Jacob Zuma’s new cabinet is poorly structured and conceived. It will compromise the ability of the government to produce and implement coherent policy, particularly on the economic front. It will compromise accountability of individual ministers, undermine their authority, and vest an inappropriate monitoring and evaluation role in the government. At the same time it appears as if it took Jacob Zuma less than 24 hours to abdicate most of his presidential responsibilities onto Trevor Manuel.
All of the above is wholly at odds with initial media and public reaction to the announcement of the Zuma cabinet. A number of business groups, civil society organizations, newspapers - including business papers that should know better, and even opposition parties where full of praise for the new cabinet. One opposition party was so impressed with the new arrangement that it even found itself playing a senior role in that cabinet.
But the new cabinet is a shambles and this is why:
There are too many portfolios each tasked with economic policy making. The ministers of finance, planning, economic development, and trade and industry will each have a direct hand in formulating economic policy. Two of these ministries, economic development and trade and industry, are headed by individuals with strong trade union or communist party sympathies. The other two, finance and planning, are headed by individuals with an arguably more pragmatic economic outlook. Even if open policy conflict is avoided it is difficult to see how a paralysis of policy will not result within government. This is particularly so when you consider that the ministers of mining, energy, public enterprises, labour, and public works also have a direct hand in economic policy making. The chance of meaningful implementation of coherent economic policy is limited.
It will be extremely difficult to hold individual ministers accountable for their performance. Take just the example of employment targets. If these are not met any one of eight ministers could be held accountable. The most likely result is that no-one will be held accountable as each ministry will simply pass the responsibility onto the next one. While such an arrangement may suit politicians it will compromise government’s ability to implement policy and is a very unsatisfactory outcome.
In order to avoid the shambles of policy paralysis warned of above, Trevor Manuel appears to have been handed the task of coordinating policy formulation across all ministries and tiers of government. But it is a problematic appointment because the responsibility to coordinate policy across cabinet portfolios is that of the President. It therefore appears as if Jacob Zuma has abdicated much of his presidential responsibility within the first 24-hours of his presidency. While Trevor Manuel has the competence to fulfill his new role it remains to be seen whether he has been granted the authority within the cabinet to overrule the policy work of his colleagues.
If he is granted that authority the cabinet will be a hierarchy of ministers. Those at the bottom of the pile will effectively have their authority undermined. That will in turn undermine the whole concept of having cabinet ministers in the first place. If a minister will be required to in effect report to a senior minister then his or her portfolio should originally have been incorporated into the senior minister’s portfolio. The saving in terms of money but also efficiency and adequate accountability would have been substantial.
The role of assessing the performance of the cabinet must be played by Parliament not by the new ministry of performance and assessment. Traditionally Parliament has not done this to the extent that it should have because opposition parties were too small and the ANC in Parliament was not interested in doing so. We are therefore faced with the extraordinary situation where much of the responsibility for holding the government to account has been handed to that same government through a structure conceived by that government. This is not a positive development and again bodes ill for ensuring the most effective implementation of policy and therefore delivery by the government.
Considering the challenges faced by the new government it is unfortunate that they have employed such a cumbersome structure to meet those challenges. This is particularly so considering that a number of highly competent individuals have taken senior cabinet posts. One hopes that their talents are not squandered by the environment they are now expected to work in. It would have been more desirable to have a smaller cabinet composed of no more that 15 to 20 ministries with clearly defined portfolios. Cabinet ministers would then have clear authority for policy making within their portfolios and could easily be held to account by Parliament. The President would carry the responsibility for policy implementation and coordination which is the role his office is tasked with.
- Frans Cronje
0 comments:
Post a Comment