The various ANC discussion documents released by the ANC regarding the so called “second transition” makes for interesting reading. As the dominant party in our democracy, one that styles itself as a movement that represents the hopes and dreams of the nation (rather than as a normal political party) and as the driver of social change, the ANC’s discussion documents grapple with what it sees as the challenge of strengthening the party’s hold on state power, and to transform the state machinery to serve the cause of social change.
To this end, the proposals for changes to the provincial (as well as local) government is of particular interest. The ANC document recognises that at present the provincial and local government does not function as effectively as it should to provide services to the people. It rejects proposal for the abolition of Provinces, something that is in any case not politically feasible because of the vested interests of those forces in the ANC who have access to power (and the financial perks that come with it) at Provincial level and would not want to lose their influence, power and access to tenders.
Instead the document argues that the “problems emanating from the existence of Provinces are not structural but are more functional and to do with powers… Provinces must be strengthened to play a much more supportive role to local government in service delivery. Thus the powers and functions of provincial government must be re-focused and aligned to complement service delivery at local government.” This seems correct, as the Provinces at present fails to fulfil its task because they are neither full-blown policy developers and implementers, nor mere mechanisms for the implementation of national government policies.
Provinces are seen as important in enhancing the system of both representative and participatory democracy in our system of government. However, this does not mean that the Constitution might not have to be changed. To this end the following important proposals are put on the table for discussion:
The ANC government must reform, rationalize and strengthen provinces. This must ensure the following;
- That we have fewer provinces which are functional, effective, economically sustainable, integrate communities on non-racial basis and do away with ethnic boundaries.
- That the powers and functions of the provincial sphere of government be strengthened to ensure more functionality, economic viability and racial/ethnic integration.
- The role of provincial legislatures be refocused, and mechanism to strengthen legislatures be developed.
- Consideration of municipal representation in legislatures to strengthen participatory democracy and representation.
- The roles and responsibilities of provinces to be legislated so as to remove any uncertainty and disputes. This is especially necessary since the district level of government is to be reviewed.
It is difficult not to read these proposals, with its emphasis on the need for the integration of racial and ethnic communities, as being partly aimed at the Western Cape, where the DA is in power and where Africans do not form a majority of the electorate. The ANC document seems to recognise the potentially controversial nature of any rationalisation of the Provinces – especially if it will involve the Western Cape – and as such the discussion document contains assurances that the “process to reform, rationalise and strengthen provinces” will be “open, democratic and ensure broader consultation and participation by the public”. The document then continues:
The ANC must give serious consideration to constitutional requirements to carry out the above, in case there is a need for fundamental changes to provinces. The envisaged policy changes might require constitutional amendments. The key political parties must be sufficiently consulted and be allowed a space to play a role in shaping the provincial reforms.
These sensitivities may also relate to the fact that any changes to the Constitution to rationalise the Provinces will not be easily achieved. Section 74(3) of the Constitution states that most provisions in the Constitution may be amended by a Bill passed by the National Assembly, with a supporting vote of at least two thirds of its members; and also by the National Council of Provinces, with a supporting vote of at least six provinces, if the amendment relates to a matter that affects the National Council of Provinces; alters provincial boundaries, powers, functions or institutions; or amends a provision that deals specifically with a provincial matter.
More importantly, section 74(8) states that any amendment that relates to a matter that affects the NCOP; alters provincial boundaries, powers, functions or institutions; or amends a provision that deals specifically with a provincial matter, but “concerns only a specific province or provinces”, can only be passed by the National Council of Provinces if the amendment “has been approved by the legislature or legislatures of the province or provinces concerned”.
This means that any amendment to the boundaries of the Western Cape Province will have to be approved by the Western Cape legislature, something that seems unlikely as long as the DA controls the Western Cape legislature. If such amendments are indeed envisaged, there are two ways around this problem.
The first would be for the ANC to win the next Provincial election in the Western Cape, something that seems unlikely in the near future. The DA has the power of incumbency that works in its favour and it will use that power (and the resources that it controls because of this) to good effect to ensure its dominance in the Province in the near future. Moreover, the ANC in the Western Cape is internally weak and has not yet recovered from the destructive internal battles which raged during the tenure of former Premier Ebrahim Rasool, leaving the party in a relatively weak position.
The second would be to try and amend section 74(8) of the Constitution itself in order to scrap the provision that would require the support of the Provincial legislature for any changes in Provincial boundaries. As section 74(8) itself does not contain a super entrenchment provision regarding its own amendment and thus does not prohibit an amendment of section 74(8) except with the approval of all the Provincial legislatures, this would be possible as long as the governing party could obtain a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly, something that might be achievable through co-option of smaller parties in the National Assembly (or through achievement of a two-thirds majority in the next national election).
Amending the boundaries of the Western Cape would make a lot of political sense for the ANC. Political scientists who write about one party dominant democracies have argued — often pointing to the loss of electoral dominance by the Indian Congress Party after it started losing elections in various states — that one way in which a dominant party often loses its electoral dominance is when other parties start winning regional elections. When this happens, the smaller parties (in this case it would be the DA) will suddenly gain an independent governance base and access to power and resources at a regional level. Ambitious politicians will then no longer have to join or remain in the dominant party to become part of government while the smaller parties can theoretically demonstrate that it is capable of governing just as well or much better than the dominant party.
The smaller party who wins a regional election will also gain access to state resources at regional level and will suddenly become an attractive partner for the business elite and other role players who would want to gain that party’s favour to get access to tenders and other economic opportunities. This will weaken the absolute dominance of the party that governs nationally and will open up opportunities for further regional gains for smaller parties in other regions (or in our case, Provinces).
Whether the DA is well placed to use its electoral dominance in the Western Cape in this way is an open question. Unless it can transform itself in quite fundamental ways the electorate in other Provinces might not flock to it under any circumstances. But as long as the DA controls the Western Cape, it poses at least a potential threat to the continued national electoral dominance of the ANC, so it would make sense for the ANC to neutralise this threat by changing the boundaries of the Western Cape to rob the DA of its majority.
Such a shameless power play by the ANC (if it were to happen) will, however, not be without its dangers. Where the dominant party acts in ways that robs it of its legitimacy in the eyes of the voters — for example, by demonstrating what appears to be a shameless hunger to cling to power at any cost — this may drive its traditional voters into the arms of the opposition as these voters may value their democracy (and their sense of having a real right to choose their leaders) just as much (or more) than they value their emotional bond with the dominant party. It may also lead to a re-alignment of the political landscape as disillusioned democrats within the dominant party may reject such a naked power grab and may then break from the dominant party.
No wonder the ANC is treading carefully and is suggesting that key political parties (which one assumes would include the DA) should be allowed a space to play its role in the re-shaping of provinces. If it is indeed its intention to rob the DA of its governance role in the Western Cape (something that is not explicitly stated in the discussion document), it may well lose credibility and legitimacy among some of its core voters — especially if it changes section 74(8) of the Constitution.
“It is difficult not to read these proposals, with its emphasis on the need for the integration of racial and ethnic communities, as being partly aimed at the Western Cape, where the DA is in power and *where Africans do not form a majority* of the electorate.”
Nice job. Just again remind those WHITES and COLOUREDS that they are not really Africans.
Good analysis, Pierre.
“That we have fewer provinces which are functional, effective, economically sustainable, integrate communities on non-racial basis and do away with ethnic boundaries.”
Anybody who has experienced the absolute chaos in overlap/disjunct between the plethora of municipal, regional, provincial and national governments cannot but agree with that.
We should go back to 1994 – four/five provincial governments at most, one national government. No more. Also please abolish most of these dysfunctional local municipalities who all have their sticky fingers in the tender gravy train.
Finish and klaar.
How I long for the day when being South African would mean being African without more.
Ozoneblue, check out http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,810207,00html
The Role Ex-Nazies Played in Early West Germany.
One of the reasons I passionately dislike Lawyers & Politicians.
As an aside, will always remember the comment of a Teacher (about 1955) who spent 8 years in siberia as prisoner of war = Boys stay away from all “isms”
If the W.Cape were to be merged with the E.Cape, or even the western half of the E.Cape, the probable result is that the newly gerrymandered province would fall into the greedy clutches of the ANC and that would signal the end for the DA as an effective opposition as they would lose their power base. (and isn’t this the entire raison d’etre of the exercise?) And, even in the unlikely event that the DA managed to scrape a win in the new province (or any other province), the ANC would simply re-draw the boundaries until the desired result was achieved. Let us never forget they promised that they would rule SA “until Jesus comes back!” Dont ever make the mistake of thinking this was hyperbolic, they really really (sic) mean it, and would do ANYTHING to stay in power..!
This blatant gerrymander having occurred, or being about to incur, what should the DA do in the face of being consigned to the dustbin of history? Would their leaders not then have a road to Damascus event, wash their hands of the rest of SA (where they dont stand a chance anyway) and change their constitution to become a W.Cape secessionist party? Would not such a seismic policy shift be enthusiastically welcomed by the 70% “non-African” majority in the W.Cape? If you were Helen Zille (or whoever is their leader) what would you do? I rest my case.
STEVEN FRIEDMAN: Spin and hysteria cloud ANC’s ‘dramatic’ changes
The only way to cut through the one side’s spin and the other’s hysteria is to believe only that which appears in black and white in policy documents — and to remember that any change that follows from them will not happen soon
STEVEN FRIEDMAN
Published: 2012/03/07 07:35:12 AM
WHEN the African National Congress (ANC) and many of its critics have a mutual interest in overstating how much change lies ahead, working out the truth about our politics becomes harder than usual. The release of ANC policy documents ahead of this year’s conference illustrates the point. We are told of “dramatic” changes that will threaten property rights, compromise the Reserve Bank’s independence and control the provinces. What we know of the documents so far suggests that what we are actually getting is major rhetoric and minor change. This is likely to be a pattern this year because ANC politicians have a reason for exaggerating the changes they plan, and their critics are sure to help them by overreacting to every proposal for change.
Initial coverage of one of the documents, on ANC strategy, illustrates the point. Its rhetoric suggests changes are on the way that threaten the interests of racial minorities in general, the affluent in particular. The ANC is talking of a “second transition”, by which it means that some sections of the constitution were inserted to mollify minorities and the well-off. The time to placate them is over and so changes to the constitution may be needed to ensure it can fight poverty and lead economic development.
When we look at what constitutional changes are suggested, the “second transition” seems a great deal less dramatic than the first. The document is not proposing less independence for the Bank — it suggests looking at its “narrow mandate”. This means considering the argument that it should be charged not only with protecting the currency but with stimulating growth. This would not affect its independence: it would require it to consider a wider set of issues.
On land, the document repeats a time-worn ANC view that “willing seller, willing buyer” does not work. It has been saying this for at least seven years and clearly hopes to negotiate some changes. But all it is saying is that the bargaining that has been under way for a while will continue.
As for provinces, the documents say the ANC wants a “blueprint policy to underpin and guide the task of reforming, rationalising and strengthening” them to be devised by a panel of experts. So at some point we will have suggestions for change. No-one knows what they will be because the panel has not yet been appointed.
None of the documents contains firm decisions. They are proposals for discussion that will be taken to the ANC’s midyear policy conference and to Mangaung at year’s end. Even if they are adopted, they are not law or government policy until they pass through a process: some policies adopted at the ANC’s previous conference almost five years ago have still not been implemented. Any changes it does adopt will look very different if they ever become law — that is the way policy works in every democracy on the planet.
So why these promises of major change — by the ANC and commentators — followed by modest proposals that might never happen? The ANC has realised it is under pressure to show disenchanted supporters and a wider public that it is not simply a vehicle for the connected to enrich themselves. It believes the best way to do that is to be seen to be planning major changes that will assist development and ensure a better life for all. The constitution is a handy scapegoat because blaming it enables politicians to insist that limited progress against poverty is not their fault but that of the compromises that had to be made to win majority rule.
But most ANC strategists also know the constitution is not really the problem — there is nothing the government could have done since 1994 to help us towards a more equal society that was prevented by the constitution. They also know the realities that produced compromises in the early 1990s have not disappeared — minority interests still need to be taken seriously if we are to have growth and stability, and law and policy must reflect that.
The obvious solution is to promise great changes to gain credibility and to plan only modest ones to preserve stability. The ANC is partly helped in this endeavour by opinion-formers, who are only too happy to blow out of proportion any change it suggests. Many ANC critics believe majority governments always tear up the constitution, crack down on opposition and confiscate wealth. This is simply prejudice but ensures that any ANC proposal to change anything is seen as a sign that Armageddon is coming. That is why, earlier this week, commentators were already analysing changes that are not proposed.
All this makes working out what is really happening difficult. The only way to cut through the one side’s spin and the other’s hysteria is to believe only that which appears in black and white in policy documents — and to remember that any change that follows from them will not happen soon and will look different after it is negotiated.
• Friedman is director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy.
Is this uncorrective rapes????
http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/school-man-nabbed-for-23-counts-of-rape-1.1250648
A paper bag is needed!
The ANC tinkering with the Constitution opens up a wonderful window of opportunity!
OBS, could you try to be truthful and acknowledge that the common denominator in the ‘chaos’ as you put it is ALWAYS the ANC?
ozoneblue says:
March 6, 2012 at 11:00 am
“the absolute chaos in overlap/disjunct between the plethora of municipal, regional, provincial and national governments ”
Gwebecimele
March 7, 2012 at 10:06 am
There’s a term for what SF is; he is a ‘soother’. He downplays ANC threats to society, attempts to sooth our rational fears, and trivializes people’s understandable concerns.
Thanks but no thanks. Facts abound that we should continue to be vigilant. What the ANC needs to accept is that they have lost the trust of virtually all clear thinking people, and justifiably so.
Quite right Sirjay, Steven Friedman is a mealy-mouthed limp-wristed apologist who helped get the cANCer where they are now.
@Anthony Rawdon:
Please remember that the DA itself is dead set against secession of the WC.
Remember, too, that the DA ‘rules’ with just 51% of votes in the last provincial election.
As for your last question: if I were Helen Zille, I would prevail upon the parliamentary leader of the opposition to consider shedding some of her enormous weight. She looks like she’s about to explode.
joeslis says:
March 7, 2012 at 15:38 pm
Hey Joeslis,
If the WC is merged with the NC or the EC (or both) the ANC will lose that large belt.
A solution for the ANC is perhaps to merge the WC and KZN!
Limpopo can be donated to Zimbabwe, the EC given to the Maldives – then all should be well.
Maggs:
“Limpopo can be donated to Zimbabwe” – now why didn’t I think of that.
“… the EC given to the Maldives” – I don’t quite follow your reasoning. Last time I heard the Maldives had succumbed to rising ocean levels due to (snigger) ‘global warming’.
However, one is not averse to the idea of merging WC and KZN. This could easily be achieved once the EC had been set afloat to replace the hapless Maldives.
joeslis
March 7, 2012 at 18:17 pm
Joeslis,
““… the EC given to the Maldives” – I don’t quite follow your reasoning.”
It’s as you said.
We can appear to be altruistic and get rid of a troublesome part – evil plan, ne!
p.s. Please send OB and Dmwangi (and Dm’s gardener) off with the EC.
The ANC commissioned Stellenbosch University to do some research on the future options of the provinces.
Anyone got any idea how one can get hold of the document?
Anthony Rawdon says:
March 7, 2012 at 15:26 pm
Uh-huh. Ugly fkr too.
sirjay jonson says:
March 7, 2012 at 14:09 pm
Sirjay, I am fascinated by your concept ‘soother’ since I think I have run into one at the Public Protector’s office.
How is your ‘soother’ different from the red basstard ‘change-agent’ who aims at undermining an idelogical opponent’s bottom-line non-negotiable position with talk about finding ‘reasonable’ ‘middle ground’ where the one pole is his opponent’s bottom-line and he gives up nothing?