SIBONGILE VILAKAZI | Where does politics end and governance begin?

Portfolio committees occupy a pivotal position in South Africa’s constitutional architecture. As oversight structures within the legislature they scrutinise legislation, interrogate budgets, monitor departmental performance and hold executive authorities accountable for delivery.

They may summon individuals to give evidence, demand documentation and receive public submissions. In theory, they are the vital bridge between voters and government. Members of the committees must therefore wear two hats: subject matter professional and political representative.

They must ask technically rigorous questions while remaining attuned to constituency priorities. This dual responsibility requires maturity and discipline. Governance professionalism requires disciplined questioning, evidence-based deliberation, procedural consistency and a clear separation between partisan contestation and institutional responsibility. Where this balance collapses, oversight weakens.

The apparent ineffectiveness of certain portfolio committees, such as the spotlighted police service, has potentially put the country at great risk. The portfolio committee on police failed to act decisively after KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi raised concerns about alleged systemic corruption within the South African Police Service.

This neglect of duty forced him to go public and garner support to force action. His decision to escalate the concerns into the public domain ultimately prompted the establishment of the Madlanga commission of inquiry and an ad hoc parliamentary committee to investigate the allegations. Unfortunately, the commission and ad hoc committee have become entertainment content for the public.

The calibre of individuals occupying senior positions in government departments has been comical if not devastating. When committee members themselves appear more focused on political point-scoring than extracting verifiable facts, the integrity of the oversight system is further eroded.

The way certain members question witnesses suggests a preoccupation with visibility rather than outcomes. Instead of drilling into governance controls, accountability frameworks and operational failures, exchanges frequently devolve into emotionally charged confrontations. The public spectacle surrounding forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan has amplified a broader institutional question: when does politicking end and governing begin?

Parliamentarians carry the title “honourable” for a reason. When members are seen engaging in emotionally charged exchanges with someone they invited to account before them, after he had indicated he would have to leave early and the chairperson had agreed to the indication, institutional authority is diluted rather than strengthened.

An inability to assert authority without descending into confrontation reflects blurred role boundaries. It suggests difficulty distinguishing between political theatre and governance responsibility. This role confusion is not confined to national structures. It is increasingly evident at provincial and municipal level.

Gauteng is governed by a minority government of provincial unity. To pass legislation and key decisions the ANC relies on parties such as the EFF that are not formally part of the governing arrangement. Such configurations are not inherently dysfunctional; coalition politics can be stabilising when managed with discipline and clarity. However, when power-sharing arrangements are transactional and fragile, governance continuity becomes vulnerable.

Johannesburg has witnessed repeated motions of no confidence against its mayor. In Ekurhuleni, the EFF has signalled a reversion to full opposition status after a mayoral committee reshuffle that reduced its control over strategic portfolios. The ANC retained high-influence positions linked to significant budgetary control, and the EFF has indicated it should not be blamed for service delivery failures arising from its withdrawal of support when passing decisions.

At the centre of the fallout lies a dispute over power distribution rather than policy substance. When political leverage is prioritised over administrative stability, citizens experience the consequences directly. The risks are tangible. Stability and predictability are foundational to economic confidence. Businesses require policy certainty, functional municipal systems and predictable regulatory environments to allocate capital effectively. Governance volatility introduces delays, uncertainty and reputational risk.

The water challenges affecting parts of Gauteng illustrate the cost of institutional fragility. Simultaneously, the allegations ventilated before the Madlanga commission, if substantiated, point not merely to isolated misconduct but to systemic governance weaknesses with material implications for public finance and institutional credibility.

The distinction between politics and governance is not semantic. Politics is about contesting power. Governance is about exercising it responsibly. When that boundary blurs, service delivery suffers, investor confidence erodes and public trust declines.

Democratic politics is inherently adversarial. Contestation is healthy. Robust debate is necessary. But governance is a distinct function. It requires steadiness, procedural integrity and a disciplined focus on implementation. When elected representatives conflate the two roles — prioritising partisan positioning over institutional mandate — the cost is borne by citizens and business.

Business leaders would be prudent to integrate political risk analysis more explicitly into strategic planning. Citizens, too, must evaluate not only party platforms but the governance maturity and institutional discipline of those they elect. The consequences of role confusion in public office are measurable. They appear in balance sheets, in infrastructure decay and in declining institutional credibility.

When politicians can’t answer the question “when does politicking end and governing begin?”, we all suffer.

• Dr Vilakazi is an academic and organisational development practitioner whose work focuses on building ethical, human-centred systems in business and institutions.