The state of tumult in our universities continued at the end of 2016, despite the announcement by the minister of higher education that the 8 per cent increase in fees demanded by universities would be subsidised by the state. The amendments to the national budget at the end of October did not deal with the fundamental challenges, but referred only to the implications for funding of the no-fee increase and the additional funding allocated to augment the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) to provide for the ‘missing middle’ (RSA 2016). The national budget did not address the key demand for publicly funded education for all – not even fee-free education for the poor. A significant amount of the increase will be provided to the NSFAS. Hart (2016: 1) – distinguished professor at Wits University – reminds us that:

For the year 2015–2016, South Africa's state budget for universities, including funding for NSFAS, continued its decline to 0.72 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) (RSA 2016: 7), considerably below the international average and even less than the continental average despite the growth of student numbers.1 This chronic underfunding of tertiary education and the ongoing protests and police/private security reaction raised the ire of hundreds of academics who staged a national day of action on 7 October 2016. They demanded an increase of at least 1.5 per cent of the GDP towards directly funding tertiary education, pointing out that the government has created a funding crisis at universities. Underfunding, they argued, has also led to a reduction in student and academic support programmes, high lecturer-student ratios and large class sizes – and has negatively affected the quality of education.

INTRODUCTION

Among the scholars, academics, political analysts and activists – even those not favourably disposed to Neville Alexander's political convictions and practices – there can be little dispute about his immense contribution to the discussions about the National Question in South Africa over the last several decades. He has played a critical role in the debates following the publication of his One Azania, One Nation: The National Question in South Africa under the nom de plume, No Sizwe (Alexander, 1979).

In this chapter we will pay particular attention to this writing because it provided the most comprehensive statement of Alexander's views on the subject. In it he first set out the basis for a historical examination of the National Question, pointing to the wide range of perspectives from political analysts, academics and scholars and, most importantly, the ideas of the ideologues of liberalism and apartheid, and the views held by the organisations of the oppressed. In this work and in his subsequent writings Alexander explored the multiplicity of concepts relevant to the National Question such as race, nation, national group, ethnicity, separatism and the like. His coruscating critique subjected many of the prevailing conceptions on this issue to a thoroughgoing scrutiny that was important not only for proper theorisation in its own right but also for its construction of the strategic practices necessary for confronting exploitative and oppressive relations in South Africa.

We believe that his writings continue to inspire strong debate on the difficult questions of social change, and that they inform how we understand the nature of the contemporary conversations and policy pronouncements about South Africa's transformation, its development agenda, and indeed its revolution. In this contribution we set out to discuss Neville Alexander's work using the conceptual lens that he brought to the National Question. Such an examination will, in our view, be just as useful for what an examination of the National Question implies for the present – both theoretically and in practice.

Subsequent to the completion of his seminal work on the National Question, Alexander wrote several pieces which elaborated and clarified his views on this issue. We hope to provide a fairly coherent presentation of his ideas, given the space limitations of this chapter. We first set out a clear exposition of Alexander's views on the National Question, and then move on to deal with some criticisms of his ideas.

Introduction

Accepting the link between education and training and the economy, and the idea that education has a defining role in promoting individual economic capability and national economic performance, requires critical reflection. All too often the relationship between education and the economy is understood through the crude and uninformed formulations of many political and business leaders, ‘expert’ commentators, economists and even some higher education leaders, academic analysts and reviewers. Even a casual reading of the print media or a listen-in to the many ‘chat’ and current affairs shows on the subject, will show how unrestrained the power of the prevailing dominant approach to skills and knowledge development has become. The nation, and regrettably even organisations that seek to represent the interests of the poor and working class, are now hostage to a particular way of thinking about education and the economy and are largely paralysed by it.

Introduction

The relationship between education and the economy is the subject of considerable media discussion, policy deliberation, academic writing and public angst. Yet there appears to be little understanding about the long and contentious history of the claims about the relationship between education and the economy, or more specifically, of education and economic growth.

In reality there are many factors which come into play in any attempt to resolve the complex and multifaceted challenges facing societies and their economic systems. Especially in relation to the potential ‘employability’ of those who are willing to enter the labour market, factors relating to the muted demand for skills uptake continue to act as a barrier to their participation. This is especially so in societies evincing egregious social and economic inequality and unequal relations of power.

For example, the recent crisis affecting the employment of workers in the clothing and textile industry in South Africa bears grim testimony to the exogenous nature of the conditions impacting on employment, in an industry where even workers who have developed high levels of skills built over many years of employment and training, remain highly vulnerable. For workers in South Africa's bedrock extractive industry, changes in the relative exchange rates, and indeed as the consequences of mineworker resistance to low wage regimes (as in the recent conflicts at a number of mines including at Lonmin's Marikana mine), often mean the difference between employment and unemployment, regardless of the levels of experience, training and skills they possess. Whole towns and villages disappear as producers of particular commodities or mining activities ‘disinvest’ once extractable ores are depleted or production plants are moved as a consequence of ‘labour unrest’ or because of environmental factors. Entire cohorts of technologically trained ‘human capital’ lose their relevance to the labour market once new substitutive technologies are introduced and skill training simply cannot resolve the resultant unemployment. The implication of this is that unless the underlying structural conditions which produce social and political exclusion are re-examined critically, long-term unemployment is the only likely consequence for those affected by these changes in the external environment as a consequence of changes in the labour process, technological ‘innovation’, worker resistance or investment boycotts engendered by calculations of profitability alone.