Role of Civil Society in Democracy, Service Delivery & Fighting Crime: Round Table Discussion
Public Service and Administration
17 October 2007
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
17 September 2007
ROLE OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN DEMOCRACY, SERVICE DELIVERY & FIGHTING CRIME:
ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION
Chairpersons: Mr R Baloyi (ANC), Mr P Gomomo (ANC)
Documents handed out:
Document of Dr M
Phosa: Round Table Discussion: Parliament 17 October 2007
Audio recording of meeting [Part 1]&[Part 2]
SUMMARY
The meeting took the form of a round table discussion, led by some insight
given by Dr Matthews Phosa. He stressed that there was a need need to
revisit the values of the Constitution that we negotiated during the period of
1990 to 1996, to ensure that the democracy remained vibrant and true to the
values. Everything should be done to preserve the “Mandela legacy”. There was a
need to engage with and respect the opinions of others, to allow every
representative of society to voice that opinion and to involve civil society in
deeper discussions. Parliament’s oversight role was vital and he believed also
that the community must have input into that oversight. He raised the question
how a Member of Parliament would balance the party line with the broader public
interest. Service delivery would be accelerated if Parliament called on people to
account. The role of opposition parties was vital, and the nature of political
debate must be fully understood and the checks and balances must be maintained.
He said that business had a crucial role to play, as did non government
organisations, whose speciality and specialist knowledge should be fully
recognised. The test of leadership was not always that a leader would win the
battle, but rather how he would manage and incorporate the views of
well-meaning adversaries. Partnerships
and alliances were valuable, and he concluded that government should be
governing in partnership with stakeholders throughout the community, and act
with them on such vital issues as fighting crime and ensuring service delivery.
Members expressed views on these comments and added other pointers.
MINUTES
Role of civil society in deepening democrary, accelerating service delivery and
fighting crime
The Acting Chairperson, Mr Richard Baloyi, noted that the meeting would take
the form of a ‘Round Table discussion. A
similar round table had already been held on the state of the public service,
where the Committee considered the report of the Public Service Commission, and
would still be having another focusing on the future public service trainer of
choice. The focus today was on discussing the role of civil society in
developing democracy, accelerating service delivery and fighting crime. He
welcomed and introduced Dr Matthews Phosa to lead us in that debate, and
explained that this would not be a question and answer session but rather an
opportunity for public representatives to engage. He noted that there were
Members of other Committees also present, and he asked everyone to introduce
themselves.
Dr Matthews Phosa noted that he would raise issues to provoke discussion. He
moved from the very simple premise that after many years of a democratic
process, parties must have learned what did and did not work where the strengths
and weaknesses were, where the country could improve and strengthen, and where
it could deepen democracy. It was very
important to take the history of the negotiations leading to democracy into
account. Not only did parties enter the negotiations armed with the Harare
Declaration and the Freedom Charter; but they had also willingness to unite the
nation and move it in a particular direction, irrespective of other
affiliations. The discussions at Codesa I and 2 and the Constitutional Assembly
had led to a paramount constitution.
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, fair and just State
administration, the right to differ, transparency in public life, free media,
protection against the misuse of power, protection of minority rights, equality
before the law and therefore the rule of law; protection of democracy, and
independence of the judiciary - and above all the separation of power – to name
but a few - were very important underpinnings of democracy. People fought and
died for these values and South Africans dare not ever walk away from them.
They must focus on the national agenda. It was necessary to look at Parliament
from outside in, not only from inside out. He would like to suggest that there
was a partnership. He thought that South Africa must do everything in its power
to preserve what he termed “The Mandela Legacy”.
The Mandela Legacy was a difficult phase and Dr Phosa felt sure that Dr Mandela
would write more about it during his lifetime. Parliament was running a nation
in transition and this transition must be managed very maturely with even hands
and level heads. Issues like national reconciliation and nation building were
critical and Parliament should always take them into account. He believed
national reconciliation was an ongoing project and not an event in progress.
Consensus was vital in the Codesa processes, and this should be retained at
national, provincial and local government. At Codesa, parties gave and took.
That was one of the main legacies of Mr Mandela, bringing people together who
differed. He always stressed that it was necessary to negotiate with your
enemy, because a friend would not need to be convinced. This would involve a
high level of tolerance and the sense of building a common purpose. Debating
issues and agreeing to disagree was vital.
Parliament must build national trust. It must debate vigorously but at the end
must arrive at decisions that were binding on the nation. Parliamentarians could not afford to be
irresponsible. Perceptions were vital, and people must ask how much respect did
they had for each other. At Codesa Dr Phosa had to
trade some of the most difficult compromises, and he put some of the requests,
knowing that they were likely to be refused, but needed to air the issues
anyway. Any politicians who thought they
had already arrived were mistaken; they should rather understand they were
making a transition, and needed a more steady hand and balanced head to deal
with these issues.
South Africa had further to repeat and revisit an understanding of how society
worked, and how allowing each the opportunity to voice an opinion strengthened
and deepened democracy. Democracy was not one but several voices, and they
should be allowed to contest the State’s view. The day those voices were
silenced was the day that the process of undermining democracy would begin.
South Africa must ensure a vigorous and ongoing public debate, and not only
would this involve the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary, but
society at large was also part of the checks and balances, and must be taken
into account.
An interesting example was that of appointing the SABC Board, where members of
civil society confronted the President. A questions must be asked as to why
they had lost faith in Parliament, whether they felt betrayed, whether they
felt Parliament did not do things right. If parliament did not take into
account certain issues, the people would take it to the Executive. Parliament
must be proficient in minimising discord.
Dr Phosa stressed that the principle of the separation of powers was vital.
Parliament was the voice of the people. It must not act as a kind of junior
partner to the executive, as this would lose the checks and balances, and would
resort to slogan driving. Parliament must be able to hold the Executive
accountable. In its role of oversight it needed to analyse budgets, problems,
ensure that there was delivery on the ground; and evaluate and monitor
activities, amongst other functions. Dr
Phosa would argue that there was no adequate mechanism for the communities to
give input on oversight functions. Committees, during their oversight visits,
might call on departments or call public hearings in other provinces, but
members of the public would not ask questions or would not voice their
concerns. The public mechanism must be improved, so that “public hearings” had
public participation, with public input into oversight functions.
Dr Phosa then posed the question how a Member of Parliament would align the
so-called party line to his or her mandate on the one hand and the broader
public interest on the other hand. It was a difficult issue. There was a need
for all political parties to discuss how to set the balance of responsibility
to the public against party line or party mandate. The question arose who the
MP was serving, having come into Parliament with the party. He himself did not
have an immediate answer but thought the matter must be discussed. A further
challenge was the dominance of the ANC, which was not facing an immediate
threat from any other party.
Dr Phosa noted that a main function was to ensure that service delivery was
happening. It could be accelerated if Parliament itself, through its standing
committees and other structures, made a call. He queried how it could happen
that suddenly three towns in the Free State were suffering fires and we did not
know about it, and how it could be that babies were sleeping in cardboard boxes
at Baragwanath, and we didn’t know about it. This begged the question of what
the provincial government and the local government were doing, how they should
be accounting to the other arms of government, and whether there was effective
oversight. South Africa had sufficient
funding, but was not delivering the way it should, nor perhaps holding local
government accountable enough. He believed that there was a need to be very
vigorous in oversight functions. When matters like this hit the media people
would immediately form opinions, that perhaps were not fair, and there was a
need also to mediate these matters.
Dr Phosa said his next point concerned opposition parties, who were needed, and
whose voice must be respected. Again he cited the events at Codesa. It would
have been possible for the ANC simply to negotiate with the National Party, but
it wished every party to come to that negotiating table. Although politicians
may not like what they heard they must listen, must understand, must appreciate
that the opposition represent people in the country, and understand that any
opposition was dynamic for democracy. From his own experiences, he believed
that tension aligned all parties to other dimensions in democracy. No one party
could have all the wisdom. It was the role of opposition parties to question
the motives, the actions, and the problems of the governing party; however
strong the line of questioning and whatever were your own feelings they must
interrogate, question and bring forward other dimensions. They were a force for
a democratic South Africa. The irritation of opposition politics was a
necessary irritation that also added substantial value to the service delivery
processes. He reminded all parties that the object of this new democracy was to
build a nation, and those with differing political views were just as committed
and patriotic as the next person. There was a need to rise above the petty
politicking, and engage at the level where all parties would drive the nation
on real issues. Checks and balances existed all over the world, and were
historical facts that were healthy and good.
The Executive being held accountable was also healthy. He wondered
sometimes to what extent did some reports and policies get interrogated, and to
what extent they would simply be filed away and gather
dust.
Parliament was an institution where parties could vigorously debate the
direction into which to take the country. There were, however, very specific
interests outside of government and government structures, and other parties
outside Parliament who were important and active participants in the debate
regarding democracy. Organised business, represented in our country by such
organisations as the mining Chambers and Business Unity South Africa (BUSA),
Afrikaans Handelsinstituut, South African Chamber of Business and similar
organisations, was one sector. NGOs and the broader community in all their
formations, both urban and rural, were another. Parliamentarians must firstly
know who these people were, and secondly must talk to them, and take their
views into account, even if they were not agreed with. Wisdom could lie in the
unexpected corners of this country. Parliament represented the people and must
listen to the views of the people from outside. Government must hear the
non-political view on its economic and social policies, and the creation of
forums was a positive step to ensure that government did receive information
from organisations and stakeholders and regulate on important matters.
Dr Phosa said that where an issue was challenging the public mind and
perception, Parliament should be speaking, not for the purposes of media
appearances, but to hold individuals and organisations accountable. The issue
between ABSA and the Minister of Finance should have had a reaction as the
public was interested in it. In America, where a person was alleged to breach
the public health interest, Congress interrogated him as they regarded this as
a matter of public and national interest affecting the whole nation. Dr Phosa
would like to see something similar happening in South Africa. If not, then
Parliament would not be paving the way for debate, but merely following. In
matters of national interest it must lead and guide debate. In the fields of specific and specialised
interest NGOs had a vital role, as they tended to have more information because
of their areas of speciality.
Dr Phosa noted that on returning from exile, it was important to obtain
information about political prisoners, and this had come from the NGOs, who
proved themselves extremely valuable. He urged that they be seen as a vital
resource. Sometimes he understood that
they would express strong and perhaps disturbing views – for instance on the
HIV and AIDS issues. There was nothing wrong with that. Other vital topics they
could discuss included housing, pensions, theft of pensioners’ monies, and he
urged a proactive approach. The NGOs provided a supplementary pillar of
democracy. The test of leadership was not always that it could win the battle
but, more importantly, how it managed and incorporated the views of all well
meaning “adversaries” into improving democracy and the lives of all people.
Dr Phosa understood that no political party would enjoy being questioned or
criticised in public. However, if any politician attempted to silence the
voices that differed from their own or diminish the roles of representatives of
society, they ran the risk of tampering with the very ideals that people fought
and died for, and for which the Constitution stood as a monument. It was not a
crime to hold a different view, and be able to offer a different perspective or
information.
Dr Phosa noted that he was an advocate of a strong and decisive government,
democratic processes,
healthy and lively debate, and of a
model of government that provided strong and substantial checks and balances to
ensure that each and every voice in society was heard and taken seriously.
Dr Phosa made the point that to say that the issue of crime was “government’s
fault” was illogical. It was a convenient statement, but government was just
one player. He urged that those stakeholders mentioned must form a partnership
with the government to fight crime. All should take responsibility and form a
front against crime – from those buying stolen goods, to communities hiding
criminals and crime, to business, the public sector, the police and government.
As much as government was about alliances, it was also about partnerships. In
an alliance there might be differences of nuance and of detail. However, there
was always silent agreement and all possible efforts should be made to enable
the centre to hold, to avoid fracturing of alliances and short or long term
political consequences. There was also the question of government in
partnership, in the liberal sense of the word, as any government must always
willingly or reluctantly be in partnership with its voters, special interest
groups, NGOs, trade unions, organised business and a variety of other
groups. Government was given a mandate,
but this was not an unconditional mandate to do whatever it wished. The process of consultation with alliance
structures and community partners was the lifeblood of the age-old principle of
government in consultation. Whilst a government must govern strongly, it must
do all it could to strengthen partnerships in the process. If it were to lose
touch with its community partners, it ran the risk of isolating itself.
Although this might be a complex, cumbersome or time consuming process, it was
vitally necessary.
Discussion
The Chairperson noted that Dr Phosa had made the important point whether
parliament was at the tail or front end of debate.
Mr P Gomomo (ANC) raised some questions, but they were largely inaudible on the
tape recording. He noted the need to look at what was happening in the
Department of Home Affairs, and to look at the driving of audits.
Mr M Sikakane (ANC) noted that sometimes it was difficult for parties to be
completely open and sincere; parties would want a certain way to be followed.
Mr Sikakane said that sometimes there was a problem with the line between
legislature, executive and judiciary. He cited the example of the Public
Service, when in 1994 the entire hierarchy was white, as historically this
group had been protected by apartheid laws. New legislation was drafted, but
this was challenged by the judiciary. He wondered where the lines were to be
drawn between the Legislature, which was the representative of the people, and
the Judiciary.
Mr K Minnie (DA) thanked Dr Phosa for his input. He noted that when the ANC
took over they had fired many people with skills or those who were appointed on
merit, and that very appointment system of skills and merit was now being
brought back.
Mr Minnie noted that the protection of the Constitution was protection of the
democracy and values that were negotiated. That was not an issue for debate,
and it was the primary task of all to uphold that constitution. He agreed that
the country was still dealing with transformation and nation building.
Mr Minnie believed there was a link between job creation, shortage of skills
and crime. He believed if South Africa could create more jobs it would have
less crime. He asked Dr Phosa to comment on availability of skills and whether
all the skills that were available in the country were being used.
Mr Minnie agreed with the statements on the role of opposition parties. He also
agreed with the issue of Parliament leading and guiding the debate, and
believed that parliament would be failing the country if it did not lead
debate. He believed that the issue of oversight would follow from that.
Mr B Mthembu (ANC) agreed that Dr Phosa’s point about the right to differ was
important. Similarly he agreed with the point that South Africa was still a
nation in transition, and one of the critical issues, which was
the foundation of building this nation, was consensus. Parliament was the voice
of the people under a constitutional democracy, catering for various sectors
through the political parties, which represented various perspectives or
political mandates of particular interest groups. The challenge was how to
arrive at consensus in Parliament, given that people came with various
perspectives or mandates. Strictly speaking, in order to move forward there was
a need for a dissenting voice, to create creative tension. Consensus was necessary, but at the same time
the other voice would allow for creativity. There were two contrasting forces
in synergy.
Mr Mthembu said that oversight and responsibility were core functions of Parliament
and he thought Dr Phosa had rightly pointed out that there were shortcomings.
In terms of the Constitution Parliament had to come up with mechanisms for
oversight and accountability. During the first term of 1994 to 1999, Parliament
saw its role mostly at a legislative level, to deconstruct the apartheid laws.
From 1999 to 2004 there was a great awareness by Parliament of the need to
exercise oversight and accountability, and to come up
with appropriate mechanisms to do that. The Office of the Speaker had
commissioned a study on accountability and oversight, which reported on a
number of these weaknesses, some being highlighted by Dr Phosa.
Mr Mthembu noted that Parliament needed to assert itself more vigorously in
listening to the people’s voices and had come up with a new Vision, which
included a new mechanism for oversight and accountability. Parliament had the
right to make laws, although these were initiated through the Executive.
Parliament needed to accelerate the process of the review of the Rules of
Parliament.
Mr Mthembu agreed that NGOs had a role to play in the developmental state.
However, equally important was their accountability, and whom they represented.
Everyone needed to be accountable and brought into the fold.
Mr I Julies (DA) said that the main issue seemed to be service delivery to all
the people of South Africa. He respected what Dr Phosa was saying, stating that
he had left the ANC at a point because he was of the view that people within
that organisation were acting for their own benefit, not for the people of the
country, and he could not live with that. Two years ago, when he walked into
Parliament, he wondered whether he would find MPs talking about reconciling the
people of the country coming there to fill their pockets. Sometimes he wondered
if his real role was being part of the process of law making, although the
Chairperson of his Committee assured him that this was so.
Mr Julies said that it was a crucial point that Parliament should lead Cabinet.
Oversight was vital, and he cited examples of the Department of Home Affairs,
corruption, investigation of Members and officials. He would like to see all
MPs respect one another, and remember that they were here solely to serve the
people. The ANC had many good ideas to put on the table, and was often duty
bound in its conviction to serve the people of the country. Human beings
naturally had a greed and lust for money. MPs must remember that it was the
people that voted MPs into Parliament, that they should not put their party
first and the people of the country second.
Ms L Mabe (ANC) liked Dr Phosa’s point that leaders must look at themselves and
at how they were seen by the people, lest they stagnate and run out of ideas.
The world envied South Africa for having a leader like Dr Mandela. Whilst he
should not be idolised, there was still so much to learn from him and his
peers, who might be able to bring about some consensus in the current thinking
to best serve the country. She agreed with the comments on the balance between
party mandates, and the mandate given by the public. She reminded him that the
governing party’s way was the way of the people, and if the view of the broad
public were not taken into account by the ruling party it would run the risk of
finding itself not ruling in a few years’ time.
Ms Mabe noted the challenges on oversight. She noted that during a recent
discussion on the raising of fees at one of the universities, the university
management took the view that there was nothing wrong with a 14% increase in
fees, and would not even come to the negotiating table as requested by the
students. Clearly there was a need here to change policies, and in an example
such as this there was a need to negotiate and inform the stakeholders, who
could include the poor and highly marginalized. Perhaps Parliament needed to
take on board why students were making their points, whether the policy of
access to education was being promoted, whether there was financial aid for
students, and the need to ensure that within the market economy there was also
the need to give people education to uplift the country in future. Parliament
must be at the forefront and here the policy issues must be discussed, and the
need to invest in people who were the future.
Ms Mabe also noted that the question of balance between the organs of State was
vital. Parliament must protect itself to ensure it did not play second fiddle
to the other arms of the State. Perhaps there was a need to engage on what
should be the role ANC MPs in representing the views of the public and how best
to make the Executive account.
Ms Mabe wished to make the point that with the current budget, South Africa
could do a great deal. Government could do more to deliver. Parliament must ensure that members of the
Executive responsible for those budgets would be confronted positively to
ensure that what affected the members of the public would be taken on board and
whether the Executive was doing as expected, and whether the public’s voice was
being heard. The example given of Baragwanath Hospital was about who had the
biggest share of the public cake, and the question must be asked whether the
necessary follow ups were being made at community level, local government
level, hospitals, and what was the outcome and achievements of the oversight
visits. It was also possible to hold the provinces to account.
Ms Mabe also raised the question of Khutsong, where there had been public
concerns for some time. She asked why it was so difficult to resolve the
questions, and why the situation had been allowed to go on for so long until
other communities took the example from Khutsong. Residents must engage in
addressing this issue and talk to leadership. There had been a number of
visits, but it was often frustrating that there were not joint visits, and the
outcome of those visits was vitally important.
Ms Mabe wanted to get some confirmation on the comments about resources. She
did not believe that Parliament had insufficient funds, but the question was
where the resources were being used, and whether it was possible to do better
oversight. She challenged her colleagues whether they would all ensure that
they played a proactive role in the budget processes of Parliament, or were
just spectators letting other people decide on resources instead of saying what
was needed to ensure that oversight could be done. She wished to be
controversial; she urged the need for taking an interest in the budget of
Parliament.
Ms Mabe said, on the issue of skills shortages, that she could not understand
why Parliament was not discussing with the institutions of higher learning the
types of graduates being produced, and whether the skills taught matched the
needs of the country. If Parliament continued to provide funding yet at the end
of the day was not getting the right kind of skills, then it was an issue that
needed further debate.
Mr P Gomomo took over as Chairperson from this point.
Dr Phosa said that he would respond to some of the points, and was impressed by
the way in which the Acting Chairperson and Members had engaged on these
issues. He commended the way Members
were prepared to see others’ perspectives.
On the question of the public and debate, Dr Phosa thought it was the
responsibility of Parliament to ensure that the public knew what Parliament was
doing. Most people were likely to be of the view that the national debate was
taking place in the media, not in Parliament. Parliament must lead. It should
have schoolchildren standing in long queues to listen to Parliament debating. He
was pushing the point that MPs could not allow national debate to be initiated
elsewhere, and simply tail the process. Parliament had the responsibility to
inform the public, and must listen to everyone, and then make judgements in the
engagement process
Dr Phosa noted that the question of striking a balance between the public
interest and the party line must be discussed in the parties. Clearly the
discussion could not be finished today. This was a challenge facing past and
present parliamentarians. To label each other would be a shortcut to political
suicide. There was a big difference between responsibility and cover up, and
there should not be a party policy that would label an MP a traitor for holding
the Minister accountable. There was no reason why a parliamentarian should be
afraid.
Dr Phosa noted, in relation to Mr Sikakane’s question on the role of the
judiciary, that South Africa was a constitutional State and had deliberately
put forward the principle of separation of powers between Legislature,
Executive and Judiciary. The Constitutional Court and other Courts were
empowered with authority in certain areas.
Any difference between an institution and an individual would be
resolved in a civilised manner in a court of law. That should give a person
security and a guarantee. If the person did not like the decision of the Court,
that was fine, but it did not mean that the decision was wrong. There was a
need to protect the principle of separation of powers, and protect the role of
the judiciary, respect the rule of law and the principle of the separation of
powers. As part of a Constitutional State, the Constitutional Court would play
a pivotal role. Although there was no need to agree all the time, such
institutions must be respected, and allowed to be serviceable, amicable and
functional.
Dr Phosa did not have an answer on the question of sincerity or insincerity on
the part of a Member of Parliament. The political parties must debate that
issue. The question to be answered was what mobility on policy matters would an MP have if he or she felt very strongly that the
party might be making a mistake. He noted the comments on the creative tension
of instability and agreed but said that the “instability” must in fact be
certainty coming from a different point of view. Parliament must play the
leading role it was supposed to play to support its competency, and must never
become a junior partner to the Executive. He reiterated that MPs would need to
deal with the perception issues, such as the questions around the SABC Board.
Dr Phosa agreed with Mr Mthembu that the issue of tolerance was a key point.
Dr Phosa addressed Mr Minnie on the skills and creation of jobs. Sought Africa
had a harbour and industrial State economy, which might expand to a scientific
and military economy. There was talk of broadening the skills and having more
knowledge-driven skills. South Africa needed to look at how it was training
people, and had to invest more in education. If South Africa wanted to fight
crime it must produce people who could be employed, and who could create jobs
with skills training. However, this was not merely the duty of the government,
but must include the private sector, NGO’s, and everyone skilling the nation.
Project Consolidate was a partnership between Local Government and the private
sector to capacitate the municipalities. That type of cooperation was exactly
what was required. Everyone must work together. If South Africa could educate
and upskill people correctly it could hit back on the level of crime. Talking
about crime, he reiterated that once again everyone had the same responsibility
to fight crime, and to work with the police. Parliament must lead.
IN relation to the comments made by Mr Julies, Dr Phosa said that he would not
like Members of his party saying that they were afraid of censure from the
party. They could not represent the people if they were afraid. MPs should
always be prepared to pay the price for the truth. Democracy was a much bigger
issue than party politics. Nothing would be served by having frightened people
in Parliament, nor those who only worked for their own pockets – in this
regard, he believed that everyone was watching out for the latter, as they were
not needed by the masses, nor by parliament. Government was not for the
parties, but for the people. Everyone, in terms of the Constitution, must
receive services, irrespective of whatever their differences were.
Dr Phosa noted the comments about the role of the media. He recalled the recent
fires in the townships; and asked why MPs had not known or anticipated a
problem. The oversight function was vital, and might even help the Executive.
There was a need to anticipate issues, to evaluate the performance of the
Executive, and government at all levels. Parliament would not be stern with
those who did their jobs, but they must know what was expected, including being
kept fully up to date instead of having to learn about things from the
press.
Dr Phosa noted that references to Khutsong, and agreed on the need to find a
way of talking to Khutsong to find a solution. Parliament could not look the
other way, should be leading and trying to reach consensus, reconciling the
decisions with the community needs.
Mr Peter Pedlar, Acting CEO, State Information Technology Agency (SITA),
thanked the Chairperson for the invitation. He noted that Business Day had
claimed that South Africa was the white-collar crime capital of the world.
Other crime, such as hijacking, was also very high, and there had been a plea
for Dr Mandela to become involved in the perceived lack of leadership. A
Professor at Harvard had stated that he could only identify three real leaders
– the first was Jesus Christ, the second was Mahatma Ghandi; and the third was
Nelson Mandela. They all gave a very powerful reason of what they wanted to
achieve in their lifetime, could get people to follow them on the basis of
their powerful vision, and were prepared to die for their beliefs. He noted
that it was the mandate of the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) to
ensure that there was digital inclusion for all the citizens of the country in
its IT systems. It could not do that in isolation, nor close its eyes to the
harsh realities. There was already a social revolution, and this needed action.
He wanted to talk about leadership, following up on the quotation from the
professor mentioned earlier. Leaders must take ownership and ensure
accountability. He had seen Parliamentary oversight improving in the seven
years that he had been associated with and appearing before this government and
his political leaders. However, despite those improvements some of the leaders
still did not know what the mandate was of SITA. Even in the Portfolio
Committee of Arts and Culture the lines were quite blurred. Therefore he asked that the MPs must exercise
the oversight, hold people accountable, ensure that they delivered on the
mandate, but at the same time have principled leadership. He had already seen
many attempts at bribery from politicians, and in view of the fact that there
was not yet economic emancipation, this was not acceptable.
Mr Donovan Williams, Executive Member, South African National Civics
Organisation, felt that less debate was needed in South Africa, but more
conversation. South Africans were not used to talking with each other as
opposed to debating. Some Members were perhaps confused on the issue of focus
on Parliamentary oversight. When putting together the country’s self-assessment
report there was an ongoing refrain – particularly from NGOs – that Parliament
must be seen to be exercising oversight, and needed resources to do so, for
instance researchers. However, having said that it did not require huge
research capacity to be able to visit Khutsong, to be able to check if the
Department of Public Service and Administration were delivering there. There
was another matter, which was difficult to understand in a developing economy,
of the ideology of “oppositionism”. This meant independence from Government,
and Parliament in particular – independence of the way of the ruling party, not
independence from the private sector, and a sense of being at opposite ends.
The problem was how to develop the economy. A dictatorship could accelerate
growth, but it was more difficult in a democracy. The only way to develop a democracy was
through consensus building, and this required partnership, not opposite ends of
debate. A building on the sacrosanct institution of democracy was an important
aspect, and this would involve respect for legitimacy, including from civil society,
who often had the task to disagree, but did not have authority to make
decisions. There had been a lessening of the “mass-based” civil society, and a
growing civil society based on think tanks and research.
Mr Williams posed the question whether it was possible to have independent
agreement, or whether there should be a measure of independent to
disagree. Partnerships could be composed
on collective wisdom of different stakeholders. In the past perhaps there had
been too many organisations doing more advocacy than intermediary work, but
when it came down to questions of service delivery, then more intermediaries
within all sectors – political, NGO, and private sector - were needed, who
could converse rather than debate.
Mr S Tsenoli, Chairperson, Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local
Government (ANC), wished to raise the question of poor service delivery, and
cited an example from the Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA). In local
government, in a case of corruption, this matter must be reported to the
police, but there was a further provision that said that the Minister or the
MEC could also intervene. Knowingly or unknowingly, corruption could be
encouraged through this Act. He said that in a municipality, where the Auditor
General issued a management letter requiring proof of permission for certain
actions that were corruptly undertaken, the Municipal Manager never supported
the ANC, who in turn would not act against the Manager. The ANC later requested
an investigation and an enquiry commission but nothing came of that, nor would
the police investigate the lack of response because of the wording of the Act.
Such corruption would impinge on service delivery. He further stated that the
time spent in Parliament and the time spent in constituencies was not managed
properly, and oversight visits were sometimes haphazard. Parliamentarians could
not be on the spot at all times, and perhaps this was a management weakness of
Parliament. He suggested that it would be useful for all MPs to go through the
documents again to be reminded of their responsibilities on oversight.
Ms P Mashangoane (ANC) felt that this had been a fruitful debate. She felt it
was useful to discuss issues directly and acknowledge and accept weaknesses.
She agreed with the concerns about Parliament not leading in matters; as MPs
often seemed not to be up to speed with all the issues that affected the people
they represented. Perhaps they should look at the extent to which MPs accepted
and used indigenous knowledge around law and order and the systems that served
Africa well in the past. The systems used in Parliament were largely copied
from other countries, especially Canada, and it took time for people to become
fully conversant with those systems and be able to make a meaningful
contribution. Another issue of concern was that of service delivery. Ms
Mashangoane noted that she came from North West, a troubled province, where
service delivery was problematic. MPs must make sure that there was proper use
of resources to the benefit of the people. However, further to that they must
do more. Yesterday she had heard that the National Schools Nutrition Programme
was not implemented because of lack of commitment from the people who were
supposed to do the job. Parliament seemed to be helpless to enforce delivery
and she felt disempowered in situations like this. She disagreed with Mr
Minnie’s remark that too many people had been fired, believing that more people
should be fired until they were contributing properly to the policies of the
government.
Mr E Schoeman, Joint Standing Committee on Defence, noted that MPs were
privileged to have seen the transition but held a huge responsibility. They
were the servants of the people, but would also be judged by history in what
they had achieved
and not achieved. Dr Phosa had given thought-provoking input, and the answer to
the question of whether we were really giving effect to the lofty ideals of our
Constitution, and of those leaders who had worked so hard to achieve democracy,
was that they had not. He made the point that the face of Parliament that the
people would see was not the true face. They saw the TV coverage where there
was a lot of grandstanding and debating, but did not see what happened at
committee level, where there was much consensus and cooperation. It was very
difficult to know how best to project the image of Parliament, because
Parliament was still seen as a building in Cape Town. Public hearings were
held, but the question was how many people were actually reached. Politics was
also a numbers game. Anyone who achieved power did not want to relinquish it,
and it was a natural response to become defensive if criticised. He wondered if
there was not an inherent tension between straight political power and nation
building and reconciliation. True democracy was not only the will of the
majority, but involved taking into account the interests of the minority.
Politicians should be standing back and saying how it wanted the political
landscape to look in future, whether they still wanted to see a majority party
predominantly representing one section of the community and an opposition party
predominantly representing another. In a full democracy he would say that the
opposition party should look like the ruling party and not represent a
different sector of society.
He was further concerned whether the lessons of history had really been
learned. In the Anglo-Boer War the Afrikaner fought against the English to
achieve freedom, but then went on and suppressed the freedom of other people.
Similar examples existed in the State of Israel. The mistakes of the past
should not be repeated. In the old apartheid regime the media was vilified as
seeming to be the voice of imperialism. The judiciary was vilified if they
dared to take a more or less independent stance. Government should not be
getting involved in these issues, nor should it ignore complaints from the
public. The message heard today was a message in time, and urged MPs to forget
for a moment their party political affiliations, instead talking freely about
what was in the real interest of the future of this country, and building and
working towards that.
Ms M Tlake (ANC) noted that many of her points had already been given by other
speakers. She thanked Dr Phosa for this useful exercise that had helped MPs to
look analytically and critically at themselves. Dr Phosa had spoken of the
Mandela legacy, the Freedom Charter, the Constitution and upholding of human
rights – all of which were the basis of the ANC. However, after a decade, MPs
needed to think why they were still asking themselves where things had gone
wrong, and why the Madiba Legacy that was full of truthfulness, fairness,
respect and democracy and freedom was not living. It was difficult to gain true
insight from books written by politicians, as they pointed to the fact that
politics by its nature was full of propaganda, manipulative, deceitful and
required politicians to toe the party line, with a conflict between self
interest and public interest. Those challenges were still here today.
Ms Tlake noted that the media could be a very good tool externally, but
sometimes she felt that it was not being patriotic and perhaps was not always
following the right role. She agreed with an earlier speaker that perhaps there
was a need to talk rather than debate. Parliament needed to assert itself. She
had found it to be a very rigid institution in its management and
administration, and there was a need to restructure it, to find room for new
people to come in who could share their skills to add value. A person could be
new in Parliament but clearly not new in the ANC, and there were different and
good skills. Before MPs could think of the betterment of the community they
must start with the betterment of themselves to become healthy Parliamentarians
with a critical and analytical way of doing things.
A person from an NGO (not identified), noted that he was speaking as an
outsider, and it made no difference which party he belonged to, as his mandate
was independent of any political affiliation. It was a core function to better
lives of the people the Departments were serving. He felt that there were some
challenges that needed to be dealt with in practical ways. Financial problems
in institutions or systems meant nothing to those who were dying of poverty and
hunger, who believed that Parliament was there for them and was failing them.
He thought that Parliament needed to do something about those departments and
provinces who were not spending the money budgeted for
year after year. Delivery targets were set, but not met, and he was aware that
the situation might not be cured in one year, but at least people should know
that something was being done to try to cure the situation. Secondly, he agreed
that at this stage more research should not be needed. The surveys and research
had been done, and some action needed to follow. His NGO did outreach work for
poor communities and tried to give information on access, but nothing was
coming back from municipalities or departments. People could not be expected
meaningfully to participate in processes when they could not even access
anything as basic as an ID document. Lastly, NGOs were not involved in budget
discussions and the question was whether the needs of the people were really
being addressed by budgets. He would suggest that someone should be
interviewing the people in the communities to find out what processes were
taking place. There was also a need to find out if there was compliance with
what was set out in the manuals.
Mr A Nyambi (ANC) noted that he had been in a
fortunate position, when first taking office, that he was not assigned to any
one committee, and therefore could visit any committee sitting on a particular
day. He had picked up that Members were aware of their roles but that they
still had to learn to be critical of the Executive. The process of the African
Peer Review mechanism had given useful lessons, but it could be useful also to
have the Executive deal with these matters also to get a broader understanding.
Often a Committee would develop a programme, have it approved, plan an
oversight visit, and then be told at the last minute that there was no money
and have to cancel. This was unacceptable. He wanted some explanation of the
role of the executive and the judiciary.
Mr Nyambi mentioned that there was indeed a brain drain in South Africa, and
the years of experience could not be substituted so easily. He felt that there
was a need to get a balance of keeping people who could empower those coming
in.
Mr Nyambi posed the question of cross border municipality problems, and the
problems in particular of Bushbuckridge and Khutsong. He noted that Members
should be empowered to deal with issues. The past would stay with us for a
while, but he hoped that research forums like this one would be useful.
Mr N Gcwabaza (ANC) thanked Dr Phosa for reminding MPs where they came from and
the reason for their existence, not just as Parliamentarians, but for the
people of this country. He too wondered if at the various imbizos and forums
government was listening sufficiently to what the people were saying, and if
they were listening, whether they were responding sufficiently and quickly
enough to the needs of the people. Sometimes not enough progress was seen in
delivery, nor were people being told of progress. He felt that a linked issue
was the relationship between Parliament and State departments, where
implementation was at different levels. Relations were not always good and
there were probably undeclared tensions, and the challenges around lack of
delivery were in those areas. The President, in a former State of the Nation
address, had said that there should be no more learners being educated in the
open. A couple of months after that an official from the Department said that he
had heard that statement but the reality was that there was no money to do what
the President and Parliament had said should happen. He was not sure that the
deadline of having all children taught in proper school buildings was ever met.
The bucket systems of sanitation, which should have been eradicated long ago,
still persisted. The budget was so rigid that it was impossible to respond
immediately and sufficiently to the urgent needs of the people. He questioned
whether there was planning without looking at the priorities, or without
listening to what the people believed was a priority and what could wait.
He cited the example of the former Deputy Minister of Health, who, having heard
that there was a problem in certain hospitals, went to visit and then announced
what she had seen. Her conduct at the public level might not have been correct,
but the fact that she had been fired raised the question of the effectiveness
of parliamentarians doing oversight or doing constituency work, who might pick
up on a problem, and decide that it needed urgent intervention. He was worried
that there might not now be a precedent that an MP could be ignored by a
relevant Executive member when reporting on an issue that needed attention. He
asked what was the status of these reports that were
submitted on real practical issues that existed. In regard to babies
having no cribs in hospitals, and instead being put in cardboard boxes, there
was not only the question of what the Executive was saying to the department,
but whether the bureaucrats listened to the Executive.
The Chairperson noted that some useful comments had been made about what
Parliamentarians should expect to achieve, and what should they do, in
particular, about the funds that were unused. He noted that Dr Phosa had said
that a leader must have a vision, as without a vision a nation would perish.
The Freedom Charter was the vision of the leadership at that time, and was
still being used. The most obvious point in that was the need to integrate
society. The fact of having parties meant that there was not full integration.
Good leadership would involve the need to see that the Constitution and the
rules were set up for all. He said that MPs needed perhaps to change their
mindset first and concentrate on the fact that first and foremost everyone was
a South African.
Dr Phosa said that the comments raised had been very interesting. It would be
useful for these Minutes to be referred to the Speaker to note the comments of
all parties. He agreed that it was up to
everyone – not only the police – to join hands in the fight against crime,
which would be a major battle, but one that could be won.
Dr Phosa agreed with some of Mr Schoeman’s comments, but did not believe that
the government needed a puppet media. Government should rather be engaging the
media and encouraging to report things in the public
interest. Praise singers likewise would not help if they were not telling the
truth. It was necessary to take the pain of the truth, and the necessary
tensions in the building of democracy. He agreed that tolerance and
conversation were necessary, and that everyone should be really listening to
the others, then following up and implementing. He believed that people could
still be independent even when they agreed.
That was an important point. There was not necessarily the need to be on
opposite sides to be independent. Opposition parties were necessary. In the
North there was a saying that even your own dog will bite you if you kick it.
Parliament had a role in coming and asking questions and holding the Executive
accountable. The caucus was an important part in which all parliamentarians
should engage.
Dr Phosa agreed that there could be problems in misuse of power, and this was a
problem to be watched. Local government should not follow its own path. There
must be responsibility around the MFMA. He believed that there was a need to
take a critical view of both the MFMA and Public Finance Management Act (PFMA)
and understand the roles of the civil servant and their responsibility. This
had raised a further issue, which he thought perhaps was worth discussing in a
different workshop.
He believed that, having been in government and then moving to the private
sector, serving the people was the highest sacrifice a person could make. The
role of politicians should never be underestimated, and it must be appreciated.
Service to the people was an honour, and there must be honour and integrity in
carrying it out.
He agreed that there was need to know what managers and CEOs were doing. He did
not wish to use emotive words like “firing” but believed that they must be held
to account and that MPs needed to take the necessary action to deal with
issues, and themselves make sure that management was held to account.
The follow-ups were not too difficult, and there should be a willingness to
undertake follow-ups as these were needed by the community.
Dr Phosa stressed that the executive must be held accountable, and that
provincial and local government should be accountable to fulfil the executive’s
directions. If a Minister did not perform he believed, quite frankly, that it
would be uncomfortable to keep that Minister in Cabinet. He said that the point
had been made that questioning was sometimes interpreted as lack of loyalty. He
felt that this was nonsense; that would undermine the idea of accountability,
and that needed to be discussed again in caucus meetings. There should be no
fear about questioning the Minister in charge of health issues what was to be
done about babies in cardboard boxes. The party should agree on delivery
issues, and on holding people accountable. There would initially be resistance,
but there must be engagement as this was part of the checks and balances.
The issues of the Moseneke Commission and salaries was
raised, and he himself believed that it was not wrong to increase salaries
where adjustments were necessary, but there was a need for sensitivity.
In response to Mr Gcwabaza’s query whether MPs were listening correctly, he did
not think that they were. He said that there was no point in filing a report
and not following up on it. The oversight debate was held earlier in the
morning. There needed to be a team strategy. Someone had jokingly said that
there were no more children learning under trees, because the trees had been
cut down. There should be consequences for not following up properly.
Parliament must do a lot of work on the issue of oversight. There should not so
much be strict-sounding statements about having to use the entire budget, but
the issue was rather about responsibility. At the moment matters were moving
one day to the next. There was really a need to sit down and do a budget on
implementation, to interrogate the links from one year to the next, and decide
where and how to get to places.
He commented that the basic values of Dr Mandela and the ANC were values that
could never be departed from because they were the cornerstones of the
Constitution, and the matters for which people lived and died. He had indicated
the need to understand this was a society in transition, with challenges of how
to exercise management with a steady hand rather than a boiling head. Dr
Mandela had taught the nation how to manage difficult transitional questions
using simple issues like promoting national reconciliation and integration of
society. These could happen if everyone made a contribution. Consensus
decisions were also important. Everyone could learn from those experiences and
national consensus was important on international issues. There must be a building
of trust in the nation and respect for own institutions; the institutions
itself must also deserve the respect, and this would come if government would
serve the people with integrity and with honour.
The Chairperson noted that it was a challenge for MPs to be faced with real and
urgent issues, to find government departments where year in and year out there
were qualified audit reports and delivery problems, where there was lack of
delivery of basic services such as water, and where government departments who
had not delivered nonetheless had merited its staff with excellent performance.
The issue was to constantly look at the role of parliament.
Mr Baloyi quoted from a report, noting that :.
“One of the distinctive features of public participation in South Africa had
always been that it was firmly grounded in the Constitutional imperative of
democratic public participation and keeping the public involved in legislative
policy and other legislative processes. The Constitution made Parliament and the
Provincial Legislatures as well as municipalities in the country the primary
democratic institution in South Africa. The people that were involved in this
institution, not only as public representatives, but also through access to
committee meetings and deliberations, had also the right to speak and to make
presentations to committees and meetings, which was in line with the
Constitution which says that all people should be entitled to take part in the
administration of the country.”
He stated that it was an honour to have the opportunity to thank Dr Phosa for
what he had presented today, which went over and above what had been presented
in a recent study on the status imaging of Parliament. Everyone had been
empowered by this discussion. He appealed that the information passed on today
to Members should in turn be passed on to others who could not be here. He
thanked the Members of other Committees, and looked forward to further round
table discussions. He further thanked the Chairperson of the Committee.
The meeting was adjourned.
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.