The focus among and between our politicians seems to be on each other, not on the task at hand. That means nothing will get done.
This set of circumstances is manifest at all levels of government — from municipalities to provinces and right up to the national level.
Coalitions will not work while all energy is expended on internal squabbling, ego massaging, point scoring and party loyalties (or betrayals, as the case may be), which then dominate the order of business and fill up the agendas. That certainly seems to be the case now, in practically every council — but maybe that’s all we get to see on TV.
I’m just looking at the evidence. There is little to suggest that service delivery is what it’s all about. In fact, many say it is the prize of budget and tender control that draws our finest into the fray. It’s about access to money. Be warned, money will finally disappoint you.
For all of its virtues, at its broadest level, the jury is still out on whether democracy delivers leaders who can serve, who can go beyond their election manifestos and promises, ideologies and political allegiances and actually get things done. The popular vote has delivered leaders good and bad, in more or less equal measure, so it seems as much pot luck as anything else. Still, it is much better than dictatorship, however benevolent you may think that could be.
Perhaps what is required is a more clearly defined, legally enforceable division between appointing people to lead (as determined by the popular vote) and the restrictions and prescriptions that need to be applied in the execution of their duties, principle among which is the appointment of suitably qualified and experienced people to carry out the proper functions of city, provincial and national government. It is about the executive team.
Once such a team is in place, the next step would be to agree on its mandate, in detail, down to the level of specific projects, and the measurable outcomes that will determine its tenure and remuneration. While the executives operate within the agreed mandate and achieve the agreed outcomes, they should be left to get on with their work, insulated from political interference, bullying or favour. If performance exceeds expectations, objectively assessed, then incentive bonuses must be paid.
At some point this system will deliver outputs in the interest of the citizens, who will then exercise their future votes accordingly — eventually having been persuaded to vote for success and personal independence, instead of seeking refuge in communal failure. Cross that bridge, and you’ll never look back.
It is obvious, and yet it is not happening. In part this seems to be because we still have scores to settle from the past. Again, it should be obvious that commercial sustainability, opportunity and ultimately real growth, which will lead to broader prosperity, are necessary foundations to fund not only our future together but also such reparations as may be agreed are necessary to settle, as best we can, economic injustices of the past.
Current levels of inter- and intraparty infighting are likely to continue while the prize is influence, not service. We’ll have to compromise on political power, in favour of common purpose, for the national survival.
The disarray is unlikely to be resolved without a new power reconfiguration. A coalition is coming to a town near you; get ready to deal with it. That new power structure will have to move out of its comfort zones, into partnerships that bring political and economic power together as a common purpose force. There isn’t time to play games.
It’s likely that we’ll also enter an era of unprecedented coalition structures at national government level. The principles are the same, the stakes are just higher.
• Barnes, an investment banker, has more than 35 years’ experience in various capacities in the financial sector.
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.