The coronavirus pandemic has positioned the management of presidents and prime ministers the world over underneath probably the most unforgiving highlight. It has uncovered underlying weaknesses and revealed hidden strengths.
An excessive disaster like this supplies probably the most looking out examination of a political chief – a really acute type of accountability. Such a disaster could make or break a pacesetter.
South Africa is a rustic that faces a disaster of management. Towards a backdrop of a former president being jailed for contempt of courtroom for failing to seem earlier than a fee of inquiry probing state seize and corruption, public belief has unsurprisingly declined. This has come by in analysis, together with research by the Human Sciences Analysis Council (HSRC).
This suggests that there’s a want for a type of management that responds to moral crises. In South Africa and world wide, there’s a extreme problem to the “normative core” – the underlying values and moral ideas that maintain a society collectively – because the current devastating unrest has underlined.
That is the start line of our chapter, Presidential Management and Accountability from Mandela to Ramaphosa, in a brand new State of the Nation publication from the HSRC.
Our conceptual strategy to evaluating the presidents of South Africa’s democratic period was guided by the notion of “moral presidential management”. We posed questions akin to: what have been the principal traits of three of the presidents who preceded Ramaphosa (Nelson Mandela, Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma)? And what are the suitable and helpful inferences for his time period as head of presidency?
We developed a framework for assessing presidential management based mostly on 5 standards: constitutional constancy, establishment constructing, socio-economic transformation, decision-making and political judgment, and strategic imaginative and prescient and statecraft.
Our chapter applies the primary two – constitutional constancy and institution-building.
We discovered that, within the 25 years since South Africa grew to become a democracy, there was each spectacular constitutional constancy and egregious constitutional infidelity. There was spectacular institution-building and destabilising institutional destruction.
Thus, South Africa’s expertise of presidential management and accountability since 1994 is a complicated and infrequently contradictory combination of power and weak spot, success and failure, resilience and vulnerability.
Constitutionalism and governance
South Africa is a constitutional democracy. Elementary to its transition away from the arbitrary, authoritarian and discriminatory rule of the apartheid period was the institution of a rules-based society. On this, govt energy must be exercised towards the strict check of what the South African activist, educational and jurist Etienne Mureinik referred to as a “tradition of justification”. Each train of public energy could be publicly defined in an open and clear manner.
Furthermore, the founding doc of South Africa’s new democracy was conceived as greater than merely a map of the contemporary distribution of energy and authority. It was additionally seen as a structure with “transformative” objective. In different phrases to alter the “nation’s political and social establishments and energy relationships in a democratic, participatory and egalitarian route.”
South Africa’s structure does this. It lays out the first code for democratic governance in addition to social change – regardless that we recognise that this can be a contested paradigm.
Therefore, the extent to which presidents adhere to the constitutional written code can have profound implications in relation to their use of govt energy and their management.
Mandela, along with his unequivocal assist for the precept of constitutionalism and the supremacy of the rule of legislation, set a excessive bar.
For his half Mbeki did his utmost to strengthen the capability and coherence of democratic governance, most notably with reforms to the Presidency itself. It’s nonetheless onerous to keep away from the conclusion that his strategy to statecraft, and to the political administration of his personal sophisticated and infrequently fractious social gathering, led him to have undermined the structure and the rule of legislation. This may need been performed unwittingly, however nonetheless unerringly.
We conclude that he’ll subsequently not be remembered as an important constitutionalist or moral chief, regardless that compared along with his successor, Zuma, historical past is proving to be kinder to him.
Within the case of Zuma, the best courtroom within the land declared that he had transgressed the structure. As well as, a big quantity of proof has been adduced earlier than the Zondo Fee of Inquiry that means that Zuma abused the facility entrusted in him as president. And that he enabled the systemic type of corruption that’s now generally known as “state seize”.
Establishment constructing is an in depth relative of constitutional constancy. It is because South Africa’s structure is notable for the intensive constellation of “institutional infrastructure” that it establishes. It’s the different facet of the identical coin. Establishment constructing ensures that the autos for transformation have the required organisational drivers, match for objective in each sense.
Because the Ghanaian lawyer and educationalist H. Kwasi Prempeh argues, there’s a must shift focus from
robust management to constructing credible and efficient establishments on the nationwide and native ranges.
We agree establishment constructing is crucial. However establishments with out aware, visionary and accountable leaders are susceptible to abuse of energy and lack of integrity.
In different phrases, moral management requires robust, succesful establishments. As Ramaphosa found final week, leaders shall be rendered susceptible by weak establishments. There was a large failure of each crime intelligence and policing, because the president was compelled to publicly settle for.
The blended outcomes of the final 25 years have quite a few implications for Ramaphosa and future leaders.
Particular person moral requirements of the best order are important. However these should be buttressed by robust, succesful public establishments. Mbeki recognised this and set about constructing them. Zuma hollowed them out and rendered them susceptible to “seize”. Ramaphosa is now in a means of rebuilding, however faces an ideal storm of interlocking social, fiscal, financial and well being crises.
The affect of robust moral management by heads of state is crucial. However a tradition of “ethics of care” should be translated at each degree of governance.
Going through a extreme, protracted and multifaceted disaster, the presidential management stakes couldn’t be increased – for the authority of the Presidency and democratic state, the integrity of the structure, and the socio-economic stability and development of South Africa.
Richard Calland, Affiliate Professor in Public Regulation, College of Cape City and Mabel Dzinouya Sithole, Programme Officer – Constructing Bridges, College of Cape City