OPINION: Writing from the vantage point of a sociologist steeped in the literature of comparative governance, I argue that there is a need to revisit the country’s federal system, which expressly and tacitly expects the national, provincial, and local government levels to collaborate while also operating as independent, autonomous institutions to promote and provide for the general welfare of citizens.
By Professor Sethulego Matebesi
South Africa’s constitutional democratic system, with its three-tiered government structure and a separate judiciary, is being put to its greatest test with questions about its relevance.
One of the central questions of governance scholars has concerned the continued relevance of provinces. Many existing narratives deal with two highly conflictual societal opinions that emerged during discussions about the government system after 1994. The first opinion is held by those who want to retain at least some of the informal features or institutions of South Africa before 1994. The other is held by those who believe a unitary state is an answer to transforming the institutions and patterns of privilege and power in South Africa.
Writing from the vantage point of a sociologist steeped in the literature of comparative governance, I argue that there is a need to revisit the country’s federal system, which expressly and tacitly expects the national, provincial, and local government levels to collaborate while also operating as independent, autonomous institutions to promote and provide for the general welfare of citizens.
Rather than calling for the complete demolishing of provinces, there is room for the middle ground between the conflicting views raised above. In fact, there is a great deal of commonality rather than discord in such an approach.
I make three general arguments in this regard. The first is that the institutional context matters. The central government operates in unique institutional contexts, which shape public officials’ perceptions of what their roles should be and how they should be filling them. However, the key to the process is understanding the strengths and weaknesses of unitary states. In a unitary state, the constitutional authority is vested in the central government, but not all decision-making occurs at this level.
Second, some form of middle ground is emphasised because reducing the number of provinces will maintain the decentralised model of governance consisting of the central, provincial, and local government. Decentralisation has aptly demonstrated its ability to enhance good governance and promote accountability in countries characterised by a centralised constitutional system.
Third, it is a fact that over the last two decades or so, the pendulum of governmental performance of the provinces has shifted rather significantly toward negative views among many sceptics. Some scholars have noted how very few provinces – in the true Weberian sense of bureaucracy – have been striving to fulfil their constitutional mandate of making a meaningful contribution to good governance. There has also been growing evidence of poor performance by the majority of provinces, hence the periodic intervention by the central government.
Characterised by unbridled political power, the political elite captured the discourse, institutions, and revenue stream through which they created extensive opportunities for patronage.
Today, provinces have become the fiefdom of the politically connected regarding jobs, tenders and other opportunities. The relevance of provinces was thrust again to the fore after the recent Presidential Imbizo – guided by the District Development Model – led by President Cyril Ramaphosa in the North West province. The District Development Model brings together different levels of government and social partners to help communities achieve long-term development and growth. This is a lofty dream, but achievable.
While one can sympathise with our policymakers, there is a broader expectation that the government needs to implement urgent measures to reduce its size and expenditure.
Unfortunately, this view will not be supported by trade unions and the advocates of financial wastage. And it is the most vulnerable citizens who will bear the brunt of this governance luxury. This should not be seen as a knee-jerk critique of the provincial government but an opportunity to engage with the many questions hovering over the future of provinces. However, what cannot be denied, given the complexities of this matter and the importance of the party system in the country, we meanwhile need a strong political will to coerce provincial leaders to behave in particular ways that enhance good governance.
* Sethulego Matebesi is associate professor and head of the Department of Sociology at the University of Free State.
** The views expressed here may not necessarily be that of IOL.