The season of consequences
This is the complete unedited article written by Ravi Naidoo. Ravi is Group Executive for Research & Information at the Development Bank of Southern Africa. He writes in his personal capacity. A edited version was printed in the Sunday Times a few weeks back.
Every action, and failure to act, has a consequence. And at certain times, the actions are more urgent and the consequences more critical. Today, as we collectively look back over the many things achieved since democracy in 1994, we must take responsibility for much of what has not worked since that time. Almost fifteen years on, our ability to credibly blame our current failures on the Apartheid legacy is fast fading. Indeed, for better or worse, South Africa’s democracy is harvesting what it has sown.
To be sure, the list of achievements is long and is some cases remarkable. Few societies could have undertaken such a wholesale and simultaneous change of laws and institutions, right across the State, private sector and civil society.
Our overriding achievement has been to put in place an extensive framework of individual rights, backed up with a deliberate and active focus on driving through measures to promote redress and equity. In terms of numbers, there has certainly been redress. Today, there are more young people attending schools than ever before. People’s access to water has reportedly increased from 62% in 1996 to 88% in 2007. Similarly, access to electricity for cooking has increased from 47% in 1996 to 67% in 2007. In fact, a reading of the Presidency’s Fifteen year Review gives an overly full list of the achievements.
Yet, here we are. We all know that things are not nearly so rosy. There have been thousands of local community protests and behind the political ruptures today is a fundamental concern about the performance of government. So what is going on?
At the heart of our failures are the choices we have made.
First, we have chosen, in practice, to make equity and redress the focus of our transformation. Equity and redress is clearly necessary and no one can argue that we do not need this given our history of systematic deprivation and inequality.
But the focus on equity has come at the price of excellence. In focusing on quantity the focus on quality was lost. Perhaps it is because differentiation (the necessary focus on the best) is confused with unfair discrimination. However, access to mediocrity is no way forward. Thus we have increased access to education whilst the quality of education for South Africa as a whole has deteriorated. Teacher development and performance has been neglected. Up to 50% of children in grade 6 fail literacy and numeracy tests, placing South Africa among the worst performers in the world, below our far more resource-constrained African peers.
Our response to that includes allowing learners to attain scores of 33%-40% to matriculate, after your grades have been inflated. The quality of the passing student leaves you in no doubt as to why universities are struggling to improve their graduation rates. Based on international tests, less than 10% of South African learners can compete with the best 75% in the developed countries. Quite frankly, if we continue to produce such results from primary school through to universities the future for a broad-based economy built on quality jobs will remain bleak.
This is the second choice that has been made post-1994: it is rare that anyone is held accountable for poor results. In the private sector, in a competitive market, if people don’t like your product, they will stop buying it. In the public sector, the theory is that the citizen will change or withhold their vote, and hence the political party will be forced to ensure its service providers do indeed serve the people well. Clearly this has not happened. While this is worse in conditions of a one-party state, the mere existence of political competition will not change this unless the political contestation becomes a contestation about service delivery. Indeed, patronage-based rivalry could actually be negative for service delivery, as it will retain incompetent managers who are key role players in dispensing patronage.
A third choice is the manner in which we have defined “transformation” to mean a change in the complexion of the management of institutions. Clearly many of the Apartheid era managers had to go. And many of the new, black managers were world-class. But transformation often ignored the core business of institutions, the need to deliver to the people and to empower citizens to get on with their lives. Ironically, as competence became de-emphasized in appointments, even the best black candidates lost out. Hence, in the angst over the need for better municipal basic services, we find 66% of municipal managers having neither a degree nor more than five years experience. The no-degree figure rises to 85% for CFOs and 90% for heads of technical units. To be sure, South Africa does have enough black and white skills to fill the most crucial of these posts.A fourth choice is the dismantling of discipline. Yes, Apartheid discipline was bad. But what have we put in its place? The answer is that we have dismantled Apartheid discipline without putting in place an effective system of discipline appropriate to a democratic order. Discipline has deteriorated in hospitals, schools and the public service in general, with severe consequences for staff morale and work organization. The ANC in Polokwane introduced a “non-negotiable” resolution for teachers, that they must be in-class, on-time and teaching. That such a resolution was needed in the first place tells its own story. In a similar vein, COSATU-think tank, Naledi, found that discipline had collapsed in some hospitals.
A fifth choice is the avoidance of honest reflection on the outcomes we have achieved. If you do not measure your outcomes honestly and create a safe space to discuss them then you must fail. Because of the acrimonious debates and a breakdown in the social compact since the mid-1990s, mainly due to disagreements over economic policy choices, we have reverted to defensive evaluations. Much of it is spin.We have avoided putting in place management information systems that reflect the real outcomes. And we have avoided real discussions between social partners. Yet, in reality, implementation can never be centrally determined because most programmes – whether education or inflation targeting. It can only be achieved with cooperation from key stakeholders that must implement (be it government, organized labour or communities). This does not mean giving everyone a veto, but it does mean measuring everyone’s performance, even those of stakeholders, and holding everyone publicly accountable for their contribution.
As South Africa heads into its next term of government, we need to honestly reflect on the lessons of the past fifteen years. South Africa’s performance in the past.
Fifteen years has been mediocre. There is an opportunity and imperative to do better in future. But this will not arise from any economic “miracle” or massive increase in resources. If anything, the domestic and international economy will be more constrained over the next five years. Improved outcomes will come from the tough choices we make. In his election campaign, Barack Obama coined the phrase, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” That applies fully to South Africa, where – whether we like it or not – we are living in the season of consequences.
