The politics - administration interface in South Africa between 1999 and 2009

Abstract

The critical observation for public administration and governance in South Africa has been the relationship between senior managers and political officials since the establishment of the democratic government in the country. The first documented observation in the United States of America by Woodrow Wilson marked the launch of public administration as an independent faculty, breaking away from the political sciences. The dominant theory that characterised public administration was that there must be a clear distinction between politics and public administration. This theory suggested that politics had nothing to do with public administration and, therefore, politicians should not intrude into matters of public administration. For contemporary academia, it is crucial to ask questions about the relevance of Wilson’s perspective with regard to the relationship between senior managers and political officials. Nevertheless, contemporary scholars are challenged by the emergent need to study the dual nature of public administration, suggesting that public administration should not be separated from politics, since public administration is merely the expression of the political ideology. Hence, politics and public administration should be inseparable. To refute or reaffirm these notions, this thesis explores this study by reviewing the relationship between senior public managers and political officials through analysing the politics– administration interface in South Africa between 1999 and 2009. In congruence with the main research questions of this study, the researcher utilises four pre-claims to examine the politics–administration interface and the factors that lead to strained relationships around the interface. The first pre-claim in this study examines the notion suggesting that it is the nature of the political bureau to dominate public administration. The second pre-claim examines the notion suggesting that there could be conflicting leadership styles between a political official and a senior public service official. The third pre-claim is that political officials may have a different political ideology as compared with the political ideology upheld by a senior public service official. The fourth pre-claim is that political officials or public service officials or both parties may have some disregard for documented duties and responsibilities. Consequently, this study examines the politics–administration interface in South Africa within the scope of the pre-claims as presented in the introduction to the study. The study found that the colonial legacy in the Commonwealth Nations with features of the Westminster system of governance perpetuates political bureau dominance over public administration. The study further found that it is conventionally accepted that the political bureau should provide guidance to the public administration bureau and dominate public administration which is only the expression of the prevailing political will. The researcher has examined the pre-claim of conflicting leadership styles between the elected officials and senior public servants. The study found that between 1999 and 2009 there was a transition from the collective leadership of the ruling political bureau to a closed conventional leadership system where political power was centralized in the presidency, resulting in leadership through fear and mistrust. Regarding the pre-claim on different ideologies, this study argues that public administration is the implementation of political ideologies, and public service managers are at the apex of implementing policies for the benefit of the social classes on behalf of the political bureau, which drives the ideologies of a ruling political party. Therefore, different political ideologies between the political bureau and the administration bureau may be one of the factors of a strained politics–administration interface. The study found that in cases (Buthelezi and Masetlha as well as Zille and Mgoqi) where officials from different political parties attempted to work, the arrangement resulted in a power struggle in the politics–administration interface. With regard to the pre-claim on disregard for documented rules and responsibilities, the study found that the problem in the interface is not always the neglect of documented rules and responsibilities, but rather that in some cases the documented rules and responsibilities are not always clear, resulting in grey or nondescript areas in the politics−administration interface that are ultimately claimed by the political bureau. This study has further proposed a public service governance structure with an added governance responsibility for the Public Service Commission to oversee the administration in order to distance the political bureau from public administration operations and direct engagement with senior public servants, such as the directors-general.