The pharmaceutical industry in South Africa is privately owned. By inference the state outsources its responsibility to ensure health security to a few individuals who own this multinational companies. The organisation of the pharmaceutical industry in South Africa has budgetary implications because without proper state intervention in this sector prices of medicine remain exorbitant. The ownership of the pharmaceutical sector affects availability, price and access to medicine.

A report of the portfolio committee on economic development titled the DTI’s involvement in the state’s procurement of ARV’s indicates an approximate of 45 billion rand as the market value of the pharmaceutical sector in South Africa in 2014/15. Evident from the report the sector contributes less than 1% to the GDP and creates just under 10 000 jobs relatively low.  The question then should be how does private ownership of pharmaceutical industry benefit the country?

It is naive of any government to think private pharmaceutical companies have the best interest of the health of the people at heart. The industry is profit driven like any business its primary role is to maximise returns. In June 2017 the competition commission indicated that Aspen and Pfizer were being investigated for allegedly charging excessive prices for cancer medicines, while Roche and its US-based biotechnology component, Genentech, was suspect to price fixing of breast cancer medication, which included Herceptin and Herclon, this was in contravention of the Competition Act.

These companies obviously informed by the monopoly they enjoy in supplying drugs priced cancer treatment to the value of R 500 000 per year. The pricing was obviously insane but however highlights the view that pharmaceutical companies maximise profit at the expense of people’s health. Our people are too poor to excess such unaffordable and probably the most effective medicine for their health care needs. The government even though it bares the cost of medicine for the population’s health care needs in public facilities, it remains an unsustainable approach. In 2019/2020 of the total R1.83trillion, R222.6billion was allocated to health care with the bigger portion of this budget expended on human resources and the procurement of pharmaceutical products. In 2012 the state expended R25billion on medicine majority of which are imports and this figure has obviously increased significantly as a consequence of escalating prevalence of diseases and a growing population.

Cuba a developing country has a state-owned pharmaceutical industry which is responsible for the development, production and distribution of medicine across the country. Only drugs which are not found in the country are imported. The country’s pharmaceutical industry produces in response to immediate health needs of its people, unlike South Africa were commercial interest prevail. The Cuban pharmaceutical industry is complemented by a well oiled research component which has to-date made ground breaking inventions. This includes the invention of human leukocyte interferon Alfa in 1981, Meningitis B vaccine in response to an epidemic at a time when there was no meningitis vaccine in the world. The sector has managed to stay afloat because government created the necessary conditions for the development, production and marketing of new products.

South Africa must create state-owned pharmaceutical capacity which will be capable of responding to the health care needs of the population. This Company must focus on the production of essential drugs. According the World Health Organisation these are medicines that satisfy the health care needs of the population. These medicines in the context of South Africa would include antiretrovirals commonly known as ARVs, medicine for non communicable diseases such as hypertension and other commonly utilised medicine in the public sector.

Ketlaphela pharmaceuticals is a failing state project to establish a state owned initiative which would supply essential medicine. It acknowledges in its founding values ” Ketlaphela was created in response to the cabinet’s directive for the country to have its own State owned pharmaceutical company. Increasing local manufacturing to decrease reliance and risks associated with high level of imports for this important sector has been a priority for government that ultimately led to the call for the Ketlaphela Project”. In 2012 then minister of trade and industry Rob Davies together with Naledi Pandor then minister of science and technology committed to a pharmaceutical plant in Gauteng Phelindaba allocating R1.5billion in financial resources raised from different stakeholders. It is important to note there has been no progress thus far both in establishing the plant itself and the state owned pharmaceutical company.

The hindrance to establishing pharmaceutical company in most cases is the upfront investment required, intellectual property laws and the South African Health Regulatory Authority’s incapacity resulting in prolonged registration periods for new products. The failure of government in establishing a state owned entity in this case cannot be attributed to any of the above challenges. It is within the purview of a decisive convicted leadership to intervene and accelerate the process in the best interest of the general population.

The procurement of pharmaceutical products from a state owned company will amongst other things save billions of Rands, create sustainable employment, ensure supply of cost effective medicine,  reduce the risk associated with importing medicine and most importantly ensure the government is self reliant in meeting the health demands of it’s people.

“But Jesus answered and said, it is written: Man shall not live by bread alone,” – Matthew 4:4 (King James Version)

By penning “Pan-Africanism or Communism” our brother George Padmore was responding to a question that arises in genuine intellectual inquiries. Padmore’s intervention coincides with conundrum among black Marxists in the diaspora generally, and the Africa in particular, and it contributes towards fine-tuning some of the epistemic traditions of the Global South. This is in stark contrast to an annoying discourse that seems to be currently taking center stage among some student activists.

Recently, we have come to be accustomed to hear our own comrades saying things like, “Karl Marx does not pay bills” or “Le rena re batho, a re nyake go bolela ka Marx, re nyaka Borotho.” These are statements that we shrug off as ones uttered in jest, but as they gain traction, they call for a deeper analysis.

At face value, they appear as a genuine lamentation for the lack of praxis in some of the ideas that are advanced by revolutionary thinkers of yesteryears (including Karl Marx) but upon closer inspection, these statements are nothing but a vile attack on political, ideological and intellectual work in mass movements, particularly student organizations. “Marx” in this instance, does not refer to only Karl Marx, but it includes any other revolutionary theorist that you can think of.

When engaging comrades, you discover that they do not only disprove of Marxism, but rather anything that has to do with theory. To them theory has become a waste of time and a nuisance in organizational meetings, and instead they would want any discussion to be centered on Borotho. In their observations, the image “Borotho” may mean a lot of things; at the lowest level it may refer to finding a job, and at the highest level it may refer to tenders, business deals and the like.

Revolutionary literature has no history of being inimical to Borotho, instead it has always perceived Borotho as heavily steeped in ideologies of liberation. At different intervals, the gospel Christ manifests as one that is laden with the attainment of Borotho, for example, when Jesus feeds 5000 people, he gives them bread, he then calls himself the proverbial bread of life, proclaiming that anyone who eats him shall never go hungry nor thirsty. Earlier, when he teaches his disciples how to pray, he seminally reminds them to always ask God for “our daily bread”. Cabral, as an engaged ideologue intervenes, “Always bear in mind that the people are not fighting for ideas, for the things in anyone’s head. They are fighting to win material benefits, to live better and in peace, to see their lives go forward, to guarantee the future of their children” (Amilcar Cabral, Revolution in Guinea, stage 1, London, 1974, pp70-72). This intervention follows on from the remarks of Frederick Engels at the gravesite on the occasion of Karl Marx’s funeral, Engels posits that “Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.” (Frederick Engels’ Speech at the Grave of Karl Marx, Highgate Cemetery, London. March 17, 1883).

The Gospel of Christ, Marxism and the varied histories and literature of Africa’s liberation from colonial rule differ in reasoning, but all legitimately claim to be theories of revolution and liberation. All liberation theories are underpinned by the pointed pursuit for Borotho. At this level, it becomes sacrosanct to construe Borotho through its class, race and gender prism: that is to ideologically contextualize Borotho, not as a “get rich or die trying” scheme, but rather as a renewed call for distributive justice among people on the underside.

The dangers of articulating the quest for Borotho outside of a sound ideological framework includes the onslaught on thinking and the decay of cadreship. Comrades will be laboring under the false idea that Borotho is divorced from theory, hence go out of their way insult Marx, trivialize the need for Umrhabulo in branches and shoot down any resolve to turn mass movements into bastions of critical thinking. As a result of such anti-thinking culture the rank and file of our respective organizations is exposed to ills that come with anti-thinking environments. For instance, if we are to declare 2020 as the year of Borotho, comrades will mistake it to be meaning that it is a year of mass looting, corruption and general lawlessness.

It is against this background that all attempts to pit Borotho against Marx (political education and ideological work) should be isolated and dismissed. Those who are against political education and intellectual work in our political movements should be labelled as fools and chancers, who want to usurp political power for selfish ends. Moreover, it is a known trend that it is the ‘handler and puppet’ phenomenon that prefers this anti-thinking state of affairs. Loosely, those who are at the helm of leadership structures, take young comrades to House 22(or any popular tavern), buy them food and alcohol, give them money sometimes, and then instruct them to always obey his/her commands. As a result, these young comrades wage wars on behalf of their handler, including staging unprincipled protests and/or disrupting activities of other people. Apart from the food and alcohol, the ring leaders of these young comrades are also promised Borotho. This is an apparent rot that has entrenched itself particularly in the student movement. It has to be fought!