South Africa

I read the President's interview with Sunday Times editor Mondli Makhanya and political correspondent Xolani Xundu with considerable interest. Although the interview didn't follow the format I was hoping for (I was hoping for a more direct Q&A style questioning, with the President being asked a question and directly responding), there were still a number of interesting issues raised during the course of the interview. Let's take a look :

 

ON MISTAKES MADE IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT:

We did not insist on co-operative government. The results are that we didn’t achieve the levels of co-operation, for instance, between provinces and local government that we needed as well as the engagement of national government with those municipalities. In a sense we kind of let them do their own thing. But ... the Constitution also says there must be co-operative government. Having understood that, we now thought it was necessary to kind of institutionalise it so that we just don’t leave it as an optional thing. It is now a legal requirement that we have to engage.

 

Here the President is way off the mark. If he thinks the sum-total of mistakes made at local level in the last 5 years were simply due to problems in co-operation between local authorities and the Provincial government he is sadly mistaken. Delivery, Delivery, Delivery, has been the drumbeat of discontent from those at local level - all other problems are either a contributing factor to this or have manifested themselves due to this problem. The dearth of skilled technocrats at local level, inefficient and corrupt local councilors, uncaring and overworked civil servants - all have lead to a slowdown in delivery of essential services to those that need them most. This lack of delivery has resulted in over 900 protests in the last two years. The people are angry and it is not because of some faux co-operation problem between the two spheres of local government.  

 

ON TRAVELGATE FRAUDSTER RUTH BHENGU BEING ON TOP OF THE ELECTIONS LIST IN KWAZULU-NATAL’S UGU DISTRICT:

 

She admitted to her wrongdoing and a particular punishment was imposed by the courts. She accepted that punishment and she has apologised. Should we impose a second punishment when she was punished for what she did and accepted that punishment? I understand the concern that [is being] expressed but I think that I could understand the argument that we need to be able to show mercy. There must be a bit of a quality of mercy in what we do. We should not be so driven by notions of retribution.

 

If this is the logic that permeates the ANC then we are all in trouble. There are a number of reasons why Ms. Bhengu should be nowhere near an elections list and they all have to do with signalling. By putting her name on the elections list (not even just on, but on the top of that list) the ANC hierarchy is in effect saying to its members "corruption is not okay but if you get caught there will be no major repercussions for you politically, we'll look after you" - this is the signalling I'm talking about. Whether intentional or not it is the message that every low level party functionary will pickup loud and clear. Now the Prez goes on to say "Should we impose a second punishment when she was punished for what she did and accepted that punishment?", no-one is saying that this should be so, however at the same time Ms Bhengu was placed in a fiduciary position and abused that position of trust for her own benefit. Trust is something that is earned over time and is not won back easily, certainly not in a few short months as the President seems to think. If Ms Bhengu moves on and does some honorable service for the communty for the next few years, then I would have no problem with her having a shot at a return to political life. What I don't agree with is revolving door with corrupt politicians getting "punished" and then shortly thereafter returning to an active political life.

 

ON THE JUDICIARY’S FEARS OF THE GOVERNMENT ENCROACHING ON ITS POWERS:

I’ve been engaged with the Justice minister [Brigitte Mabandla] and said to her that I think that whatever the parliamentary processes, we need to kind of slow them down in order to create the space for more discussion. I know for a fact that the government has not yet taken any position which seeks to undermine the independence of the judiciary. I’m certain about that. I thought that we needed to slow down this process because it may very well be that the phrasing of a particular [paragraph] might suggest an intention to compromise that independence. I would like to understand what it [the fear] means because all we want to do is to ensure that electricity bills are paid and judges have computers and laptops. Why would doing that result in undermining the judiciary?

 

If the President has indeed slowed down the movement on these Bills (aimed at major changes to the judiciary) I salute him, more debate and discussion is definitely needed. When you have various bar associations, George Bizos (Nelson Mandela's lawyer and an acclaimed human rights lawyer), former Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson and a number of other legal commentators questioning these Bills the government certainly needs a serious rethink! Saying it is all just a matter of "[ensuring] that electricity bills are paid and judges have computers and laptops", is not quite accurate from what I have read and heard.

 

Reading between the lines I think 2005 was a major wake-up call for the ANC. I think a lot of the policy that will be gazetted and discussed in cabinet in 2006 will have its roots in the various scandals and shake-ups of 2005.