Cadre deployment: a political and administrative conundrum

By: Stef Terblanche

There has been a lot of to and fro, claims and counterclaims in the media following the recent court case won by the opposition Democratic Alliance (DA) that compelled the ruling African National Congress (ANC) to hand over all records pertaining to the activities of its cadre deployment committee, particularly those from the period when President Cyril Ramaphosa chaired the committee.

Actually, there were two separate court cases at the same time dealing with the ANC’s cadre deployment, both brought by the DA and both of which will impact the way political parties in future may try to influence and control the deployment or employment of party-politically loyal officials in the public sector. That, of course, speaks to one of the cornerstones of any healthy, well-functioning democracy: a capable, professional and independent public administration.

In the first case that went all the way up to the Constitutional Court, the DA won its bid to force the ANC to hand over to it all records – that is, minutes, notes, messages, emails etc. – relating to the activities of its deployment committee going back to 2013. On the surface it seemed the DA’s purpose was to expose the extent to which the ANC directly and nefariously appointed its politically loyal cadres to the civil service, thus turning the country’s public administration into a political extension of the ANC and thereby obliterating the line between party and state. A sub-text of the DA’s case is to show that the ANC’s cadre deployment directly facilitated state capture and corruption.

But on closer inspection it appears a primary objective of the DA was to expose President Ramaphosa’s role in the deployment committee when he chaired it as ANC deputy president between 2014 and 2018, to embarrass him and to “prove” that he was part of the state-capture enterprise under former President Jacob Zuma, and that Ramaphosa had lied to the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into State Capture, Corruption and Fraud led by Justice Raymond Zondo, now the Chief Justice, about the ANC’s cadre deployment policy.

This case, brought in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), was won by the DA in all stages as it progressed through the lower courts up to the Constitutional Court which denied the ANC’s request to appeal the verdict of lower courts that it should hand over the documents. One could argue that the ANC’s reluctance to hand over these records point to nefarious intent guiding the ANC’s cadre deployment, something it would have liked to have kept hidden.

Nonetheless, now the DA wants to return to court as it says the ANC has not handed over all records and it also wants the records from the “ANC’s nine provincial and dozens of regional cadre deployment committees”. Had the DA done its homework it could have requested these along with the national records in its first case as the existence of these committees was no secret and was openly discussed in published ANC literature going back several years.

In the second case heard by the Pretoria High Court, the DA sought to have the ANC’s policy and practice of cadre deployment declared unconstitutional and thus illegal. This case the DA lost badly when Gauteng deputy judge-president Aubrey Phago Ledwaba, in a 40-page judgement, dismissed the case and lashed out at the DA for coming to court with a case “built on speculation and conjecture”. The judge added that the ANC, like any other political party, “is entitled to influence government decisions, including the appointment of senior staff to public administration, as long as the bright line between state and party is observed”.

And therein lies the crux: the DA failed to prove that that line had been crossed and blurred by the ANC for apparently nefarious political purposes. And while the debate on this aspect rages on, this court’s judgement also therefore in essence implied and upheld the widely supported principle that it is not the policy of deploying loyal cadres to the public administration as practiced by political parties around the world – a defence raised by the ANC – that is at fault, but rather the manner in which and the purpose for which it is done. To that one might add, and the consequences caused by such a practice when abused. And this is perhaps where the ANC fails the test, even if the DA failed to prove it in court.

So, what are the relevant facts here?

The ANC’s policy of cadre deployment was not necessarily devised to create a capable, professional and independent public administration to promote development, excellence and service delivery for the benefit of all the citizens of South Africa. Nor were appointments or recommendations for appointments – the ANC has disputed this point – made in a fair and transparent manner with qualifications and experience and therefore merit-based suitability being the central criterium. Loyalty to the party and furthering the aims and policies of the party appear to have been the primary selection criteria.

But the counter argument to this was impressively and convincingly laid out in President Ramaphosa’s answering affidavit in the DA’s failed case to have the ANC’s cadre deployment policy declared unconstitutional. Even if this has not always seemed to be the case in practice. Nonetheless, while making a convincing argument that deployment of civil servants by political parties is accepted international practice, which indeed it is, Ramaphosa defended the ANC’s deployment practices by citing clauses from its actual Cadre Deployment Policy, showing it is constitutionally compliant, compliant with the Public Service Act, focused on transformation and service delivery, and promoting a developmental state. At least the ideal is commendable while the actual intent and implementation may not always have been.

In this regard, the seeds of the ANC’s policy of cadre deployment can be traced all the way back to its first National Consultative Conference held at Morogoro, Tanzania, in 1969, decades before it came to power. Subsequent to that in years to follow, it was repeatedly stated by the ANC that once in power, it would deploy its cadres in order to seize control of “all levers of state power” with the aim of promoting its National Democratic Revolution (NDR). It stated this even after it came to power. Differently put, the ANC often states that it needs control of state power to drive a transformative, developmental state that will undo the ravages of apartheid. There is ample supporting literature on this topic in both these contexts available in the archives of both the ANC and its ally, the SA Communist Party (SACP).

But it was arguably only after public and opposition parties’ pressure on the ANC over its cadre deployment practices started mounting, that the ANC, including President Ramaphosa is several speeches and his regular newsletter, started emphasising the need for a capable, professional and developmental-orientated public service. However, in practice this still did not materialise.

We also know that the efficient management of the public service at large, the state-owned companies, and municipalities in South Africa are largely in disarray, resulting in serious financial stress and disruptions of effective service delivery. Their mandated activities have been severely impacted by corruption and state capture. The appointment of politically loyal but professionally unsuitable cadres to key positions have rendered many of these entities dysfunctional, leading in some cases to collapse. Clearly, it would seem, cadre deployment, or the political abuse thereof, by the ruling party is the problem. But this was not explicitly argued or proven by the DA in either of the two court cases brought by it.

The DA may also inadvertently have bitten off more than it can chew or opened a possible second can of worms. Because now the DA in turn has been accused by the ANC and even by a former DA leader, Mmusi Maimane, of itself practising cadre deployment in places where it governs, with the DA dismissing demands for it to release its own such records. Do we have a pot calling the kettle black here? And at the local government level a variety of other parties or coalitions have installed their own preferred candidates in municipal administrations.

However, where a ruling party like the ANC implements cadre deployment with the aims such as have guided the ANC in this, one can clearly see the potential problems it would create for the successor governing party and the proper functioning of public administration. Let’s say hypothetically the DA or a DA-led coalition succeeds the ANC in government after this year’s elections, the new government would inherit a public administration that remains loyal to the ANC and would undermine or not carry out the policies and mandate of the new government, the way a capable, professional and independent civil service is supposed to do.

Clearly, that would create enormous problems and the only way the new government would be able to rectify such a situation would be by extensively purging the civil service of its ANC cadres and replacing them with its own. That too would lead to costly and debilitating court cases and arbitration, and to political and administrative chaos. And it would offer no long-term remedy. And in all of these scenarios, the victims would be the people of South Africa, while the administration of justice, service delivery, development and democracy would falter.

So how should this be approached? What are the alternatives?

Clause 195 of the Constitution states that South Africa should have a public administration that must be governed by the democratic values and principles enshrined in the Constitution, including a high standard of professional ethics that must be promoted and maintained, and that public administration must be accountable, and transparency must be fostered, among other things. It also states that public administration must be broadly representative of the South African people, with employment and personnel management practices based on ability, objectivity, fairness, and the need to redress the imbalances of the past to achieve broad representation. Selecting only ANC cadres based on their loyalty to the party and not necessarily on professional merit, doesn’t seem to fit the bill.

Nonetheless, Clause 197 of the Constitution further states that within public administration there is a public service for the Republic, which must function, and be structured, in terms of national legislation, and which must loyally execute the lawful policies of the government of the day. The terms and conditions of employment in the public service must be regulated by national legislation.

And, crucially, it also states that “No employee of the public service may be favoured or prejudiced only because that person supports a particular political party or cause”. Clearly the intention of the authors of our Constitution, of which Cyril Ramaphosa was a leading one, did not want to see a situation where party political affiliation dictates employment in the civil administration. Or were they just faking?

The National Development Plan 2030 (NDP) also sets out clear objectives in this regard. The NDP states inter alia that the public service “needs to be immersed in the development agenda but insulated from undue political interference. Staff at all levels must have the authority, experience and support they need to do their jobs. This will require a more long-term approach to skills development”.

It further states that to address the twin challenges of poverty and inequality, the state needs to play a transformative and developmental role which requires well-run and effectively coordinated state institutions with skilled public servants who are committed to the public good and capable of delivering consistently high- quality services, while prioritising the nation’s developmental objectives. To achieve this, the NDP says a skilled and professional public service must be built from both the top and the bottom. At senior levels, recruitment and management should be based on experience and expertise, while at junior levels the focus should be on developing the skills and expertise that will be necessary for future public-service cohorts. None of this leaves much legitimate room for party political interference and control.

For its part, the Zondo Commission of Inquiry into State Capture recommended the establishment of a Standing Appointment and Oversight Committee (in Parliament) tasked to ensure, by way of a public hearings, that any person nominated for Board appointment or as the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, or Chief Procurement Officer of an SOE (state-owned enterprise) meets the professional, reputational and eligibility requirements for such a position.

It further stated that “within the current constitutional and statutory framework it is unlawful and unconstitutional for a President of this country and any Minister, Deputy Minister or Director-General or other government official, including those in parastatals, to take into account recommendations of the ANC Deployment Committee or any deployment committee or any similar committee of any other political party in deciding who should be appointed to a position in the public service or in organs of state or parastatals”. And “The recommendations of the Commission, it is submitted, must insist on a truly independent and transparent process free from political manipulations so that the ultimate appointment made by a Minister is genuinely the result of a merit-based selection process”.

How will the DA’s court cases impact the future?

If nothing else, the DA’s two court cases have managed to focus renewed attention and debate around a controversial topic that, if in its implementation is not correctly and legitimately handled with the intention of benefiting the citizenry, it can cause immense harm to the detriment of the democracy and the entire body politic.

Other than that, we may find that all that the DA’s cases achieved was some political point-scoring in an election year (although the cases were started long before), and that once the elections are over, regardless of what party or deployment system is in place, we may go back to business as before. Party-political loyalty may remain a central criterium with no effective mechanisms in place which would prevent cronyism and political cadre deployment from continuing to dominate and determine appointments in the public sector – to South Africa’s dire detriment no doubt.

Or, on the other hand, something good may come of it after all. Our political representatives may have learnt that it is an issue that will remain under close scrutiny by all, that it would be best for whomever governs to implement transparent, merit-based public employment practices to achieve a capable, professional public service. That doesn’t mean political affiliation cannot be one of the (subliminal) selection criteria, but it certainly shouldn’t be the only one. That is a factor that will always be there in a democracy. But these court cases may have ensured that, even in the absence of formal organs and systems for guidance, future processes of employment will be more open, professional and non-political, with the ultimate objective of maintaining a professional, capable and independent public service that serves all the people.

Perhaps the last word must go to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) who in 2007 commissioned a study on this very subject in a large number of countries, resulting in a report titled ‘Study on the Political Involvement in Senior Staffing and on the Delineation of Responsibilities Between Ministers and Senior Civil Servants’. In its conclusion, the report found that “political involvement in administration is essential for the proper functioning of a democracy. Without this an incoming political administration would find itself unable to change policy direction. However public services need protection against being misused for partisan purposes, they need technical capacity which survives changes of government, and they need protection against being used to impair the capacity of future governments to govern.”

Stef Terblanche is a Cape Town-based political analyst and journalist. His opinions are his own and not necessarily those of the DDP.