The security guards at GCIS used to smile and say “oh – Joel” when you announced you had come to see the CEO – rolling his name so that it sounded more like “jewel”. As this interview took place in Johannesburg, it is impossible to check if the myriads of staff at the Union Buildings (where he now works full time) address him so casually – but clearly Netshitenzhe is not someone who seeks affirmation through ceremony or titles.
In fact, “self-effacing” is the most common description of the head of policy in the Presidency – alongside references to his “behind the scenes political power” and his intellect.
The Institute for Democracy in South Africa’s Richard Calland, in an extract from his soon to be published book, “Anatomy of Power in South Africa”, suggested that Netshitenzhe is the second most powerful person in South Africa.
Netshitenzhe is a member of the ANC National Executive Committee and sits on its political education sub committee. He participates in Cabinet meetings and has on numerous occasions been touted as a possible presidential candidate – though he has always denied emphatically any aspirations to such position.
He is also the acknowledged author of numerous ANC policy papers – and the presumed writer of many others. To back claims of his influence, commentators have often credited him for changing the official government position on Aids in 2002 resulting in the distribution of anti-retrovirals.
Are reports of his political weight true? He dismisses this with a wave of his hand.
Of course such references to him are not always complimentary. Commentators on the Friends of Jacob Zuma website for example snidely dub him the President’s “lap dog”.
“Really? I never read these things,” Netshitenzhe says.
Maybe it is this apparent lack of concern about either praise or criticism – and his ongoing commitment to engage with journalists about issues – that has won him such accolades in the media.
Power anyway (particularly in politics) is inevitably ethereal – and impressions of who wields it are often speculative and not necessarily based on reality.
What exactly is his job? This might be a more accurate measure of his influence.
His position as head of policy in the Presidency is not a new one. Since 2001 he has held down this job alongside that of CEO of GCIS. He has now stepped down as chief government spokesperson to devote himself fulltime to policy work.
“Our unit is responsible for drafting the medium term strategic framework for government. This essentially defines the overarching strategies for the government’s mandate period – from one election to the other,” he explains.
“We are further responsible for providing analysis to the president, deputy president and minister in the presidency of individual policies or memoranda submitted to Cabinet.”
Although individual departments and local and provincial government are responsible for developing specific plans, the policy unit is responsible for ensuring these are in line with the national framework. They also work with National Treasury to ensure budgets reflect national objectives and goals.
It’s time then to quiz him on his perspectives on some of the issues that face the media sector.
What does he think about the media now?
“Firstly we should all celebrate the space for freedom of expression that we have – the fact that we can all express ourselves in a free and open environment. Ideally though one would have wanted the progressive media to thrive in this new South Africa.
“It is a tragedy that these publications have largely collapsed. Some people say that this was inevitable and that the staff of these publications has become part of the traditional media and thus transformed the mainstream, but certainly I feel a great loss. There is for example very limited intellectual discourse – and there are no analytical journals to read.
“The traditional ‘arms length’ relationship between the editors and owners of media houses is also I believe being threatened as the bottom line increasingly dictates news values. These dynamics are not only an issue in South Africa, but around the world.
“This focus on the bottom line inevitably impacts on the resources available to newsrooms – there is less time for research and more and more telephone journalism. There is also a culture within the media of operating as a herd. If one media outlet focuses on a story then they all follow – neglecting other perspectives and issues.”
Netshitenzhe reflects for a while.
“The media likes to state that its responsibility is to speak truth to power. That is important. But it is also important that they recognize that they too exercise power in society and who speaks truth to them?”
What about public broadcasting? Is it not important that government dedicates more public funds to the SABC to ensure it is not over reliant on advertising revenue?
Netshitenzhe smiles, carefully articulating a position that will not contradict government policies.
“It’s a question of balance. We have to weigh up SABC’s needs against all the other social needs in our society like poverty relief, education, housing—. Quality programming is not only determined by sources of money but also by commitment.
“African language stations are for example doing wonderful work in assisting communities to better themselves. The commercial success of many public interest television programmes in languages other than English and Afrikaans does show that there is not necessarily an inherent contradiction between public broadcasting and commercial imperatives.”
And is there any truth to accusations that government is trying to control the public broadcaster?
“No,” he says emphatically. “An SABC that does not have credibility is not in government’s self interest. The credibility of the public broadcaster is critical to us.”
And what about proposed amendments to the Film and Publications legislation which have been slammed as muzzling the media as they propose removal of clauses exempting news media from pre-publication categorization?
“We have agreed that there will be widespread consultation with stakeholders about this before it is finally adopted. The aim of the legislation is to protect children from pornography – not to in any way limit freedom of expression,” Netshitenzhe says, reiterating the Cabinet statement on the issue.
What does he regard as his greatest achievement as head of GCIS? Most spin-doctors would gloat about having won the respect of so many of the journalists. Not Netshitenzhe.
“I am most proud of what we achieved in starting to meet the communication needs of those in the second economy. Information about government services can be a matter of life and death to those living in rural areas and urban areas in extreme poverty.
“GCIS has begun to effectively reach out to these communities through holding imbizos, establishing multi-purpose communication centers (MPCC’s), using radio more effectively, communicating in all South African languages and developing the government magazine Vuk’uzenzele. We also established the Media Development and Diversity Agency to enable communities to own their own media.”
The interview takes place at an interesting time. The media has for months been preoccupied with stories on presidential succession. The Jacob Zuma trial into allegations of corruption will resume the next day. As we all know now the case was struck off the roll, but this verdict was still to be delivered.
Is Netshitenzhe’s time caught up in dealing with this?
“No,” he says firmly. “We can’t let debates in the media about succession distract us from the imperative of transforming society.”
The hour set aside for the interview is nearly over. Its time to ask Netshitenzhe about himself – a subject he notoriously shies away from, clearly after 28 years of communicating on behalf of a collective (first in exile and then for government) feeling more comfortable talking on behalf of “we”.
Does he ever not work? Does he find time for his family?
“I have more time now for them,” he laughs. “Though they wouldn’t agree it’s enough. This job is less pressured on a day-to-day basis. I don’t have to respond immediately to issues, but rather analyse broad trends.”
Does he still fall asleep over newspapers?
Another laugh. “No. I can read them the next day now.”
What does he do in any spare time that he has?
“Read. Watch soccer – I am fanatical about soccer.”
And what does he read?
“Novels as well as non fiction. Which ones are memorable? The Grapes of Wrath, Down Second Avenue, A Dry White Season, The Constant Gardener… There is also that series of books called The Man, The Word – I am bad at remembering authors (they are political or religious thrillers written by Irving Wallace). I also read non-fiction and have just read Red Capitalists in China.”
But those who are meeting him next have arrived. It is time to go. As I leave, I remind him that I will see him the following week at another farewell to him as chief of GCIS.
“I hate these things,” he says. “It’s not as if I am dead yet—”
So is he powerful? It seems so. Self-effacing? Definitely. But then again are influence and modesty not also contradictory concepts? Is it possible to be self-effacing, yet still wield political power?