William Makgoba advocates streamlining government operations by slashing the number of ministries
The proposed increase in the executive powers of the presidency, the stripping of two ministries and the assimilation of some functions of 10 other ministries awaiting restructuring (as reported in the Financial Mail, March 6), are welcome small steps in transforming the government bureaucracy into a leaner and meaner machine.
However, these steps are not deep and fundamental enough to radically alter the cumbersome and outdated government structure that is totally unsuitable for our country. Government rationalisation needs a sharp axe that will lead to fewer ministries with coherent but concentrated programmes.
With the rising costs of servicing the civil service – 27 ministries -South Africans should ask one critical question: Do we really need all our current ministries, or was the current structure and organisation of government conceived for the transformation agenda and programme of the new South Africa or not?
If the answer is no, what are we doing to change this state of affairs, or is it going to be another case of “looking up to the hills whence the answer shall come”? Are there not many areas of convergence and complementarity that can be used as a basis to organise and restructure our government fundamentally, so that it becomes lean, mean, efficient, effective and appropriate to our set of constitutional principles and national priorities?
One does not need to be an Einstein to notice that a number of ministries or offices of government are more or less doing the same things, and there is much redundancy, duplication, cost and inefficiency within the system.
Some people would argue that we need more ministries in order to devolve and decentralise power. The history of ministries is that each tends to concentrate rather than devolve power; each tends to create a little empire and guard its territory jealously. As a result of this diffusion of power, loss of focus on the part of government becomes inevitable. On the other hand, some would cogently argue with supporting research evidence that too much bureaucracy is costly, inefficient and ineffective. Large governments in today’s environment are poor at delivering.
Both arguments are acceptable and have some logic until you dig a little further below the surface. How are government ministries conceived? Why does a nation need to have a ministry of defence, health or finance, for example? Even further, what are the specific needs of each society so that it organises its citizens for its unique challenges?
The answer to these questions is that government ministries firstly are born out of need (necessity is the mother of invention) and that each society should construct its ministries in accordance with its unique, but essential, needs.
If this line of reasoning is followed, one comes to the sobering conclusion that most of our ministries in South Africa are not what the country needs. They are redundant, unnecessary and simply an imitation of what happens somewhere else. They are a result of a compromise deal rather than a well thought out structure for a new beginning; a new country with a new agenda and programme.
As a result, some of our current ministries have become a problem and a contradiction rather than a solution to our national strategy and transformation process. As a nation, we have not sat down to conceptualise our ministries according to our national imperatives and agenda. We simply accepted the logic of the past regime and fitted it with names of our own.
While this fitted the logic of reconciliation during transition, it does not fit the major transformation agenda sweeping through the nation. Transformation of South African society in its entirety is the raison d’^tre for the existence of this government.
Societies needed defence in the past because of imperialism. Nations needed to defend their territories and secure their citizens. Do all countries need this today? Certainly not, for the era of military colonialism is diminishing, to be replaced by information imperialism. So today’s national defence is no longer simply military but also information and knowledge power.
Equally, nations needed education as a ministry as it was central to participatory democracy, development and good citizenry. Do all countries need this today? They all certainly do. This leads one to the conclusion that there are primary and secondary ministries in any government.
Which are the ministries that are primarily needed in present-day South Africa, taking into account its needs for transformation, non-racism and non-sexism within a competitive global economy?
South Africa needs two types of primary ministries: those that are universal and those that specific to our context and developmental needs. All the other ministries would be secondary and should occupy levels of directorates within the primary ministries.
The universal primary ministries are education, health, finance, agriculture, justice and foreign. The local specific ministries for South Africa would be transformation, non-racism (human rights), non-sexism (gender) and quality assurance (co-ordination and monitoring). On this basis, our country would only have at least 10 ministries.
However, restructuring the present “white elephant” would be best done using the concept of clustering. A group of ministries would find a common core value that they all share. This would define the primary ministry.
Deputy ministers would not be necessary in such a model. The various components that share or are associated with the core value or competency would then become directorates within this new primary ministry. For example, under the Ministry of Health, health, welfare, housing and population development become directorates.
Obviously, in the process of rationalisation, jobs, portfolios, lines of responsibilities, new capacity and accountabilities will be redefined and changed so that they are guided by the national imperatives, coherence, focus and co-ordination. Many of the current positions and responsibilities will fall by the wayside. Using this concept of clustering by core values/competencies, this is roughly how the future government of South Africa may look.
Twelve ministries and 15 deputy ministers could be immediately rationalised if departments were clustered in the following way:
l defence, safety and security, correctional services and justice form a common cluster whose core value is the maintenance of a just society;
l education, science and technology form a cluster whose core values are education and innovation;
l labour, trade and industry, minerals and energy, public enterprises, tourism and finance whose core value is wealth creation;
l foreign and home affairs;
l health, housing, welfare and population development form another cluster whose core value is the well-being or health of the citizen;
l agriculture and land affairs, water affairs and forestry and environmental affairs form a cluster whose core value is protection of the environment;
l provincial affairs and constitutional development, public service administration and public works – core values national governance and assets;
l transport;
l posts, telecommunications and broadcasting;
l sports, recreation and arts.
This rationalisation would bring the total number of primary ministries to 10.
The four new ministries (transformation, non-racism, non-sexism and quality assurance) already exist within the current government structures either as commissions or offices of co-ordination of government policy. Depending on how these four local specific imperatives are organised, South Africa would have at most 14 ministries and at least 12.
Obviously, by conducting a detailed analysis based on the core values and competencies of each ministry, such as that which has been conducted by the presidential review commission, one should arrive at a better informed clustering and reorganisation. The fact that the commission suggested the rationalisation of only two ministries, indicates that either the process of review was not deep enough or we should wait to read the full report.
The advantages of clustering are:
l streamlining, coherence, co-ordination, cost-effectiveness, and are consistent with trends worldwide that cut costs, bureaucracy, duplication and inefficiency;
l defining competencies that are aligned to our national strategy;
l providing impetus for articulating new rules for the operations and functions of government ministries. These will bring coherence and much-needed co-ordination to each cluster and ultimately into government.
The need to reconfigure government as we transform society, approach the millennium, face our unique social and national imperatives and enter the global information society could not be greater. By concentrating the gravy, making it sweeter, but for fewer officers, we are more likely to end with a cost-effective, appropriate and relevant government model.
William Makgoba is professor of molecular immunology at Wits University and chair of the Medical Research Council