The government’s plans to centralise the public service, purportedly in the interests of improving ”delivery”, set alarm bells ringing, Democratic Alliance (DA) leader Helen Zille said on Friday.
”The real aim must be bluntly stated: it is to centralise the African National Congress’s [ANC] power, to erode the opposition’s chances of setting up alternative models of ‘delivery’, and to erode further the already blurred lines between the governing party and the state,” she said in her weekly online newsletter, SA Today.
Parliament was likely to pass the Public Services Amendment Bill (PSAB) next week, which aimed to centralise the public service at national and provincial levels.
The Bill expanded the public service and administration minister’s and president’s powers and allowed for secondment of employees.
More sinister still, however, was the draft proposal currently being circulated of a Public Administration Management Bill (PAMB), which might become law in 2009.
The measure was set to curtail municipalities’ autonomy by transferring decision-making to the central government and bring local public-sector employees under Pretoria’s control, she said.
The PAMB would put sweeping powers in the hands of the minister.
It would enable the national government to oversee appointments at all national departments and government agencies, all premiers’ offices, provincial departments and all municipalities and municipal agencies, as well as all employees of these bodies.
”The provinces, thus emasculated, become fair game for those in the ANC arguing for their outright abolition.
”If the PAMB becomes law, it will make city managers and their staff beholden to ANC national ministers and bureaucrats in Pretoria, rather than the duly elected city council.
”The will of the local electorate will simply be bypassed.
”In sum: a clear consequence of a single public service will be to discount the choice of the voters and their ability to hold elected representatives to account, while the governing party’s pretext — the state’s capacity to deliver — is a red herring,” Zille said.
”The state can centralise power as much as it likes, but unless we begin to appoint officials on the basis of their ability to do the job, and then hold them to account for their performance, the delivery problem will never go away.
”Centralisation will not change this. Judicious appointments, capacity building and skills development will.”
By weakening local accountability of public officials, it was much more likely that an inert and unwieldy mega-bureaucracy, serving the state’s narrow interests, rather than that of the people, would come into being.
Besides the obvious implication for local government employees and the public-sector unions, there was also a constitutional threat in both the Bills.
At stake was an issue critical to both democracy and good governance — the independence and integrity of differing spheres of government, Zille said. — Sapa