Capitalism’s moral legitimacy cannot go unchallenged

2012-11-17 11:45

When President Jacob ­Zuma finally responded to the unfolding crisis in the mining industry by calling unions and employers into a meeting, one of the outcomes was the now infamous call for executives to ­accept a voluntary wage freeze.

The proposal was stillborn and drowned in a chorus of cat-calls for the president to practice what he preaches.

The mere fact that the proposal was made should give us all pause for thought.

However bloated ­executive salaries have become, freezing them is unlikely to make any material impact on the wages paid to thousands of workers.

Nonetheless, the proposal was telling because it points to the cancer that is eating at the heart of capitalism’s moral legitimacy in South Africa: the extraordinarily high gap between the rich and poor, which is a function of the gap between the highest and lowest-paid within corporations.

It is this gap that contributes to South Africa’s high Gini coefficient. (The Gini ­index measures income inequality, with zero indicating perfect equality and 100 perfect inequality).

South Africa’s Gini coefficient of 63.6% makes it the nation with the most unequal income distribution in the world.

We need to be clear that in ­capitalism, as in other economic systems, it is morally acceptable for people to be rewarded differently.

Typically, these differentials reflect the different contributions people make to the enterprise, the risk they assume and the skills they offer.

There is no expectation, in other words, of equal reward.

Unequal, fine, but what about fair?

Unequal the rewards may be, but that inequality has to be seen to be fair in order to be moral.

When the reward structure becomes too skewed, people start to question the fairness of the economic ­system.

As such, they become ­alienated and cease to be willing participants in the system.

And ­because any system’s legitimacy depends on its moral acceptability, the perception of unfairness ­begins to delegitimise it.

In other words, any system’s moral acceptability is dependent on the extent to which it serves the needs of society.

It is this principle that underlies the King III report’s focus on stakeholder rather than purely shareholder capitalism.

We have now reached the point at which those at the lower end of the pyramid – the miners, in this case – have lost faith in the basic fairness of the system. It is not that they are uneducated and cannot read their payslips properly, as many say.

The real issue for them (and many others in society) is that the gap between what they earn and what the executives earn is just too large to justify.

This perception is spreading to other industries, and will similarly begin to bring ­into question the bona fides of the system that permits inequality of rewards of such proportions to ­occur.

I should add that the sense that the current system of capitalism ­rewards a minority excessively is not confined to South Africa.

It is a global phenomenon, of which Occupy Wall Street in the US and its clones are perhaps the most high-profile example.

I think we are, indeed, close to a tipping point that could delegitimise capitalism, and executive remuneration is both the symptom and the symbol of this lack of legitimacy.

A crisis of this nature is always a moral one.

A good example is the collapse of apartheid, which occurred when it became clear to the majority that it wasn’t contributing to a better life for all.

To resolve this injustice requires that the nation develops an ­economic model that enjoys broad acceptance among South Africans, one to which the majority is committed.

Without this commitment, the National Development Plan’s call for faster economic growth will remain unanswered.

One of the ways in which companies can begin to regain their own legitimacy, and influence developments generally, is to begin ­vigorous educational programmes about how the economy works.

However, in the course of this process, the issue of fairness will be raised by workers and the difference between highest and lowest salaries will have to be justified.

That in itself will require coming up with convincing explanations for those differences in order to meet the criterion of fairness.

These will be difficult conversations to have, and great courage will be needed. But let us be clear: without them, the current system could lose its remaining legitimacy and who knows what will follow.

»Rossouw is chief executive of the Ethics Institute of South Africa

Join the conversation! encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

We reserve editorial discretion to decide what will be published.
Read our comments policy for guidelines on contributions. publishes all comments posted on articles provided that they adhere to our Comments Policy. Should you wish to report a comment for editorial review, please do so by clicking the 'Report Comment' button to the right of each comment.

Comment on this story
Comments have been closed for this article.

Inside News24

Traffic Alerts
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.


Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.

Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire network.


Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.

Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.