Radical new direction needed before the next elections

Thabang Motsohi is a strategy consultant at the Joburg-based Lenomo Strategic Advisory

Services, which provide organisational strategy advisory

services

IT IS not surprising that the anniversary of Nelson Mandela’s death has generated deep passions and moments of reflection about the course we are following as a nation.

Some of the passions have veered on to the negative about Madiba’s legacy.

Rather than denigrate those who express them, we should instead pay attention, listen and engage rationally with them. Doing so will be anchoring the freedom of speech which is the oxygen of our democracy.

Mandela placed reconciliation and nation building at the centre of his leadership and everything that must be done to underpin the transition to democracy.

This strategic choice illustrates, in a profound way, the critical alignment between vision, strategy and leadership in a crucible. In any strategy formulation, a comprehensive understanding of the prevailing context plays a fundamental role and wisdom is always a critical factor and distinguishing feature in making strategic choices and choosing the most pragmatic way forward.

When we analyse this, it is worth turning to some of the most important contextual features and challenges of the time.

The fact of the matter is that the apartheid government was rendered almost ungovernable by actions of the internal pro-democracy movements that were driven by a radical liberation vision.

The interventions of the West through the imposition of tougher economic sanctions, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, constituted the tipping point at the time when the Nationalist government was hopelessly in debt.

There were no more options for the beleaguered government. The leadership role of the ANC at this moment was critical in pushing the Nationalist party government towards negotiations and the ultimate settlement. Both sides compromised extensively for peace and stability. The government of national unity was the agreed outcome.

When Mandela became president of South Africa in 1994, the government faced formidable challenges on all fronts. Key among these was how to deal with the glaring structural poverty and unemployment that affected the majority. He was well aware that economic emancipation was fundamental to delivering on these challenges.

The expectations of the poor were also very high on the back of political emancipation and the fantastic promises for social upliftment that were made by the ANC in the hope of achieving an overwhelming majority victory at the first elections. This hope was handsomely fulfilled!

But, the reality was that these promises were not going to materialise unless there were sufficient resources to fund them.

The economy was, and still is, in white hands and the suffocating debt inherited from the apartheid government required urgent attention. As a result, fiscal consolidation and debt reduction became a principal policy focus.

The dominant neoliberal paradigm of the 1990s restricted policy flexibility and the desire to spend liberally. This is the context within which our negotiated democracy was delivered and that also shaped the policy choices that were made subsequently.

For Mandela, it had become very clear that peace and social stability were necessary and critical to attracting funding from the sceptical investors and the bond market at the early stage of the new democracy.

Reconciliation and nation building therefore became the most pragmatic choices in the given context. It was an excellent strategic choice.

The question we need to ask is whether we made correct policy choices following Mandela’s time as president.

We have made sterling progress and achieved on a number of policy fronts. But we have also failed spectacularly on others.

For example, the role of education is correctly recognised in the constitution as a right that has the potential to provide a pathway out of poverty and a means to self-realisation.

Yet, our failure to deliver in this area is nothing less than criminal. What needs to be done has been properly researched and documented. What is lacking is the political will to act.

It is globally accepted that focusing on, and requiring structured performance accountability from, the principal and top leadership is the right approach. But the DBE is held to ransom by Sadtu, a leading member of the ruling alliance.

They have since 2008 resisted the implementation of performance management for the principals.

The report of the auditor-general provides illuminating information but makes for depressing reading. At the core of the failures that have been identified is the poor performance of leadership that has been deployed in most state-owned enterprises under the “cadre deployment” strategy and yet they are unqualified for the tasks.

We are effectively under a low growth scenario for the next three to five years and the spectre of junk status for our credit rating is now upon us.

What is required for the governing party is a radical change of direction, otherwise the local elections next year will be the tipping point.