Hollow Sloganeering

May Day promises typically do not translate into meaningful changes for workers

By Aasim Sajjad Akhtar

On May 1, the 122nd anniversary of the heroic struggle of Chicago's industrial workers was commemorated around the world. Like in the past, rallies were also organised in most of Pakistan's cities. Government functionaries 'greeted' workers in official press statements, while the print and electronic media also 'celebrated' the May Day by putting together full-page spreads and especially prepared packages, respectively.

Amidst all the fanfare, the vast majority of those who sell their labour power to earn a living -- in other words, the very class in whose name the May Day came into being -- remained almost completely untouched by what was happening. The many, many workers who are daily-wage earners were probably lamenting the fact that a public holiday deprived them of work for the day, thereby making their hand-to-mouth existence even more precarious.

Of course various ministers attending events on the day made epic pronouncements that the government would extend labour laws to the so-called informal sector, ensure that all workers receive the minimum wage and increase pensions. But anyone (worker or otherwise) that has a sense of the realities facing the working class in Pakistan will know that May Day promises typically do not translate into meaningful changes for workers.

In part this can be explained by the fact that those in power are not committed to ensuring that the rights of the working class are protected. There are of course non-negligible differences in the attitudes of elected and unelected governments towards the working class. So, for instance, the present elected government is likely to be far more responsive to the needs of workers than the military regime that preceded it. Having said this, very few governments in Pakistan's history have privileged the concerns of labour over capital, and the present coalition government is not likely to be an exception.

In some ways what is more important than the posture of government per se is the extent to which workers themselves are organised. The simple rule of thumb is that organised workers are much better placed to force government action in their favour in comparison with workers that are not organised. And the brutal truth is that, in the current conjuncture, the working class in Pakistan -- as in many other parts of the world -- is not at all organised.

There are numerous reasons for the dismal state of affairs, all of which are interrelated. Until the late 1970s, the labour movement in Pakistan was as formidable as anywhere in the world. Its strongholds were the big state-owned enterprises, such as the Pakistan Railways, the Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda) and the Pakistan International Airlines (PIA), though union power in the private sector was also quite impressive. For the most part trade unions were autonomous of party influence and state co-option (with notable exceptions). After Zulfikar Ali Bhutto came to power this autonomy began to be eroded, but it was only after Bhutto's overthrow that the labour movement was irreparably undermined.

The Zia years can be characterised as the worst in Pakistan's history on many accounts. For the working class the Zia years were dark because of the unprecedented state repression that was employed to destroy independent trade unionism. However coercion was crucially complemented by the military junta's successful strategy to turn the union leadership into a coterie of middlemen that altered the very essence of trade unionism. Whereas previously the trade union was openly seen as a vehicle for class struggle, it now became another cog in a patronage-based political order in which personal contacts with state functionaries became the pre-requisite for union leadership.

The labour movement has also been indelibly affected by changes in the structure of global capitalism. In particular what David Harvey has called the 'flexibilisation of labour' has severely weakened the power of trade unions. Specifically, the fragmentation of production processes has eliminated the factory as a workplace and thereby eliminated the possibilities of organising on a large-scale. Coeval with the fragmentation of production has been the process of 'informalisation' insofar as this implies that much value-added production and provision of services does not fall within the boundaries of the officially documented economy.

Indeed the vast majority of economic activity in societies such as Pakistan now takes place in the 'informal sector' and the conditions facing workers in this sector are very oppressive while organisation is very difficult. It can be argued that even at its peak the Pakistani labour movement was relatively small, and that it never managed to incorporate 'informal sector' workers into its fold. At a very basic level this is true and does suggest flaws in the organising strategy of unionists but the much bigger issue has always been the fact that third world economies are structured in such a way as to make organisation of a large majority of workers very, very difficult. And this harsh reality has only become more acute over time.

All told, on the occasion of May Day, the rather sorry state of the labour movement is laid bare for all to see. While those unionised rely on the largesse of their opportunistic leaders to survive the system for another day, month or year, a huge number of Pakistani workers are simply unaware of the fact that an entire day of events is being organised to highlight their problems. Perhaps most perversely, ministers in their Pajeros are greeted as the guests of honour at May Day functions.

In closing it is worth recalling the basic theme of Marxist thought, which has remained the primary inspiration of working class struggle for the best part of the last 150 years. In the Marxist schema the contradiction between workers and capitalists is irreconcilable. Some might argue that this is not the case, and that it is possible for workers to be given their due rights while recognising the imperatives of profit-maximisation. However if one takes a look at the existing state of affairs in Pakistan, it becomes clear that a compromise between workers and capitalists is indeed very difficult. Ultimately this contradiction is reflected in state policy as well; the present government, like its predecessor, seems unable and/or unwilling to tax the rich so it squeezes the poor to the point of no return.

It is all good and well to point out that the government should adopt pro-worker policies, or that the mill owner should pay his workers the minimum wage, but just because something should happen does not mean that it will. So as the capitalist and the pro-capitalist government protect their own interests, it is up to workers to protect theirs. It is no surprise that workers organisations have been systematically weakened over the past couple of decades by the state and no amount of posturing by this or any other government can change the character of this state. A pro-workers state is only possible if workers are part of it. In coming years the May Day must once again come to signify the countervailing power of the working class, and only then can we start thinking about the possibility of a pro-people state.

Courtesy: The News Pakistan