The debate over the SA government’s Covid-19 strategy has become polarised. It could deepen the existing fractures in our society and threatens to scupper the national unity and solidarity that have underpinned SA’s response to the global pandemic.
Towards the end of the first phase of the lockdown, when it became clear that it was going to be extended, there was a deluge of opinion pieces that poured scorn on the government’s regulations, saying they had not been properly explained or did not have a clear rationale.
The tone of some of these pieces was disconcerting, largely belittling the government and pitting those who agreed with its approach against those who did not. Some commentators seized the moment to revive old feuds with the government, describing it as incompetent, Stalinist and autocratic. At the same time, the government’s flank was rendered vulnerable by the ineptitude of some cabinet ministers tasked with explaining and communicating the lockdown regulations.
The national conversation took a turn for the worse when President Cyril Ramaphosa’s announcement that some regulations would be relaxed was contradicted the following day by co-operative governance & traditional affairs minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma. This implied that there was a lack of coherence and unity within the national coronavirus command council (NCCC).
Though Dlamini-Zuma is empowered by the National Disaster Management Act to promulgate regulations, the public expects the government to take it along every step of the way, and it needs reassurance that the government is acting in the best interests of the broader society. When fissures first appeared over the easing of restrictions on tobacco and liquor, they raised questions about the powers and functions of the NCCC. Specifically, they cast doubts on whether Ramaphosa still commanded presidential authority over the country’s Covid-19 strategy.
Confusion over the lockdown strategy reigned again when trade & industry minister Ebrahim Patel proclaimed a slew of dizzying regulations on clothing items consumers were and were not allowed to purchase. This included inexplicable restrictions on e-commerce. These regulations were revised after a public outcry.
The latest controversy was sparked by criticism of the government’s lockdown approach by Prof Glenda Gray, a medical scientist and member of the Covid-19 advisory team. This in turn provoked a hostile reaction from the acting director-general of the department of health, Dr Anban Pillay, who launched a personalised attack on Gray that was eerily reminiscent of the HIV/Aids debacle during former president Thabo Mbeki’s term in office.
Whatever the points of difference, the heavy-handed manner in which the government has dealt with dissent, coupled with the acerbic language used by some officials to castigate members of the scientific community, has had a chilling effect. Worryingly, it has cast Ramaphosa in an unfavourable light and portrayed him as powerless in the face of challenges from other powerful figures within the NCCC. As we move to level 3 lockdown from June 1, these tensions may intensify over varying interpretations of specific regulations and a blurring of lines between what belongs to levels 1, 2 and 3, especially if the underlying problems of trust and co-ordination are not addressed.
When Ramaphosa outlined the government’s lockdown restrictions for the first time at the end of March, he elicited an overwhelmingly positive public response. South Africans found his message compelling and credible, and he earned their trust. Many were prepared to temporarily forsake their prized individual liberties in the interest of the collective good. They were willing to obey the edicts of the NCCC as long as they were convinced that they made sense and the president was in charge. This marked a rare display of social compact between the governing and the governed.
However, public trust has been shattered by the confusion and inconsistent messages around liquor and tobacco restrictions, aggravated by a widespread perception of discord within the NCCC. This is over and above the concerns raised about the excessive use of force in the early days of the lockdown, about the constitutional standing and actions of the NCCC, as well as the neglect of poor communities, who have been most vulnerable to the Covid-19 pandemic.
In times of crisis, nations look up to the central figure of authority for guidance rather than listening to many discordant voices. Given the high stakes involved, they look to the head of state not only to provide clear and decisive leadership but also for reassurance that the government’s actions are intended to serve the wider national interest, not narrow factional agendas.
Importantly, there needs to be recognition at the top echelons of the government that diffused power and authority may not be appropriate in this crisis. As commander-in-chief, Ramaphosa has a contract with SA citizens. They take him at his word and they expect to see him in charge and leading the nation through these turbulent times. The spectacle of ministers contradicting each other and pulling in different directions is deeply unsettling. It is impossible to establish trust in a climate of chaotic leadership.
To restore public confidence in the government, Ramaphosa should strongly consider reshuffling his cabinet. He needs to put together a team that has the right combination of skills, expertise and temperament to lead effectively in this crisis. In a society like SA, characterised by low trust, governments need to communicate in simple terms using inclusive language, ensure alignment between rhetoric and action, deploy more soft power than hard power, and practise radical transparency.
Such a shift in approach could go a long way towards shoring up the Ramaphosa administration's credibility in the eyes of the public.
• Qobo is head of the Wits School of Governance.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.