Anton Harber : A Second Look
Anyone concerned with the issues of good governance should take note of last week’s departure from office of the Director General of the Department of Welfare, Leila Patel.
Patel finished work last Friday with little media attention. But when a director general with a solid reputation departs prematurely from office with a large payout and both she and the relevant minister decline to give details, it merits close scrutiny.
Patel’s case has caused a buzz among senior state officials because of what it portends for their job security. And what it signals for the establishment of principles of good governance within state structures.
Patel, who was brought into office by the new government from a solid welfare non- governmental organisation and academic background, has, in the past couple of years, established a reputation for being one of the more competent directors general. Her abilities and performance have not been questioned, by the minister or by anyone else in government, even as she departs from office two years before her contract runs out.
Patel has packed her bags because she and the Minister of Welfare and Population Development, Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi, were not getting on. It appears they clashed in recent months over the division of responsibility between them, leading to the minister wanting to replace her.
Fraser-Moleketi was apparently backed by Deputy President Thabo Mbeki, who supported the view that if a director general and a minister clashed, the director general should make way for someone to the minister’s liking.
There was bad chemistry between these two strong and able women, it was said. And the solution was for Patel to be bought out of her contract at considerable expense to the taxpayer.
The significance of this is threefold. Firstly, on the personal level, one must question the judgment of a minister who is unable to cast aside personal issues and work with a good director general.
It also demonstrates – not for the first time – that this government places more importance on loyalty and obedience than on competence.
The message given by Mbeki in this case, and in recent meetings with directors general, has been that they are there to carry out their minister’s orders above all else, and if they can’t work well with their superior, they should be replaced.
Sound familiar? Of course, it does – it is the ethic that characterised the civil service under the previous regime, one which allows individuals to say they only carried out mass removals or mass detentions because they were told to do so.
How ironic that it should be an ethic encouraged under the current government. Witness the departure, for example, of housing director general Billy Cobbett after a clash with his minister. And the removal from premiership of Terror Lekota. Loyalty and harmony are rewarded above ability and performance.
This is a disastrous attitude for a government under enormous pressure to deliver social transformation under difficult conditions. One would have thought that successful delivery and good administrative management would have absolute priority over all other concerns.
It is striking that new-generation directors general – those brought in precisely because they understood the needs and demands of transformation and would introduce a new ethic to the service – seem to be leaving almost as fast as those inherited from the previous regime.
On the face of it, this seems to be because many of those brought in to spearhead change are independent-minded, opinionated and driven. They run into trouble – and those who survive are those who learnt under the last government to obey silently, suppress opinions and, above all, genuflect before their political masters at regular intervals.
But the Patel case also has a wider significance, relating to the long-term role and ethic of the public service. Are senior civil servants political appointments, to be hired and fired at the whim of a Cabinet in constant flux, or are they long-term technocrats who are there to offer stability and continuity through the regular changes of ministers and policies?
The African National Congress government has not decided on its answer to this yet. The new civil servants brought in during the last few years were necessarily political, in that they were recruited specifically to help transform the bureaucracy and take it into the new, democratic order. But patterns are now being set for how the public service will operate in the long term.
There are a number of international models to draw on. The British model has permanent secretaries (the equivalent of our directors general) in office for the long term, to serve whatever government is in power. It is virtually impossible to fire them for any reason other than incompetence or sexual misconduct, and they provide a skills and experience base which survive as governments and ministers and policies come and go.
The United States model is different – new Cabinet members appoint new people below them and the choices are distinctly political and short term.
New Zealand provides a third model, where senior civil servants are given time-bound contracts with specific performance measurements. If they meet those criteria, and deliver as instructed, then they stay in office and are duly rewarded. If they fail to perform as promised, their contracts can be terminated.
Different South African departments have chosen different models. There are some where performance criteria are written into contracts, like the New Zealand model; there are survivors of the past government who have shown their ability to adapt and bring skill, experience and continuity to the post; and there are those who are there only as long as their minister wants them in the position.
Patel’s departure signals a move to the latter model – one in which the prime criteria for the job are loyalty and service to the minister. This has serious drawbacks.
For one thing, it promotes a government of yes-officers whose recognition and promotion depend primarily on obeisance and loyalty. This may explain why we see so few people evicted from senior government circles on the basis of incompetence; they are finding favour over and above those who ask questions, express opinions and hold their ground on issues of principle.
Changes in senior personnel also bring disruption and delay in delivery. It takes months for new people to be recruited and many more months for them to settle into their new positions and establish their authority. The new directors general brought in after the 1994 election only really started to make their mark in the past year. Each change will bring similar delays, as the skills and experience of their predecessors is lost – and hard to regain.
Patel’s knowledge and experience are now lost to the government. And other directors general know that their own wings have been clipped.
— Anton Harber was the former editor, and a co-founder, of the Mail & Guardian