Jeremy Cronin’s article (“What kind of presidency,” May 26) should kick off a real debate. I have always enjoyed reading Cronin and believe his views are sobering for a developmental state like South Africa. However, in this article, he stumbles.
To blame South Africa’s problems on a powerfully managed presidency does not add up. On the contrary, centralisation in the presidency is a necessity in our fractured policy planning process.
By suggesting that the president is a gatekeeper for big business, Cronin begins to trade in the very currency of conspiracy that he refers to in his article. His example of a South African Breweries-funded project at the Centre for Development and Enterprise is a weak argument. It is no secret that the centre supports a neo-liberal agenda. But what would Cronin’s response have been had funding come from a black economic empowerment (BEE) company managed by a former trade unionist?
Consider some of the centralised functions that “undermine” governance.
The appointment of directors-general by the president has widely been criticised for weakening ministerial accountability. But ministers and deputy ministers are not permanent appointments: they are subject to monitoring of performance and other variables at the president’s discretion. Directors-general, on the other hand, have contracts with measurable outcomes and can be relocated where best suited.
Policy coordination and planning is at the core of transformation. The ability to manage policy directives for a developmental state at a central level is not a luxury, but an essential requirement for comprehensive delivery.
Appointment of judges is practiced internationally. Lately, some have accused the presidency of appointing a certain category of judges favourable to its views. This would be dangerous if true; but equally the government and the president have a responsibility to ensure a representative judiciary.
It is the president’s prerogative to appoint and to dismiss ministers. This cannot be a democratic process open to debate. Yes, we should be watchful for abuse of political power, hence Parliament plays an oversight role.
The method of appointing premiers and executive mayors has been criticised. There is a valid argument that the African National Congress’s practice in this regard stifles democratic practice. But of equal concern are populist tendencies that undermine democracy for short-term gain.
The most contested terrain concerning the powers of the president is probably economic policy. Cronin’s gripe is essentially about the economic determinants that the Cabinet has adopted, starting with the growth, employment and redistribution strategy.
Though South Africa’s progressive economic policy has won accolades from markets and investors, it has come under harsh criticism from the South African Communist Party, the Congress of South African Trade Unions and others. The emergence of BEE has accelerated the creation of a black middle class, which many would argue is essential to democracy. The net result of this economic policy has been stable monetary policy, decreased currency volatility and lower inflation. Cronin might well argue all this has not created enough jobs; I would argue it is essential for job creation.
President Thabo Mbeki has been criticised for a lack of inclusiveness. But it has been Mbeki who has led debate and dialogue among representatives of business and labour, religious figures, academics, farmers, minority communities and so on. The level of debate that has emerged from the presidency has opened the window for greater scrutiny of certain national issues. There may be no other president in the world who writes a weekly public letter.
In returning to the original question posed by Cronin — “What kind of presidency?” — we should acknowledge the success of the current system. The converse could well be asked: Would South Africa have achieved the level of progress registered over the past decade if the presidency was not organised, methodical and focused?
Hoosain Kagee is an independent consultant