ANC: WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE TO WHOM AND FOR WHAT?
Introduction
On Sunday, 27 January 2008, the ANC celebrated its 96th anniversary rally in Philippi, Cape Town. One of the speakers was ANC treasurer-general Mathews Phosa who made the following statement:
“If President Thabo Mbeki can take instruction from the organisation, then who are you as councillor or premier to refuse to do the same? If you do not take instruction, then you are asking for marching orders.”
On the same weekend, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Jacob Zuma said the following in response to a question about the current energy crisis:
“I’m not certain whether, when there have been some shortcomings, we should punish people for that. Once decisions have been taken by a collective, you can’t punish individuals as if they’ve done something deliberate.”
They are two important statements, which speak to the same issue: the policy that the ANC follows when it comes to holding its party members (the vast majority of which are public representatives) to account. And, reading between the lines, it would appear that the message suggests that irrespective of how badly you fail at carrying out your official duties - if you toe the party line your job is safe; if you don’t you will be axed.
Of course this is nothing new. Since the ANC came to power in 1994, it has gone out of its way to protect its own, constantly putting its party interests ahead of those of the state and the public more broadly.
This conflict – between party and state – plays itself out in a number of different ways, but when it comes to accountability, it takes a very particular form. Take the following example, for instance:
Last May, when replying to a follow-up question posed by the DA which asked whether Government was prepared to set reasonable targets for all politicians responsible for service delivery departments and if they did not meet these targets, would then force them to resign, President Mbeki stated the following:
”Ordinarily, yes indeed, all the politicians in government have got targets to achieve. These are targets not of individual politicians or individual Ministers or Deputy Ministers, but these are targets of the government as a whole. If there is any failure with regard to meeting those targets, it would be a failure of the government as a whole.”
He added further:
”Fortunately, we haven't had an instance since 1994, as far as I can remember, where there was such dereliction of duty by any Minister or Deputy Minister that it was necessary that such a Minister or Deputy Minister should resign or be dismissed. I can't remember any such instance. But, without doubt, if there was any instance of dereliction of duty on the part of any Minister, I am quite certain that that would have its consequences.”
One need only look at the recent resignation of British Cabinet Minister Peter Hein, to highlight just how this approach differs from that adopted by other, far older and more stable democracies. In South Africa, and with particular regard to the ANC, individual responsibility is covered up by a broad, generic, collective guilt – and that is the best case scenario, more often that not no attempt at all is made at taking responsibility.
InsidePolitics has dealt this issue before. See here.
Examples on a local, provincial and a national level demonstrate how this works in practice.
Local Level
Last May an article which appeared in the Business Day reported that, during 2005, there were protests in 90% of the 136 failing municipalities earmarked to receive central government assistance (through Project Consolidate). Indeed, throughout 2004/2005, there were 881 illegal protests and 5 085 lega
| Posted on 4/2/2008
 |  | |