We did not succeed in creating the “people-centred society” envisaged by then president Nelson Mandela, says the writer.
Cape Town - I take my academic stance and inspiration from the late UCT Professor Bongani Mayosi, who said: “There is no point in publishing papers if they cannot be translated into better treatments, better survival, better quality of life and longer life for the people of South Africa.”
My intention is not to present yet another conference paper that will collect dust. But rather to put forward five governance implementation questions. You see, the problem in our country is not policy. Our problem is implementation. Political commentator Justice Malala said: “We are a nation of talkers, not doers, of politicians, not entrepreneurs. We analyse problems brilliantly; we solve them poorly. We are a nation of great policies, but of little implementation.”
Let me cite just one example. The Office of the Auditor-General has been lamenting the poor state of municipal financial governance for the past decade.
Municipalities heard but simply did not listen and act on the advice. The way I see it, we know what the problem is, but instead of getting on with implementing it, we do the following: On your marks, get set – conference!
On your marks, get set – seminar! On your marks, get set – imbizo! In March the World Bank confirmed South Africa’s status as the most unequal country in the world.
The evidence is clear that we have not succeeded in realising the lofty 1994 vision of “A better life for all”.
Evidence abounds that the spheres of government closest to the people have failed dismally. And conference after conference confirms this view.
One of my academic heroes was the late, decorated Stellenbosch University intellectual Professor Sampie Terreblanche. An honest activist academic whose insight I continue to applaud and admire.
Two decades ago he released his seminal book, A History of Inequality (2002). This was followed in 2012 with Lost in Transformation. In this last book he advanced 10 reasons why our transformation efforts have gone astray that will explain what we experience at the coalface of the state.
1. We did not succeed in properly addressing the apartheid legacy of abject poverty, inequality and unemployment.
2. We succeeded in getting rid of the immoral and inhumane system of apartheid, but we did not succeed in putting a moral and humane system in its place.
3. The new black elite is guilty of an extravagant get-rich-quick mentality and a consequent preparedness to use immoral and devious methods by any means necessary.
4. Only a tiny minority have been economically empowered – almost 24 million black people are receiving less than 8% of total income.
5. We did not succeed in creating the “people-centred society” envisaged by then president Nelson Mandela and nor did we succeed in creating the “Rainbow Nation” envisaged by Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu.
6. The perpetuation of unequal power relations between the non-racial elite and the lumpen proletariat, while unfree labour manifests itself in growing unemployment in a socio-economic environment in which up to 10 million people do not receive wages.
7. We did not succeed in replacing the deeply divided South African society of the apartheid period with a society of social solidarity and proud South Africanism.
8. The politico-economic system that was in place during the apartheid years was dominated by the mineral energy complex and the rest of the corporate sector.
9. From 1974 to 2012 the poverty, unemployment and inequality problem has become much more severe, affecting the majority.
10. Most of the many things that went wrong during the transformation process seem to be related to the elite compromise/conspiracy.
The scenario is likely to look no better in 2032 unless we act with a greater sense of urgency to address the structural root causes of the problem.
What, in short, is the role of academia?
1. Cann and De Meunare (2020) caution against academics becoming academic tourists – whose daily existence is about conducting research to increase publications on a CV, who teach without being present, and define service as service to one’s institution. On the other hand are activist academics. They who are committed to justice cannot simply rely on disseminating new knowledge, but must reframe and reimagine their work as active labour. Activist research is committed to bringing about change at the spaces and sites of research.
Academics hoping to create social change cannot assume that change will occur simply because their articles are published. There is a desperate need for research that both theorises critically and at the same time creates material change. About finding the right tools to disrupt dominant narratives. Academics must become servants of the people. That means using your Master’s and Phd degrees to influence your world (In my case I used both my Master’s and Phd and turned them into a university short course and handbook as a result of research, training more than 1 000 local government actors since 2017).
2. If ideas shape our social and material reality, then we need to responsibly develop knowledge that liberates people. Thus moving beyond simply naming and understanding to actually attempting to create social change. Knowledge is and should then be about human liberation. We cannot speak of social justice in isolation from economic justice and not challenge the existing structures that produce social inequality. This means public intellectuals committed to justice can no longer consist in eloquence, but must rather be engaged in active participation in practical life, as constructor, organiser, permanent persuader and not just as a simple orator (Gramsci).
So what are the five governance implementation questions adopted from British public servant Michael Barber and Africanised? They offer a simple way of thinking about a problem and can be used by organisations to increase public accountability.
given moment that we are on track? (monitoring and evaluation).
I wish to reiterate and echo the sentiments expressed by the late Professor Terreblanche a decade ago. Because the rich are usually not prepared to acknowledge that they are rich because the majority are poor.
Perhaps it is time to bring a Codesa on why some people are so excessively rich, and why even more people are so hopelessly poor?
Perhaps we need a justice and reconciliation commission to examine power relations over the past 120 years in order to infuse the necessary degree of humility among the old white elite and the new black elite.
Only an honest assessment will bring us closer to the institutional and structural change that is needed in the political economic interface that has consistently served the narrow class interests of a minority since 1886.
For as long as South Afrca continues to be a leader in poverty, unemployment, and inequality we have a collective responsibility to act to bring an end to it and work for a more just South Africa – to be upstanders and not bystanders (power).
Finally, we who are paid to theorise have a higher duty to use our awareness, academic power, privilege, and access to join in solidarity, to struggle with others for effective socio-economic change. This demands a stubborn refusal to stay locked in the ivory tower, and instead calls for active citizenry working with and on behalf of the least privileged in society.
This is the noble call and cause of academia – to use research (multi-disciplinary) and knowledge to serve society and help change it for the better (Woodsen).
* This is an edited version of a speech delivered at the South African Human Rights Conference on Local Government from August 31-September 1, 2022.
Dr Cloete is a Research Fellow from the Department of Public Administration and Management at the University of the Free State (UFS). He is the founder of the Great Governance ZA Podcast
Cape Times
Related Topics: