IMF, the World Bank, and complicit elites who have abandoned the very people they once claimed to serve.
But this is not just a story of defeat. New fires are burning on the continent. In Mali and Burkina Faso, led by figures like Assimi Goïta and Ibrahim Traoré, there is a rebellion against the dominance of France and the plunder of our resources. These processes are complex, often contradictory, and we must watch them with both hope and clarity. But what cannot be denied is that something long suppressed, is now stirring.
A Pan-African consciousness is resurfacing. Not from orchestrated summits or high-level dialogues, but from the lived experiences of those whose hands sustain our economies. It is returning through the organised defiance of farmworkers resisting landlessness, through the daily calculations of informal traders navigating criminalisation and debt, and through the collective frustration of unemployed youth with no future promised to them. It is shaped not in abstractions, but in concrete material struggle. What we are seeing is not a spectacle. It is a substance, and it cannot be ignored.
On this Africa Day, we must reject the empty symbolism of liberation without transformation. We must say clearly that the project of African unity is meaningless if it does not speak to the daily struggles of working people. Africa will not be saved by billion-dollar infrastructure deals, or by a new scramble for lithium and rare earths. It will be saved by the transformation of our societies along the lines of justice, equity, and people's power. That re-organisation begins with workers. Those who produce value, who build nations, who raise the next generation.
The trade union movement on the continent must rise to this occasion. We must rebuild our solidarity across borders. We must reject the legal straightjackets imposed on our organising. We must stop relying on state patronage and return to the grassroots, to the workplaces, to the streets.
Unions cannot be junior partners in capitalist development. We must be the voice of an alternative future. We must also be honest about our failures: where we have been co-opted, where we have ignored women's struggles, where we have failed to adapt to the realities of the informal and unemployed. A movement that cannot renew itself cannot lead.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Maverick
4 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Why foreign loans are a self-imposed straitjacket for SA's economy
Loans from international financial institutions are often celebrated as victories. But we need to ask what these loans are actually financing – and to whose benefit. The increased presence of international financial institutions in South Africa since 2020 should not be seen simply as a turn to cheaper lending. Rather, they are playing a key role in legitimising policy reforms that are aimed at dismantling state power over key economic resources, benefiting domestic and international capital. At first glance, it may seem like South Africa has caught a break. International financial institutions, most recently the World Bank and the African Development Bank (AfDB), have funnelled billions of dollars and euros in loans into the public purse. These loans have been provided at below market interest rates and with generous grace periods, at a time when the debt markets are charging the government a premium to borrow money. These loans are often celebrated in headlines as victories: ' South Africa secures World Bank funding ' or ' AfDB backs green growth reforms '. But we need to ask what these loans are actually financing – and to whose benefit. Curiously, these loans are not for the construction of bridges, roads, rail or tied to mega infrastructure projects such as Medupi. Moreover, according to the media statements and project documents published by the institutions, these loans are not intended to help South Africa refinance foreign currency-denominated debts. In other words, they cannot be regarded as an alternative to the high cost of market borrowing. Instead, these loans are meant to finance the legal and regulatory infrastructure deemed necessary to dismantle the state's control over key economic resources and often include policy conditions in their terms. National Treasury is therefore voluntarily approaching international financial institutions for money it could otherwise acquire elsewhere without the conditionality and political baggage associated with such borrowing. Reading the clues The first clue lies in how these loans are structured. They are neither earmarked nor set aside for a particular infrastructure project, as is often suggested by media reports. Instead, National Treasury classifies these loans as 'general budget support'. This means they are lumped together with all the taxes, market debt and government income generated in a fiscal year. While it is good for the government to have discretion on spending, as is allowed by general budget support loans, this is problematic where there is a hidden or contentious agenda behind the lending. Fortunately, reports provided by international financial institutions provide some more clues: in assessing South Africa's readiness for new loans, institutions evaluate the extent and speed at which the government has been undertaking policy reforms. Let's take the 2025 World Bank loan as an example. The loan agreement document explicitly states that the release of the $1.5-billion is conditional on the World Bank's satisfaction with the 'programme being carried out by the Borrower [Republic of South Africa]'. This 'programme' comprises several pillars largely related to legislative and regulatory changes that are designed to increase the role of the private sector. In the energy sector (pillar one), the World Bank cites the government's mandate for the National Transmission Company of South Africa (NTCSA) to enter into electricity transmission services agreements with independent transmission providers. This, it says, is to promote 'private sector participation' and acts as proof of South Africa's adherence to 'the programme'. Similarly, in the transport sector (pillar two), the government is commended for expediting the unbundling of Transnet through the Transport Economic Regulator Act of 2024. Self-imposed straitjacket That World Bank loan is not an isolated case. The recently approved $476.6-million loan from the AfDB follows the same pattern. The AfDB board was thrilled with the success of the previous $300-million 2023 loan, which they say 'delivered key reforms that bolstered financial stability and increased renewable energy capacity'. The project appraisal for the 2023 AfDB loan outlined the bank's specific contribution. It included its support for the Electricity Regulation Act, which, in their view, would 'provide the legislative framework to restructure and unbundle the electricity industry to create a modern and competitive sector, crowd in large investment into renewable energy, and establish a transmission system operator'. Unlike the classic 'structural adjustment' loans prevalent in the Global South following the 1980s, these loans are a self-imposed straitjacket on economic policymaking as well as an undoing of the developmental principles underpinning the establishment of the South African democratic movement. Government commitments to international financial institutions, as argued by the IMF, are viewed by global capital as a stamp of approval for a country's 'readiness' for investment. It assures the private sector that the government will not reverse its policy stance. No surprises Greater policy certainty is viewed as a precondition for crowding in private sector commitments. The push by the National Treasury and the Presidency to pass these reforms, all of which fall under the banner of Operation Vulindlela, should come as no surprise. Civil society and organised labour have consistently raised the alarm about the nature of these reforms and about whose interests they serve. The South African Federation of Trade Unions views Operation Vulindlela as 'a neoliberal structural reform agenda that is accelerating the privatisation of South Africa's public infrastructure'. The Congress of South African Trade Unions has also expressed concern about the ongoing unbundling of Eskom. Meanwhile, the Alternative Information and Development Centre has noted the link between the acquisition of these loans from international bodies and the acceleration of reforms proposed in Operation Vulindlela. It argues that it serves 'to satisfy the narrow interests of private investors and business elites at the expense of the public good'. In sum, for the National Treasury, the proliferation of foreign loans not only provides certainty to the market that reforms will be carried through and maintained, but also makes it difficult for dissenting voices to trigger policy changes. Ultimately, protecting South Africa's economic sovereignty means ensuring that the vision for our economy is shaped by the people the economy is meant to serve – that is the general public. This would necessitate opening up the space for Parliament and the public to scrutinise and debate the uptake of loans granted by international financial institutions, including their terms, conditions and long-term consequences. It is about ensuring that economic decisions reflect the needs and voices of the people above the preferences of markets or the priorities of lenders. The call by Parliament's Standing Committee on Finance for greater transparency – despite resistance from the National Treasury – must now be taken up more widely. Decisions about who controls our electricity grid, our ports, our budgets, and our future cannot be made behind closed doors. The time for making lending decisions that foreground the interests of South Africans is now. DM


Daily Maverick
4 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Trophy hunting in the greater Kruger area — what the study overlooks
Trevor Oertel is an Executive Committee member of the Sustainable Use Coalition of Southern Africa (SUCo-SA) and has represented SUCo-SA at CITES meetings both in Panama and Geneva. He has served under various ministers of Environmental Affairs on the Minister's Wildlife Forum. A recent study published in Biological Conservation Vol 309, September 2025, and amplified by Adam Cruise in Daily Maverick claims that communities near Kruger National Park reject trophy hunting and that alternative livelihood options should be explored ('Communities near Kruger Park reject trophy hunting, embrace ethical alternatives — study', 28 July 2025). Yet the very same study simultaneously acknowledges the conservation and economic benefits that trophy hunting has delivered in southern Africa for decades. advertisement Don't want to see this? Remove ads This contradiction is at the heart of the problem: the study does not confront the source of public opposition to hunting, nor does it critically assess how representative the voices quoted actually are of the broader land use reality in the region. The paper states that 'public pressure could end trophy hunting of wildlife, potentially negatively affecting species conservation and the human communities that depend upon the revenue hunting generates'. This is not an insignificant point. In fact, it is perhaps the most important finding in the study, though the authors treat it as a side note. But who is driving that public pressure? Animal rights ideology It is not coming from the rural African communities who live alongside wildlife and bear the costs of its presence. It is driven largely by foreign NGOs and urban-based lobby groups rooted in animal rights ideology, not conservation science or socioeconomic realities. These groups wield emotive campaigns across digital media, often misrepresenting facts and vilifying hunting without engaging the voices of landowners, conservation professionals or rural custodians. The resulting 'public pressure' is thus manufactured by narrative, and not grounded in local truth. The paper correctly identifies that banning hunting could harm both people and wildlife, yet it fails to interrogate why public opinion is being manipulated against a practice that has demonstrably conserved habitats, maintained viable populations of wild animals and their habitats, and generated revenue for landholders and communities. A prominent example of this group is World Animal Protection (WAP), a multimillion-pound UK-based animal rights group that has consistently lobbied against all forms of hunting, including regulated and sustainable hunting. Besides the study that Cruise cites being funded by WAP, it fails to clearly disclose up front that at least three of its authors are either employed by or have formerly been employed by WAP, calling into question the neutrality of the research and its conclusions (the authors' biographies are disclosed in hyperlinks, not in an up-front disclaimer). When those crafting the questions, framing the data and interpreting the findings are aligned with an organisation vocally opposed to hunting in any form, one must ask: Is this research or advocacy under the banner of science? The Daily Maverick article and the study it draws from focus on communities bordering Kruger National Park in the north-eastern Lowveld of South Africa. However, it is also worth asking: 'How much actual trophy hunting happens in this area?' The answer is very little, particularly on communal lands in the immediate vicinity of the park. Hunting in this region is constrained by land tenure, regulation and land-use policies. This means most households surveyed in the study have had minimal, if any, direct experience of benefits from hunting in general, and specifically from trophy hunting. advertisement Don't want to see this? Remove ads It is therefore not surprising that many interviewees do not see hunting as a livelihood opportunity — they have not been given the opportunity to benefit from it in the first place. Deeper issue This raises a deeper issue — is this study truly about assessing trophy hunting, or is it part of an agenda to explore alternatives in an area where hunting hasn't really been implemented or tested as a sustainable revenue model? The study proposes alternatives like vegetable farming, sewing or craft-making — all worthy initiatives, but hardly equivalent in income potential, ecological compatibility or explaining how they would incentivise conservation in any way. Hunting alongside photographic tourism aligns livelihoods with managing wildlife and its habitats. Generating income from vegetables, sewing or crafts moves communities away from wildlife and disincentivises conservation. For instance, vegetable farming in buffer zones around protected areas risks increasing human-wildlife conflict. Water access, crop raiding by elephants or baboons, fencing costs and soil degradation are real constraints. Yet the paper glosses over these very practical concerns. In contrast, hunting incentivises keeping wild land wild, placing value on intact ecosystems and large, free-ranging species. It doesn't require land clearance or conflict with the ecosystem — it works with it. advertisement Don't want to see this? Remove ads Instead of using communities' limited exposure to hunting as proof of rejection, the study could have investigated: Why opportunities from hunting have not reached these communities. How to expand access and equity in hunting revenue, including governance reforms. How existing conservation success in neighbouring areas like APNR (Associated Private Nature Reserves) or KwaZulu-Natal community hunting initiatives could serve as models. The Daily Maverick article is penned by Adam Cruise, who is well known for his opposition to trophy hunting. In this instance, Cruise's tone borders on celebratory. However, as a journalist Cruise would do well to temper his personal biases and acknowledge the full scope of the study's findings, including its clear warnings that banning hunting could harm both conservation and local livelihoods. The study paradoxically confirms that ending trophy hunting could harm both conservation and communities, yet it aligns itself with a movement that is pressuring governments to do just that, without addressing the source of that pressure or the sociopolitical power imbalance behind it. Real conservation solutions must be led by local needs, backed by science and sound conservation management, and shielded from ideological interference. advertisement Don't want to see this? Remove ads Disregarding proven conservation industries like hunting simply because of foreign sentiment, often divorced from African realities, risks sacrificing both people and wildlife for the sake of fashionable morality. The debate about trophy hunting should not be about emotion or optics. It should be about what actually works for conservation and for the people who live with wildlife every day. DM


Eyewitness News
6 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Russia, Ukraine exchange 84 prisoners each
UKRAINE - Russia and Ukraine exchanged 84 prisoners each on Thursday, both sides said, the latest in a series of swaps that has seen hundreds of POWs released so far this year. This latest one came on the eve of a high-level summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US counterpart Donald Trump in Alaska on Friday. "I'm back in my homeland. Honestly, I never thought this would happen," Mykyta Kaliberda, 29, a marine who was exchanged, told AFP. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on social media that among the exchanged prisoners were "both military personnel and civilians", some of whom had been "held by the Russians since 2014, 2016, and 2017". He said "defenders of Mariupol" were also part of the swap, referring to a Ukrainian port city that fell to Russian forces in 2022 following a nearly three-month siege. "My eldest son was in captivity for three years, four months, and two days. Thank God, we awaited him," said Tetiana Turkoman, a mother of a soldier who fought in Mariupol, adding that she had a "feeling" her son will be released and decided to come. "I don't know how many times I've been to the exchanges, hoping that my husband will be there. Artur! Artur Ivanik! My God!" said Anastasia, calling out her husband Artur, who was due to come home Thursday. The Russian defence ministry said on Telegram that the United Arab Emirates had mediated the exchange and that the released Russian personnel were receiving "psychological and medical assistance". Large-scale prisoner exchanges were the only tangible result of three rounds of peace talks between Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Istanbul between May and July. In their latest round of talks last month, Russia and Ukraine agreed to exchange 1,200 prisoners of war each. A Russian negotiator said that Moscow had also offered to hand Kyiv the bodies of 3,000 killed soldiers.