Cadre deployment costs
Public service suffers as corruption flourishes
The blind deployment of incompetent cadre cronies at different levels of government, public institutions and state owned enterprises (SABC, SAA, Eskom, Denel, Transnet, Petrosa, Prasa, Sars, NPA, Hawks) has been the bane of good, responsible, accountable and transparent governance.
This has seen these structures lurch from crisis to crisis, and the mismanagement of hundreds of billions of rand from the public purse, which could address issues relating to poverty, student fees, etc.
For example, under the chairmanship of Nonhlanhla Jiyane ( a laboratory assistant), Petro SA posted a loss of R15 billion in 2015.
Dudu Myeni, with a teaching diploma and incomplete administration degree, was appointed chair of the SAA Board. Over the past two years the deficit at SAA has doubled from R2.55bn to R4.68bn, and the carrier is dependent on government guarantees to continue to operate.
Sapo (South African Post Office) recorded a loss of R1.1bn for the financial year ended March 2016.
The total loss from the three state owned enterprises was almost a staggering R20bn.
Human Sciences Research Council researcher Modimowabarwa Kanyane has argued that a key reason for the failure of state-owned enterprises was the “ANC’s deployment strategy [which] systematically places loyalty ahead of merit and even competence, and is therefore a serious obstacle to efficient public service. Politically connected incompetent people are often deployed to public positions, which led to a demoralised public service.”
Capability and moral and ethical integrity are indispensable for successful public service delivery. A most embarrassing deployment was that of Hazel Francis Ngubeni, ambassador to Singapore, whom the Sunday Times revealed had a criminal conviction with a two-year prison sentence for possessing cocaine in the US.
In May 2016 Gauteng Premier David Makhura conceded that the ANC had not appointed “properly skilled people to crucial positions in government”.
In response, the DA’s Dennis Bloomberg said: “The root of the problem in Gauteng is cadre deployment and general political interference in what needs to be done to run an efficient administration. This goes hand in hand with extensive corruption and jobs for pals. Every time we hear of another instance of lack of delivery or irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure, you can trace it to corruption or the wrong person in the wrong job.”
Gareth van Onselen clarifies the difference between cadre deployment and cadre employment. Cadre deployment refers to the “appointment by government, at the behest of the governing party, of a party-political loyalist to an institution or body, independent or otherwise, as a means of circumventing public reporting lines and bringing that institution under the control of the party, as opposed to the state”. Furthermore, this “involves the creation of a parallel power structure to the constitution, so that party members answer first to the party, second to the public. In turn, that the party might advance its interests ahead of those of the public”.
According to ( politician-turned-journalist) Van Onselen, cadre employment or “tenderpreneurship” refers to “economic patronage dispensed to individuals, companies and agencies, by the government, not on merit but on the basis they enjoy some party-political connection to the governing party”.
In both instances, merit or ability is evaded. The purpose of cadre deployment is to “control positions of power”, and it doles out patronage from the public purse.
Thabani Khumalo, a political and communications strategist and managing director of Think Tank marketing, argued that the original purpose of cadre deployment was to advance a public service which represented the country’s diversity in order to accelerate reconstruction, democracy and development.
Regrettably, it was poorly executed and undermined democracy and service delivery: “It is used as a tool to promote nepotism, corruption and to reward friends with political positions. As a result, community protests and dissatisfaction with state services are linked to lack of skills, experience and expertise by politically deployed cadres.”
Writing in the Mail & Guardian in November 2010, Gavin Davis succinctly summarised the consequences, when every cadre is primarily committed to shielding and executing the resolve of the party leadership, sometimes violating the constitution and the law: “The party structures elbow aside the legally created systems for the appointment of personnel in the public administration, and the undermining of those who are supposed to be in authority is then likely to occur and does. The appointees regard themselves as the deployed cadres of the ANC rather than public servants, and do not answer to anyone other than the alliance deployment committee that appointed them”.
While conceding that there were some problems, ANC secretary- general Gwede Mantashe in June 2014 said that cadre deployment was not a “swear-word… You cannot expect the ANC to depend on people who are hostile to the position of the ANC”.
He did acknowledge that the “cadres must be competent. All our metros must be more competent… You must never appoint a person purely on the basis of political connection. Once we do that, factional links will be the telling factor in the appointment”.
The curtains are about to fall on Hlaudi Motsoeneng’s invincible circus, which is also sometimes known as the SABC.
The shenanigans at the SABC board and operations level aptly highlighted the adverse consequences of mediocre cadre deployment. A dysfunctional board and the delusional former acting COO are defying, and making a mockery of, the courts and Parliament.
Hlaudi Motsoeneng reminds journalist Mandi Smallhorne of the Dunning-Kruger Effect: “a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is”. The adage “whom the Gods want to destroy, they first make mad” must certainly apply to the unassailable Hlaudi, who effectively appropriated the board’s authority.
The ANC majority in Parliament’s portfolio committee on communications wakes up belatedly from its slumber and raises some unusually tough questions, and suddenly realises that the SABC posted a loss of R411 million for the 2015-2016 financial year, and that the board should be held accountable.
Ironically, the appointment of the minions to the SABC board was approved by Parliament. There were two noteworthy exceptions: Krish Naidoo and Vusi Mavuso, who did the honourable thing and resigned.
Naidoo’s advice to Parliament was to “choose non-executive board members whose ethics and integrity are beyond reproach, and who can be strong enough to hold the SABC executives to account and not allow them to usurp the authority of the board”.
Naidoo warned that the “breakdown of governance” at the SABC “opens up a large space for conduct bordering on criminality”, especially “when someone can appropriate a substantial amount of taxpayers’ money from the broadcaster with impunity and without proper assessment and procedures being followed”.
The ANC’s chief whip, Jackson Mthembu, emphasised that Hlaudi was not deployed by the party and enjoyed no special protection.
Communications Minister Faith Muthambi, who must take ultimate culpability for the shambles at the SABC, tells another story: “Baba loves him, he loves him so much. We must support him”.
Journalist Mzwandile Jacks has referred to Motsoeneng as “Zuma’s megaphone”.