JOBURG ADVOCACY GROUP

A fresh approach to advocacy in the City of Joburg

Transcript of the Joburg Advocacy Groups contribution to the National Planning Commissions Jam, held online from 28 September to 1 October 2011

About the Joburg Advocacy Group

The Joburg Advocacy Group (JAG), an independent, non-aligned and voluntary civil society advocacy group, working for best practice governance, social justice and environmental protection in the City of Johannesburg.

The following text is a transcript of JAGs contribution to the NPC Jam, held online between 28 September and 1 October 2011. It includes the relevant discussion threads and related comments from other jammers.

Discussion Thread: Welcome all

Trevor Manuel (Jam Host): Good day my fellow-jammers. My name is Trevor Manuel, I am the chairperson of the NPC. Id like to welcome your participation in this first-ever jam. We are excited by your participation. You have decided to take ownership of our collective future. We cherish your action.

Page 1 of 14

We want to listen to you over the next three days. Join us as often as you can ,between now and 12 noon on Saturday 01 October.

Lee Cahill (Joburg Advocacy Group) (13 posts in total): Hello Minister Manuel. My name is Lee Cahill and I'll be representing the Joburg Advocacy Group (JAG) during this jam. We'd like to begin our participation by thanking you, your fellow commissioners and everyone else involved in setting up this session for creating a forum that allows for and encourages public participation in the governance process. We're committed advocates of direct democracy and value the opportunity to interact with government and with our fellow South Africans in this way. We hope this will be the first of many similar initiatives, and that it will also be the beginning of a process aimed at building more meaningful interaction between government and the South African people.

Discussion Thread: Performance monitoring and evaluation

Khaled Khota To ensure the Country achieves its V2030 and moves beyond with accelerated growth and development indicators, it is absolutely essential that Performance Monitoring and Evaluation be communicated widely, be standardised and enforced (in a more pro-active manner than it is currently being done to avoid the idea being looked upon as one confined to the Presidency only) so that the very essence of PM&E is felt through all spheres, thereby enhancing Performance over-all.

Lee Cahill (Joburg Advocacy Group): I agree. Let's learn from the King Reports on corporate governance and apply principles like these in government. Government expects business to comply with King; the people expect government to do the same ...

Page 2 of 14

Lee Cahill (Joburg Advocacy Group): Accountability is key! Our experience at JAG is that local government in particular is a law unto itself. It does exactly what it pleases and is in no way accountable to the city's residents for its actions.

Discussion Thread: Non-political public service

Lourens R van Niekerk: We need a professional public service that is de-politisized (sic). We all know that what counts in service delivery is skills and attitude and not a person's particular political standing in a party. But while we have political leaders without the integrity to put their narrow interests aside in favour of the broader country's good, we will never have an optimal public service.

Lee Cahill (Joburg Advocacy Group): I couldn't agree more. At JAG we believe that many of the problems we're experiencing in local government in particular are directly related to the politicisation of the public service. Focusing on local government for the moment, neither ward councillors nor proportional representation councillors are directly responsible and accountable to the electorate; they're accountable to their party caucuses and are tasked with furthering party policy, interests and positions. This is specifically stated in their job descriptions. Further, proportional representation councillors, who're appointed by their parties and not directly elected by the people, are often 'deployed' to key committees in local government. Here they have considerable power - despite the fact that they're only accountable to their parties and not directly to the people. Mayors are also not directly elected, but are appointed based on their party's proportional representation vote. This means they're not necessarily suitably qualified for the job, can't be held to account directly by the electorate, and often focus on furthering party agendas rather than practical, non-partisan issues. And that's to say nothing of other key appointees, like Municipal Managers, Members of Mayoral Committees (MMCs) and the CEOs of municipal entities. With some of these issues in mind - and in line with the recently-promulgated Municipal Systems Amendment Act - we believe it's vital to begin appointing appropriately-skilled, professional teams to run key municipal departments and municipal-owned enterprises as a matter of urgency. If we don't get the basics right - and soon - planning for the future will be
Page 3 of 14

moot, as we'll be facing widespread system and infrastructure collapse, especially at local level. We also believe that we need to start working towards a more inclusive, participatory form of direct democracy, which puts political power back where it belongs - into the hands of the people. At present, we have an extremely limited form of highly-centralised democracy, and the political power of the people is essentially mediated through political parties that are, in turn, controlled by small, powerful political elites. It's clear from the escalating number of service delivery protests that the writing is on the wall - and the time for change is now.

Alan Colquhoun: As far as I know municipalities a long while ago were not political entities. There is no place for politics in municipalities. We used to elect out own mayors and councillors who were qualified to do the job. Too often we now hear that you have the technical staff who do the actual work (the engineers, managers etc.) and then you have the political appointees. What do they do and why do we need them. If there is any legislation that is made by the government concerning municipalities, it is up the municipality to carry this out. Apart from that their purpose is to look after the people who live in the town. It is not up to people in a town to supply jobs to people in the ruling party to do nothing for the town apart from buy Mercedes Benz cars for themselves.

Nduduzo Nyanda: I do not wish to actually argue, but rather pose two questions with respect to this depoliticizing of the public sector. a) Exactly in which country is the public sector de-politicized? b) Are we saying that the people in these 'key' positions are placed there not because of the result of a representative democratic process, [thus those who feel that they can do a better job should have (from the word go) participated in what I'd like to term the political market process, as it is in business and the private sphere] but rather just straight out bureaucracy?

Lee Cahill (Joburg Advocacy Group): @Nduduzo Nyanda - we haven't quite figured out how to link responses to questions on the same page, although we're posting the permalink from your post here in the hope that this will work. Anyway, here's a response to the questions you posed earlier. The idea is to have elected representatives who are, through various democratic

Page 4 of 14

mechanisms, directly responsible to the people, and who do exactly what they're supposed to do - represent the interests of the people. These representatives (councillors) should make up the city's main decision-making body, ... the council. They can either be affiliated to a political party or can stand independently for election. Key operating departments and the municipal-owned entities should, however, be run by suitably-qualified professionals who're appointed through a transparent process and who have clearly-defined key performance measures, approved by council. The complexities involved in running these departments means it's not advisable to appoint politicians to these posts, as they don't necessarily have the right skills for the job. It should be the responsibility of these professionals to run the day-to-day operations of the municipality and to report back to council (and through the councillors, to the city's people) on a regular basis. They should, for instance, be tasked with delivering the department or entity's annual budget and annual results in council, as well as delivering quarterly reportbacks. This way there's appropriate democratic oversight, but key operating posts are filled by people with the technical knowledge to run their departments or entities efficiently and effectively.

Lee Cahill (Joburg Advocacy Group): @Alan - you're quite right, municipalities weren't always political entities in the way they are today, and don't have to be structured in this way. Municipalities are essentially meant to be structures tasked with handling the administrative and operational functions that residents can't handle individually. In the past, the post of councillor was a voluntary one, and councillors were elected by the electorate in a particular ward (and, yes, at that time it ... was a white-only electorate). The role of these councillors was to represent the interests of their ward in the city council and, especially, to make sure that municipal departments were operating efficiently. Under the current dispensation, not only have municipalities become political entities in every way, but politicians are appointed to fill key operational posts that they may not necessarily be qualified to handle. This poses all sorts of problems, especially as these representatives are responsible to their party caucuses and not to the electorate. Amongst many other issues, this makes it almost impossible to remove underperforming or corrupt councillors during their term in office (five years) unless this is agreed to by means of an internal party political process in response to specific resident complaints. More often than not, underperforming and corrupt councillors are just redeployed around the system, where they continue to wreak havoc without the electorate being able to hold them to account in any meaningful way.

Page 5 of 14

Discussion Thread: Social compact (sic)

Noluthando Gosa (Jam Host): Good afternoon. We've now been jamming for over 50 hours. In that period, we have had some incredible, sometimes diverse ideas being put forward. Clearly, to get to realise our Vision for 2030, some trade-offs have to be made. These can be structured in the form of a social compact. The challenge with a social compact is that it is as good as all the parties living up to their side of the compact. Question is, how do we structure one such that all the parties religiously stick to their end of the deal. An example, to fix our education system, we need teachers to agree to behave in a certain way, same with Learners, same with parents, same with the relevant education department. Do you have examples of countries where a social compact has been struck and has succeeded?

Lee Cahill (Joburg Advocacy Group): My answer to this is that the solution is perhaps disarmingly simple. I believe, in the spirit of Steve Biko, that we need to set about building a society that *works* in a very practical way, and in which each citizen has equal rights and responsibilities. The rights of citizenship are already more than adequately defined in the Bill of Rights, and responsibilities defined in legislation. We don't need to create another ideological concept like a social compact, we need to make the framework that we already have work! What this means is that some people simply *aren't* more equal than others and that everyone has an equal voice and role to play in South African society. Practically, it's important that government, which is made up of the elected representatives of the people, take the lead by running the country within the framework of the Bill of Rights and the rule of law in an open and transparent way. This means, for instance, that valid allegations of corruption should be investigated and acted on, and that 'political solutions' shouldn't be used to sweep failures of good governance, corruption and/or criminal activity under the carpet. It also means that all actions have consequences, and that these consequences (defined in law) should be experienced equally by everyone, from unemployed youth to farm and factory workers, 'white-collar' workers , MPs and, yes, even the President. By way of example, this means government has to stand firm on issues like Travelgate. If an MP is guilty of corruption, has literally stolen from the South African people, and has broken

Page 6 of 14

the contract of trust between government and its people, that person much feel the full weight of the consequences of that action. To put it plainly: it's not OK for someone who has defrauded the state to maintain his or her post in parliament and, even worse, to get away with not having to pay back the stolen amount. This is a travesty of justice and good governance. As far as public service workers are concerned, again I believe the solution is disarmingly simple. Let's start with this principle: one person; one job. Many public service workers hold down multiple jobs, both within the public service and in the private sector. This means they're earning more than one salary without fulfilling the obligations of any of the posts they're employed to hold down. One example of this is ward councillors who still hold down full-time jobs in the private sector. It doesn't work. Another example is of public service workers who're employed in two positions within the public service (e.g. as a councillor and as a teacher). Again, this doesn't work. So it seems clear to me that a move to this simple principle could make an immediate difference to the social contract between the people and their government, and towards efficiency at all levels of society. Running the public sector based on the same principles used in business and on the good governance principles outlined in the King Reports would be another good place to start. For example, each public service worker should have a fair and valid employment contract, outlining well-defined key performance measures and equally well-defined methodologies for managing poor performance. Workers need to be held to account in terms of employment contacts like these and, naturally, also rewarded for good performance. It's a fundamental principle of behavioural management that behaviour which is rewarded persists. If the body politic effectively rewards poor behaviour by either ignoring it or by consciously refusing to act on it, we are creating a rod for our own backs. In terms of civil society, if it is clear that government and government agencies, where the collective power of society lies, are bound by the rule of law, the behavioural consequences of this will filter down very quickly. The message will become clear that no-one is above the law and, confident in this, society will begin the process of regulating and policing itself, something which happens quite naturally in many democracies around the world. For example, if citizens know that the police will act quickly, fairly and justly if they report a crime, in general they will become more vigilant and more prepared to work in partnership with the police. If citizens know that their voices are being heard and that public participation isn't merely a process of paying lip-service to this democratic principle, that too will make a tremendous difference. We need for instance, to make sure that ward committees are non-partisan community forums and that they're not high-jacked by narrow political interests. We also need to allow for more direct public participation in the process of government, especially at local level, so
Page 7 of 14

that people can feel their representatives are, indeed, representing their interests and not merely furthering party political agendas. Further, we need to ensure that politicians at all levels of government can be held to account in a real and meaningful way, and that they're not permitted to hide behind the proportional representation system, which enables parties to shift underperforming, corrupt and criminal representatives around the system without any accountability to the people. In short, we already have all of the tools we need in our hands. We just need to start using them - and to show that we're committed to using them properly.

Discussion Thread: Politics are an excuse

Moreni Khoza: The single most important fact that each "public servant" needs to understand is that they are where they are to "serve" the people of this country. If one does not understand what is it to serve and the meaning of the 'public-servant', then we are all wasting our time. This must be embedded on each government employee, so that can understand why the government said "BATHO PELE". I do not believe we need further qualified people, there is more than enough. We need those people to respect targets sets by the government through the manifestos and implement them with due-diligence. It all goes back to accountability and performance monitoring.

Lee Cahill (Joburg Advocacy Group): Exactly!

Discussion Thread: Too many policies yet too little change

Katekani Shandlale: Most of the issues raised by the jammers since the beginning of the jam are not new and agencies, visions, policies have been implemented to address these problems before yet no change. remember GEAR/AGSISA, BEE, Millennium goals, Affirmative Action etc all these were designed to eradicate poverty, inequality, unemployment, economic and social

Page 8 of 14

development to mention the few but yet no visible change few people have benefited from these policies while the masses are drowning in poverty!

What will make the 2030 vision different, is it another one of the government talks with no action? Jam has to be different from all past visions and this can only happen if these policies are strongly enforced after implementation. Zarina Adhikari: Maybe it's true that all the policies thus far haven't dealt with the problem of poverty effectively and that we need something new. Why do you think this is the case and how would you do it differently. You right, the jam is about new ideas - what are your ideas?

Lee Cahill (Joburg Advocacy Group): Katekani has expressed something that I also feel. Government is very good at planning, but poor at implementation and, in many cases, abysmal as far as governance is concerned. I personally find this 'disconnect' in our national life introduces a level of stress on every level that is hard to quantify, but which is evident in such key social indicators as the crime level, unemployment, HIV/Aids infection rates and the exceptionally high level of psychological and psychiatric illnesses in the country. As importantly, it introduces a level of distrust between government and ordinary citizens, in the same way consumers come to mistrust a product that has been hyped with great marketing, but which fails to deliver. My feeling is that we have many of the fundamentals in place already - an extraordinary constitution, a sound legal framework (well, so far), an independent judiciary (so far), a vibrant independent media (so far), formal measures for social and economic redress, and a nation that's fundamentally committed to making the democratic project work. Within this context, I can't help but feeling that government is letting down the people of South Africa in so many ways. Its failure to address corruption in government is just one of many, many examples, as is the endemic lack of accountability and the shocking state of service delivery at both local and national level, all of which affects every South African's experience of government, statehood and citizenship. Do we need something new? Undoubtedly. Whether that is yet another strategic plan is doubtful. The fact of the matter is that the state of governance in our country is in such a state of crisis that if we don't roll up our sleeves and get the basics right - and very, very soon - planning for 2030 or 2040 is simply moot.

Page 9 of 14

As a strategic planner with many years of experience, my suggestion is this. Yes, we need long-term planning, but what we don't need is another unwieldly, irrelevant and unimplementable strategic plan. What we need is to create a strategic framework within which the South African people can take their destiny into their own hands and run with it. Centralised planning is already an outdated undertaking, and instead it falls to government to create a just, efficient and enabling environment in which the citizens of the country can build the kind of society they can believe in, can be committed to and can, above all else, trust. So let's use this process as an opportunity to do just that, but let's let go of the idea of centralised government control - of both the planning and implementation processes. Not only has history already made this approach irrelevant, but the most successful governments are those which create an enabling context in which citizens can apply their skills, commitment and innovation in order to build a living democracy. Give the power to act back to the people, and there's no doubt in my mind that we'll create a new model of governance in South Africa from which the entire world will be able to learn.

Discussion Thread: Jobs

How do we create more jobs and put more people to work? South Africa has an extraordinarily high rate of unemployment, with just 41 percent of adults at work versus 60 percent for similar countries. Equally alarming: Two-thirds of all unemployed people are below the age of 35 and roughly 65 percent of young black people are unemployed. Across-the-board job creation is vital to a healthy and prosperous nation. While the country has witnessed a rise in jobs in construction, retail and private security industry, a large number of young people find it difficult to break into the labour market, despite having more education than older workers. How can the public and private sector help with job creation? What works? What doesnt? How can we help South Africans become more entrepreneurial? What can we do to better anticipate new opportunities for job creation?

Lee Cahill (Joburg Advocacy Group): Learning from other successful models: As far as work and job creation is concerned, I really believe government has missed the boat in so many ways, and I believe this is due to an ideological 'blind spot' that sees centralisation and government control as the only valid way in which to run a country.

Page 10 of 14

This approach has effectively disempowered the South African people, and left them helplessly looking to others for work and employment solutions instead of feeling enabled and empowered to create their own opportunities. With this in mind, it's all well and good planning for the future, but we need real, practical solutions *right now* or planning for the future is simply an impractical, self-indulgent and ultimately useless process. And it's not as if the solutions aren't out there. There are many models we can learn from that will make an immediate, practical difference in so many lives, and which will enable us to create solid ground on which to plan for a successful and sustainable future. We also have to be honest with ourselves about the fact that, despite government's essentially neo-liberal economic policy framework, South Africa still has the second highest Gini coefficient in the world (i.e. the highest gap between rich and poor people). For me, what this means is that we need to be less enthralled to so-called macroeconomic principles as defined and expressed within the neo-liberal context and through such institutions as the IMF and the World Bank. In short, we need to be bold about taking our economic destiny into our own hands and about creating socio-economic solutions that are appropriate to our context and which will address the many pressing problems we're facing. Here are some practical suggestions: 1. Let's begin with a broad-based microloan scheme that will empower micro enterprises to get up and running, and to become functional and sustainable. In the first instance, this will provide regular, reliable income for many, many people and, in the second instance, it will stimulate local economies and broad-based job creation. Schemes like this have worked very successfully in places like India, where the repayment rate for small loans is exceptionally high, and where micro enterprises are the stepping stone for many to find a way out of the poverty cycle. A word of caution, though: implementation should ideally not be put into the hands of private enterprise, where the profit motive can completely distort the objectives and implementation of the scheme. India's microloan bubble should act as fair warning of what can happen if schemes like these aren't run very carefully. There's therefore an argument to be made that government should establish and run a decentralised microloan agency, whose primary objective will be poverty alleviation and economic empowerment, not profit. 2. Secondly, worker share schemes in business and industry are a quick, effective and just ways of facilitating a fair re-distribution of wealth. Schemes like these are already working very successfully in South Africa and should ideally be extended, especially in the manufacturing and industrial sectors. Worker share schemes mean that everyone in a particular enterprise can share fairly in the rewards of production and output, while ensuring that the viability of the enterprise is sustained.
Page 11 of 14

Even though this might not create more new jobs in the short term, stable businesses and industries will continue to employ people long-term which, at the very least, will mean we can secure our existing jobs pool and mitigate against further large-scale job losses. Also, as, on average, every working South African supports five people, the benefits of shared ownership will inevitably be felt on a broad basis in society as a whole. 3. Another option - and a very viable alternative to the proposed nationalisation of farm land is shared ownership schemes in the agricultural sector. Again, many schemes like this are already working very successfully around the country and enable the people actually working the land to share in the results of their labour. Schemes like these could easily and rapidly be extended across the country, securing jobs, creating a platform for the creation of new jobs, and acting as an effective conduit for the redistribution of wealth. A side-note here. I'm not a proponent of nationalisation, not because I don't believe in a just distribution of wealth (which I do), but because nationalisation inevitably doesn't empower the people; it enriches the state. Also, centralised ownership and control is fertile ground for many abuses and so this isn't, I believe, the best option open to us. 4. Another existing, accessible and easily-implementable option is to allow communities with plans for viable community-based projects direct access to funding through the Extended Public Works Programme (EPWP). At present, the programme is being implemented through secondary channels, such as NGOs, and many opportunities for job creation are being lost as a result. By way of example, last year JAG put together a community-based work programme that would have provided not only additional employment in the defined community, but would have enabled the community to put the brakes on infrastructure collapse and create many centres for positive community interaction. The programme was designed to provide project-based employment to approximately 80 people a month on an on-going basis, and could ultimately have created 30 new jobs in one Joburg suburb alone. The NGO handling implementation turned down the application for funding, though, and all of these opportunities were lost. 5. As far as youth unemployment is concerned, we believe there's another very do-able option - the creation of a youth social service programme. In this way, young school leavers and graduates could apply for one-year internships in local, provincial and national government and could be tasked with taking up the slack in our social services, where this is so desperately needed. As part of the programme, they could receive a small starting salary, basic training, and mentorship in their chosen field of activity, while also being able to make a positive contribution to the fulfilling the country's social needs. In return, as part of the internship, they would have to participate in a pre-identified educational outreach programme at local level, so that the benefits of the internship programme could be extended into civil society on a broader basis.

Page 12 of 14

At the end of the internship year, they could have the option of either taking up a full-time position in government (if one is available), of receiving assistance to find a suitable job in the private sector, or of establishing or buying into an entrepreneurial enterprise. Another side note: access to start-up capital remains extremely limited in South Africa, as most of this can be accessed only through privately-managed investment funds or the commercial banks. We need to make start-up capital more readily available if we want to build a strong SME sector and open up all of the opportunities it offers for our young people. 6. Finally, South Africa is in desperate need of suitably-qualified artisans, without whose work the wheels of business and industry simply can't turn. Let's re-introduce the apprenticeship system and open up this channel of opportunity for our young people, while simultaneously building our country's skills base. As in so many other instances, we don't need to reinvent the wheel. The tools are out there for us to use - we just need to roll up our sleeves and use them instead of getting caught in an endless cycle of analysis paralysis.

Discussion Thread: Welcome to the citizenship discussion forum

Kuben Naidoo: In 1994, we started the long process of building a nation. How much progress do you think we have made? My name is Kuben and i work at the National Planning Commission. Welcome to the discussion forum on citizenship. this forum covers issues such as nationbuilding, social cohesion, unity, values that unite us and responsibilities of citizens. What does it mean to be South African? What responsibilities should citizens sign up for? What common values unite us as South Africans? Can a country as unequal and as diverse as South Africa ever be a united nation? How do we allow multiple and overlapping identities to coexist in our country? Do we only feel like a nation when bafana bafana / the boks win or we host a major tournament?

Lee Cahill (Joburg Advocacy Group): A quick response to this very important issue, as the jam is coming to an end.

Page 13 of 14

Despite the many mistakes we've made, I believe we've also made extraordinary progress in the process of building a new South African nation. We have excellent fundamentals in place, such as a very progressive constitution and a lot of equally progressive legislation. We also still have an independent judiciary (for now) and a free and independent media (for now), which are important foundation stones in any successful democracy. I believe we are, however, in danger of making some serious errors at this point in our history, and that we need to be vigilant that we don't allow everything we've achieved so far to be laid waste. Personally, I'm deeply concerned about a few key issues: the racialisation of politics, the unbridled hegemony of the majority party, the lack of accountability in government, widespread corruption, the increasing attacks on civil liberties through such mechanisms as the proposed Protection of Information Bill, the widening wealth gap, the paucity of social and economic justice, and a government that, on the ground, seems to care very little for the people it is tasked with leading. We are at a critical turning point in our history, and we have an important decision to make. It is time for us to reflect on whether we can allow the current state of affairs to continue or whether we have the will to say "no!" to what is happening in much of our public life and so regain a meaningful trajectory towards a non-racial, non-sexist and just future that we are so in danger of losing.

Discussion Thread: Structuring future online jams:

Lee Cahill (Joburg Advocacy Group): Before this jam session comes to close, I'd like to say that I feel online jams are a very useful tool, and provide for meaningful participation in the governance process. I hope this will be the first of many. In future, though, would it be possible to allow more jamming time over a weekend? If one has work, community, family and household responsibilities, it's difficult to jam during working hours or on weekday evenings. I haven't been able to participate in this jam as much as I would have liked to because of other commitments, and perhaps future jams can take the issue of the availability of free time into account. Thanks for the opportunity of participating in this first-ever government-organised jam - I look forward to seeing the results of the process on 11 November.

Page 14 of 14