The way we observe the GNU is through
assessing what the members do as public figures performing tasks – we
need to look at what they do, whether or not it contributes
technocratically and socially to the resolution of the multiple crises
that beset South Africa.
This is Part One of a three-part series.
The
public standing of the Government of National Unity (GNU) does not
appear to depend thus far on political statements or actions, but mainly
on functionality, keeping the wheels of government operating smoothly
without the multiple crises that beset ANC-led governments in recent
years and continue at provincial and local levels, with one or other
combination of minority forces.
There are very few attempts at replicating the national GNU at provincial or local levels.
We
need to define the space occupied by the GNU and the way it may be
inhabited, given the various constraints and opportunities. In some ways
the establishment of a GNU was one of few options in the period of
crisis (that may also have been an emerging opportunity).
This was in the period following the elections
where the ANC lost its majority and the DA was nearly 20% behind the
ANC’s 40% tally, with 21.81% and 40.18% of the votes respectively.
Alternatives to GNU?
For
parties to exist as elected representatives without any party holding a
majority, there were few possible ways of addressing the situation.
Some of these forms of minority government have been tried in South
Africa and have led to and still do lead to ignominious disasters at a
local level, (as with continuing instability in Gauteng and Nelson
Mandela Bay metros).
The
examples from other states – mainly in Western Europe – do not seem
viable in our case, where every party has a limited support base and
where deep animosities divide parties from one another.
We
then need to ask: what type of politics is possible for the chosen
option, for the GNU to function efficiently and effectively?
My sense is that in the
present case there need to be very limited conflictual statements –
between parties – in the combination that was adopted for the GNU to
survive as a viable political arrangement.
Depoliticised
The
way we observe the GNU is through assessing what the members do as
public figures performing tasks, that is more depoliticised than is
usually the case, at least in the relationship between the leading
parties, the ANC and DA. But we need to look at what they do, whether or
not it contributes technocratically and socially to the resolution of
the multiple crises that beset South Africa.
What
Dr Leon Schreiber has achieved in Home Affairs clearing backlogs and
engaging afresh on programmes he inherited, especially digitisation, is
through efficient performing of tasks that may, nevertheless, be
controversial and open to different interpretations.
The
notion of Home Affairs @home – that there will be no need to visit a
Home Affairs office – cannot be a reality for most South Africans who do
not have internet accessibility or capabilities. They remain reliant on
Home Affairs offices that generally remain understaffed and unable to
address document assessment or delivery swiftly.
It is receiving attention and Schreiber is aware that his Home Affairs @home option will require a lot of work to get off the ground and make it accessible and reliable.
There
are other ministries that may be studied, but the object of this
article is a broader assessment of the changing challenges of the GNU.
Professionalism
The
professionalism manifested in Dr Schreiber’s actions and statements of
his methodology is an important issue. We have not had a professional
public service and that may be more likely to be remedied by politicians
who may now be relating more professionally and technocratically than
politically.
In this sense
we need to be clear that the professionalism that politicians may
develop ought not to infringe on the territory of the civil service, who
need to be able to perform their tasks by making and implementing
decisions within their area of competence, without interference by their
political heads in their core business as public servants.
Space for the political
But there has to be some space for the political. It is unclear where that is, except that de facto
the GNU does not operate with much political debate. The ANC was
already depoliticised compared with earlier times when there were many
issues subjected to rigorous debates. Now there is little debate between
the ANC and DA, except in crises.
Some
of those in the GNU Cabinet are neither political thinkers – if they
ever were – nor competent, as in being able to address and solve
problems that ensure that state institutions function and perform their
roles. This depoliticisation may be true of most or many of the other
parties.
It may sound
cynical, but it may well be true to say that many thank their lucky
stars that they are Cabinet ministers and will try to sense how to
remain there by not “rocking the boat”. It is not shocking to suggest
they are lucky to be there because many have earned a minimal percentage
of the vote and do not strike one as contributing to the direction of
the GNU.
The GNU is
depoliticised, but the professionalisation is also very limited – there
are many passengers on the side of the ANC who have never contributed
much to political life or the efficacy of state institutions.
Furthermore,
the huge and very expensive Cabinet, its size supposedly to suggest
representativity, serves no purpose. The rationale is vacuous insofar as
most represent under 5%, sometimes one or less than 1%. Many of these
have a minuscule political base and also no known expertise.
Conditions supposedly needed for coalitions to succeed
Much
of the writing on the success of coalitions refers to the need for a
common view on this, that and the other matter, or on basic principles.
In our case it is said, for a coalition to be successful, there must be a
sharing of values, sharing of ideas, common perspectives on the way
forward, and similar qualities.
In
the case of the GNU, it would not be possible to sustain it if one were
to demand a common position between parties, especially the DA and the
ANC regarding values and in regard to the way forward beyond the
immediate, urgent issues, which are basically practical questions of
provision of water, transport, addressing climate change and so forth,
on which – even – with these it may not be possible to reach agreement.
The Statement of Intent as an opening towards a more emancipatory GNU process and liberatory goals
When I first wrote on the GNU
I argued that it may be constituted in one or other way and the
Statement of Intent and other GNU documents are not necessarily the last
word on various topics. Popular forces, professionals and other sectors
of society, especially from the “underclass” organisations with various
strengths and weaknesses need to engage with these documents and argue
for a meaning that is emancipatory.
The
same words can be invoked or they can be augmented in the spirit of the
freedom that the Statement of Intent claims to advance.
The
meaning of any word or phrase or sentence of a document is never
finalised merely by being written down, and that is as true of the
Statement of Intent and other documents. Those who are concerned about
poverty or unemployment or wages need to advance these in the context of
the Statement of Intent (as just one place of engagement, I
appreciate).
