/ 29 April 2011

Waking up to accountability

Various factors in our politics make the ANC and its leadership impervious to ordinary democratic accountability mechanisms, the <i>M&G</i> weighs in.

It is a staple of South African political discourse that the absence of an opposition capable of winning national elections, the appointment of parliamentarians by party bosses and the weakness of law enforcement makes the ANC and its leadership impervious to ordinary democratic accountability mechanisms.

There is plenty of evidence for that proposition, indeed so much that it hardly bears repeating. But in this fascinating election season, with grassroots protest movements springing up on the streets of poor areas, the Democratic Alliance remaking itself at last and an unprecedented degree of trade union disaffection, the party and President Jacob Zuma are showing some encouraging signs of responsiveness.

Zuma’s Freedom Day speech on Wednesday laid considerable emphasis on the provisions of the Municipal Systems Bill, which bars political office-bearers from holding local government jobs.

The full political force of this legislation has been under-reported and underappreciated, except perhaps by its critics in the municipal workers’ union, Samwu, which no doubt opposes the Bill because it fears the loss of back-channel political influence on local government decision-making.

The fact is that the proposed law is a clear response to the crisis of legitimacy faced by the ANC over service delivery failures caused by the incompetence and, in far too many cases, corruption, of party deployees. And it represents a rare choice by a governing party that has too often tried to have its cake and eat it.

The policy of deployment, originally designed to ensure a progressive hegemony in institutions previously dominated by apartheid government functionaries, quickly became a tool of patronage and political control.

In shutting off party officials access to well-paid municipal jobs, the ANC is depriving itself of the opportunity to reward people who are crucial to its ground operations for their work and is potentially shutting off political cover for underperformance and graft.

Of course, it is possible that a kind of soft deployment will continue, with ANC officials giving up their formal status to remain in their jobs and continuing to do the bidding of either Luthuli house or local party heavies, but the fact is that they are being asked, for the first time, to make the choice. It is a welcome development and a sign that pressure on the streets, and from a more relevant opposition, is having some impact.

Another clear response to popular discontent was Zuma’s announcement on Thursday that the party would conduct a post-election clean-out of councillors who had got on to party lists through “manipulation”. They would be sacked and by-elections held, he said.

This is an extraordinary admission of failure in the party’s vaunted new list-making process, which was supposed to take better account of community preferences. If thoroughly carried through, it also poses major risks to the party’s own local structures, which would likely be thrown into turmoil.

And then there are the voters, who will be asked to choose candidates on the basis that the ANC may or may not let them assume office for a meaningful period. The Municipal Systems Act is a democratic response to real concerns, but the announcement of a series of possible election annulments by the ANC fiat is a panicked and anti-democratic move, or it is a sham that will never be enacted. Either way, voters are likely to see right through it.

Fake and kidneys
Here is what healthcare group Netcare wants you to believe: 109 kidney transplants were performed at the St Augustine’s Hospital in Durban, racking up bills of about R21-million, and senior management wasn’t paying any attention.

It couldn’t have been expected to notice that 109 well-off, Hebrew-speaking Israelis had passed through the doors in quick succession, accompanied by 109 poor people, most of them Portuguese-speaking Brazilians. Neither could it be expected to question the affidavits signed by all 218 stating that they were relatives.

Netcare and its top management were terribly misled by a few former staff members, all of whom have since left, and any legal culpability on the company’s part was a purely technical responsibility for the actions of these bad apples. It is an argument that strains credulity past breaking point.

As it turns out, Netcare’s management was warned by one of South Africa’s most eminent transplant surgeons about the legal and ethical risks it was running.

Instead of thoroughly investigating and dealing with the problem, however, it came up with a flimsy ruse: the patients would sign affidavits declaring that they were related and that money was not changing hands. The usual procedures for dealing with unrelated donors thus neatly bypassed, the company’s responsibilities were discharged and it could start billing.

Whether this stands up to the legal scrutiny it will get in the trial of the four transplant doctors who believe they are being hung out to dry remains to be seen. It cannot possibly meet any ethical standard worthy of the name.

There must be consequences for the company and its management that go beyond the R7-million it has paid government. We would like to hear some genuine contrition from chief executive Richard Friedland for a start, but serious questions should be asked about Netcare’s licences to operate and there should be resignations from its executive team.