Xolela Mangcu
Guest Column
Five years ago I invited Sam Nolutshungu and Mamphela Ramphele to Cornell University to discuss South Africa’s prospects for democracy.
I remember complaining to Nolutshungu about the overtly political nature of Cabinet appointments in our first democratically elected government. I wanted people to be appointed on the basis of their knowledge and mastery of their respective portfolios.
Nolutshungu quickly disabused me of my naive expectations. “The selection of a Cabinet is invariably and fundamentally a political process,” he explained.
And so it is with a sense of bemusement that I have been watching pundits falling over each other trying to suggest that this time we would have a Cabinet selected purely on merit. And even as it became clear that this would not be the case, business leaders insisted meritocracy had been the basis of the Cabinet selection – that’s what happens when you look at society only through the lens of the market. President Thabo Mbeki himself kept this idea alive in his concluding remarks at the African National Congress victory rally: “Let’s get back to work.”
Merit can explain some of the choices – Trevor Manuel, Alec Erwin, Kader Asmal – but definitely not all of them. How else would one explain the appointment of Dullah Omar to transport or Patrick Lekota to defence?
For an alternative analysis of Mbeki’s Cabinet, we have to go back to politics. If it is understood as the study of the exercise of power, politics can be either virtue or vice. All over the world, government corruption has given politics a bad name – which is why so many analysts have sought refuge in the illusion of meritocracy.
But in the right hands, politics can have a redeeming value: the extension and legal protection of civil rights. While a number of South African writers have described Mbeki as a scheming Niccol Machiavelli, they also forgot the progressive Machiavelli – the brilliant adviser to kings and builder of roads and cities. Will Mbeki be this good Machiavelli – channelling power and resources for the social good? Does his Cabinet selection help us answer that question?
Mbeki’s choices were based on whom he thought would most advance his agenda of transformation. Merit was a critical consideration insofar as it served that purpose. That is neither unreasonable nor unusual. Presidents all over the world pick their cabinets on the basis of loyalty and commitment to their agendas. No president in his or her right mind appoints a potential rival to his Cabinet. Asking Mbeki to appoint Pallo Jordan is like asking Bill Clinton to appoint Jesse Jackson. But even the idea that Mbeki appointed “yes-men” is questionable. I just cannot see how political heavyweights like Steve Tshwete, Asmal or Lekota would go along with everything Mbeki says or does. For that matter, Lekota may have his own presidential ambitions and may want to be heard, not just seen.
In his first substantial act in office, Mbeki has shown that he has the potential to be a good Machiavelli by retaining people like Manuel, Asmal and Erwin. In these instances, he has skilfully used considerations of merit for both his own good and for the good of the country. The ability to connect the former to the latter is critical in leadership.
But what about his other appointments? Some have described Jacob Zuma as a “yes-man” who inherits a deputy presidency that has become an empty shell. It has even been suggested that Zuma himself is an empty shell. But it must require a certain level of intelligence for someone with no formal schooling to rise and become the deputy president of the country. Some have even expressed fears that Zuma’s appointment might create in him an expectation that he is next in line for the presidency. What is wrong with that if the man proves himself a capable leader and administrator? While some of the criticism levelled at Zuma may be warranted, it may also reflect the intellectual and elitist biases of the pundits themselves.
Nkosazana Zuma was one of the more inspired appointments. It sends a strong message to the male-dominated foreign-policy establishment that “the times are a- changing”. The African “strongmen” who have done so much to destroy our continent will have to get used to dealing with a woman envoy if they want our interventions. Most victims of war in Africa are women and children, and Nkosazana Zuma may just bring a different perspective to our foreign relations. While trade relations are increasingly the basis of foreign affairs, I also hope Nkosazana Zuma will bring in more humanitarian values to the table. I can already see her and Sheila Sisulu rocking the predominantly white male establishment in Washington.
And who ever thought that black women would be ministers of mineral and energy affairs, telecommunications, agriculture and land affairs, housing, and health?
I also disagree with those who see Sidney Mufamadi’s appointment to the newly created Ministry of Provincial and Local Government as a demotion. Mufamadi is going back to his “territory”, the grassroots politics he mastered as a unionist and civic activist in the 1980s. But care should be taken that this is not yet another scheme to create a second “home affairs”, a counterweight to Mangosuthu Buthelezi. It should not be seen as a means of controlling the provinces and local communities. If well thought out, the ministry could be a lifeline to communities.
There are a couple of troubling selections. The first is the elevation of Essop Pahad into the second most powerful post in the country – far above his rank in the party. In theory, Jacob Zuma is the number-two man in both the ANC and the government. But in practice, Pahad will be what Mathatha Tsedu calls “the gatekeeper. None will see the father but through Pahad.” And for some piece of unsolicited advice, Pahad’s finger-wagging is not likely to do the president’s image any good.
The other troubling development is the creation of a new Ministry of Intelligence. Somebody still has to convince me where the function of “intelligence” fits into our national priorities and limited resources. If the aim is to fight criminal syndicates, maybe the function should have been in safety and security, defence or justice. Can you imagine the unintended consequences of this move – an overzealous group of spies trying to justify their political existence by increasing their surveillance of ordinary citizens? Can you imagine the constitutional and legal problems that will arise as citizens try to protect themselves from an intrusive state?
Mbeki can demonstrate that he can be a good Machiavelli by scrapping this ministry. Or am I being naive again, Sam?
Howard Barrell is on paternity leave