What SA needs so desperately: a leader

This week’s public sector wage bill court case has again brought to the fore the lack of leadership in government, at a time when SA is grappling with its biggest economic crisis in the middle of a deadly pandemic.

After months of government fighting not to have to implement the final leg of the 2018 wage deal the two departments responsible — Treasury and public service & administration — found themselves on opposite sides.

Everything seemed on track; government was going to go to the Labour Appeal Court to defend its decision not to pay the increases to public servants. The matter was now in the court’s hands. But at the eleventh hour the department of public service & administration, led by minister Senzo Mchunu, reached out to unions regarding a settlement.

A meeting was held on Monday between unions and the department, where a settlement was proposed that would reduce the cost of the initial package from R37.5bn to about R27bn. There was no indication whether the government could afford this, or where the money would come from, with the state asking for more time to work out the finer details of the proposed settlement.

The next day the department sent a letter to all parties asking for the court hearing, to take place the next day, to be postponed so settlement talks could continue. Unions rejected this, insisting that the matter go ahead.

What happened next was nothing short of embarrassing for government. It was expected that the Treasury and department of public service & administration would be arguing over different aspects about the bloated public wage bill, but in the end the two found themselves on opposing ends on the legality of the matter.

It was made clear that the two departments were not in agreement. Advocate Jeremy Gauntlett for finance minister Tito Mboweni made a salient point during his argument, saying it cannot be said that the finance minister approved the deal just because there was a cabinet decision that was taken and the minister was part of it.

This is not the first time Mboweni has found himself in this position. We saw a similar situation when it came to the bailout of ailing state-owned airline SAA. Mboweni has been consistent in his opposition to providing further bailouts for SAA, which is in a lengthy and costly business rescue process. But in his medium term budget policy statement the finance minister was forced to sign off on a R10.5bn bailout for SAA — at the expense of funding that had been earmarked for education and justice, among other things.

The cabinet endorsed the decision to save the national carrier. Mboweni called for the airline to be closed at a cabinet meeting in September, but eventually had to relent and fell in line with the majority decision. Despite finally giving in and signing off on the money, Mboweni made it clear during a debate in the National Assembly that the R10.5bn allocation was a cabinet decision and “not Tito Mboweni’s wishes”.

Economists highlighted the problems Mboweni faced in deciding what should be cut to save the economy, but that in his MTBPS it seemed he was given carte blanche on the wage bill issue, and nothing else. But the question then is who is in charge? Before the Zuma administration decision-making was centralised in the presidency. While in many respects this provided leadership it was also former president Thabo Mbeki’s downfall in the end. But during the Zuma years the Treasury was forced to take the lead on economic reform because noone else was leading on this front and everyone became accustomed to this. In fact it is the presidency that should be leading from the front. So where is the leadership now? While Ramaphosa holds investment conferences and sets up numerous advisory committees on the economy, when it comes to real issues such as the cutting of the public wage bill and funding of failing SOEs, the presidency is rather quiet.

There is no authoritative voice pulling government departments in line. The centre is just not holding. Ramaphosa’s almost two years at the helm of the country has been characterised by indecisiveness, which can easily result in policy paralysis. If the disjuncture in court between two critical government departments is anything to go by, the state seems quite comfortable with the notion of opposing itself.

These tussles within government do not bode well for SA’s credibility and confidence that the country can turn the economic situation around. The Treasury’s dire warnings are not merely the musings of a neoliberal cabal hell-bent on undermining the national democratic revolution. It’s based on facts. For the sake of all of us they should be taken seriously. If their colleagues can skirt around the lines they have meticulously drawn and costed, why should anyone else believe what they do carries any weight?

Ramaphosa’s commitment to turning around the economic situation in SA will only be taken seriously if he gets all of his errant ministers on board to ensure the treasury’s plans are stuck to after they have been communicated to investors and ratings agencies. He needs to show leadership.

THESE TUSSLES WITHIN GOVERNMENT DO NOT BODE WELL FOR SA’S CREDIBILITY

THE TREASURY’S DIRE WARNINGS ARE NOT MERELY THE MUSINGS OF A NEOLIBERAL CABAL