Created by Bailey our AI-Agent
As the election season approaches, South Africa’s Cabinet members are scrambling to meet the deliverables outlined in their performance agreements, hastily engaging in activities ranging from ribbon-cutting ceremonies to policy announcements. These agreements, set to expire in April 2024, are crucial as they determine the ministers' efficacy in implementing their portfolios' strategic frameworks and contribute significantly to the overall governance of the nation.
One of the key highlights of this push was exemplified by Higher Education, Science and Innovation Minister Blade Nzimande's announcement of a comprehensive student funding model. A sum of R3.8-billion is earmarked for loans aimed at supporting the “missing middle” — students who find themselves financially unable to pay for their tertiary education, yet do not qualify for state subsidies. However, despite this significant move, a closer examination reveals that the broader system of performance measurement among Cabinet members is fraught with ambiguity and discrepancies.
Take, for instance, Transport Minister Sindisiwe Chikunga’s recent hosting of an industrial colloquium focusing on a freight road-to-rail migration plan — a project originally slated to have a private-sector participation framework in place by 2020. Clearly, there have been delays, and while local factors such as the COVID-19 lockdown can account for some disruption, the true measure of fulfilling such targets remains elusive.
The situation is further complicated by the appearance of ineptitude and a lack of coordination within the government's online archiving systems. Essential performance agreements of recently appointed ministers are conspicuously absent from these digital records. Moreover, there's confusion regarding whether the current indicators are kept consistent across the terms of successive ministers occupying the same portfolio.
Such administrative oversight muddles the waters of accountability and raises concerns about clarity of objectives and the seriousness with which follow-ups on ministerial performance are handled. The ink may very well dry on the agreements signed with a sense of shared urgency and accountability, but the question arises: Are these documents more than just paper tigers?
The responsibility split among various ministers often leads to action interdependence, which can result in operational silos despite the government's proclaimed intent to work cohesively. One glaring example is the complex responsiibilities and objectives surrounding Eskom within the performance agreements of Minister Pravin Gordhan and his newer counterpart, Minister Kgosientsho Ramokgopa.
Furthermore, issues stem not only from structural organization but also from the language used in the performance agreements themselves. Words like "coordinate," "monitor," and "support" offer an expansive interpretive space that does not always translate into concrete and measurable outcomes. It reveals a systemic opacity that invariably hampers efforts toward transparency and genuine accountability.
In the realm of public trust and improvement in service delivery, clear-cut goals and responsibilities are paramount. For example, the implementation of reforms within the South African Police Service (SAPS) falls short of the recommended measures of the National Development Plan. This inadequacy is reflected in the persistently low public trust in the police force.
On the flip side, some ministers appear to be making strides within their jurisdictions. Employment and Labour Minister Thulas Nxesi is embroiled in legal action to set aside a controversial R5-billion Unemployment Insurance Fund agreement while facing the mammoth challenge of addressing an unemployment rate exceeding 40%.
Contemplating the overarching landscape of gubernatorial performance in South Africa, it's clear that while some progress is evident, systemic reforms — aiming for precision in language, clarity in objectives, and stringency in accountability — are long overdue.
The drive for transparency was a major commitment made by President Cyril Ramaphosa when the agreements were first publicized. Yet, until there is tangible enforcement of accountability and specific definitions of underperformance are provided, the effectiveness of these ministerial performance agreements remains equivocal. As the country heads toward elections, the populace remains watchful of their leaders' promises versus performance, with the hope for greater accountability and the establishment of trust in governance.