.
population.
Commenting on the high Gini coefficient in South Africa, Adam et al state: “It is ultimately a moral and political judgement as to how much effort should be made to bridge the gulf between the haves and the have-nots, which still overlaps largely with race in South Africa.”5 The moral and political judgement referred to rests with the ruling elite entrusted with decision-making powers in a democratic context. This is essentially so in the African context where colonialism and, in the case of South Africa, apartheid have oppressed and alienated the majority population. That is where public morality plays a decisive role and this is what the struggle was about.
While it is almost axiomatic that politics is a dirty game, there have equally been men and women in public office, whose moral rectitude has been exemplary. Personalities such as Nyerere, Mandela, Churchill and Lincoln, to name just a few, have had a tremendous impact in the positive transformation of their societies. On the negative side, Parish posits: “Across the centuries we find an enduring and surprisingly resilient belief that of all the scenes of human life, perhaps the hardest to play one’s role with true moral dignity is the sphere of public action.”6 Parish suggests that, while by nature it is difficult to act morally, in politics moral dilemmas compound the situation. The key question is: why? Parish’s reply is that significant moral dilemmas arise more in public life than elsewhere, and politics falls within the public domain. However, Parish offers another explanation inherent in political behaviour. “Power seems to invite its practitioners to do what would be unthinkable to them in ordinary life” and proceeds, “Indeed, it often seems to insist that doing the unthinkable has, because of their public responsibility, become not only their prerogative, but their duty.”7 What Parish describes is a publicly driven moral dilemma where public representatives, acting in the name of and for the public, have to commit acts which might or do appear morally questionable. He continues, “It often seems also that one must lie, betray, compromise, abandon, mislead, manipulate, coerce, or otherwise act in ways that, were one not to claim one’s political responsibility as an excuse, would seem vicious and corrupt.”8 But what if political actions are committed in the name of private rather than public interest? Do the same imperatives operate?
Before we proceed to consider this contentious puzzle, perhaps we should ensure that we have the same understanding of what we mean by politics and political action. Political scientists describe politics as the authoritative allocation of values to society. Political action would then encompass everything that has to do with the allocation of values both tangible and intangible, including public goods and services. Governance, therefore, since it concerns rules and regulations as well as the allocation of public resources, is by definition in the sphere of politics, hence public office. Both public representatives (elected officials) and appointed functionaries (the bureaucracy) fall into the public domain. In a democracy there are expectations that public representatives and public functionaries serve. The concept of service cuts across cultures but Cicero, in ancient Rome, articulated this most succinctly. In Rome, public service was an honour and a prize to strive for.
There are moral dilemmas in democracy, and they relate mostly to the relations between public officials and the general citizenry. The dilemmas centre on the allocation of public resources and arise from the limited quantity and scarcity of these resources which must not only be shared equitably but have also to be preserved both for a rainy day and for future generations. It has become self-evident that democracy is the best system of governance to provide the fairest allocation and distribution of finite and scarce resources, which is why it has become the norm for nations to strive for this system. The consensual respect of the principle of accountability inherent in democracies means that public officials are accountable to the general electorate, and this shapes and restrains their moral behaviour.
Part of what is expected from a democracy is equality in the allocation and distribution of resources, at individual and group level. Proponents of equality argue for equal access, but in the allocation of finite goods and services the principle of limited quantity is critical. There is a growing outcry in South Africa, as demonstrated by frequent media reports, that public officials are increasingly allocating to themselves disproportionately large portions from the finite pool of goods and services. For instance, as the watchdog of our democracy, the media has reported a number of instances where public officials have bought themselves luxurious and expensive cars, accommodated themselves in elaborate apartments and used expensive modes of travel while alternatives exist. The Mail & Guardian carried the headline: “Protest Nation: Why South Africans are up in Arms”, and within the publication there were three articles dealing with protests against a lack of delivery of basic services. Another entitled: “The Fat of the Land” presented details of salaries, allowances and other perks for parliamentarians. The perks included generous pension, travel, accommodation and medical aid allowances. Some of these, such as free air travel, applied also to the parliamentarians’ spouses and children. The article went on to state that former ministers and deputy ministers enjoyed luxurious travel benefits of up to forty business class domestic air tickets a year.9 These articles and comments are not limited to the media; Government itself has had to defend or explain the actions of profligate officials against public outcry. When public officials treat public resources as their personal fiefdoms and enrich themselves at the expense of the public, citizens respond in the manner they deem appropriate. For example, in Sakhile, Diepsloot and the Joe Slovo informal settlements, during the week of the 16th to the 22nd of October 2009, violent protests culminated in the removal of local government officials accused of misappropriating resources.
Government has always justified the perks alluded to above as part of the conditions of service for state officials and, therefore, policy. However, this is in stark contrast to homelessness, food insecurity and inadequate public facilities, and does not sit well with democracy. Indeed, this negates the basic principle of equal access to public resources. Moderation seems to have escaped our consciousness, let alone our revolutionary consciousness. There have also been scandals on a bigger scale than individual transgressions. Where does one locate ‘Oilgate’, ‘Travelgate’, ‘Nkandlagate’ and other similar episodes? And where in the moral rankings do the actions of public servants who advance their private interests by manipulating the government tender process fall?
South African politics faces a serious dilemma. Government operates within an environment heavily influenced by contending cultures of entitlement. Practices carried over from the previous system of government (for instance, privileges which accrue to political office together with the system of remunerating political office bearers over and above their packages) run counter to redress (such as effecting equity through Black Economic Empowerment). And all this affects the allocation and distribution of finite and scarce resources. The South African experience brings in its own imperatives. This is just the legal domain, and yet it is riddled with moral puzzles. Illegal acts by public officials are not even part of the equation and warrant separate treatment although this too falls within the moral or ethical domain. In a democracy, when citizens perceive themselves as wronged, short-changed or exploited in the allocation of public resources, they either vote their representatives out of office, or resort to protest behaviour. Over the past few years South Africa seems to be experiencing protest action more frequently than during the first five years after liberation. It appears as if the goodwill that characterised uhuru has disappeared. The question is why?
The big question advanced in this book is this: is there a developing climate of moral incoherence in the public conduct of the ruling elite, leading to social and economic contradictions? And, flowing from this: has this climate created a political and civic culture that threatens the realisation of the main aspect of the dream of liberation – the promotion of a democratically integrated socio-economic and political system? At an empirical level, the argument goes, this climate translates into poor service delivery accompanied by a measure of self-righteous political arrogance, a disregard of conventional norms of integrity in the political conduct of elites, corruption in conducting the business of government, a majoritarian culture in parliamentary and legislative work, patronage and clientelism. All these militate against the realisation of the dream, i.e. the common good, and point to an absence of a coherent value consensus regarding the moral duties and obligations of representative governance. Admittedly, some of these ills have become common cause such as when in his address at the ANC’s 51st Conference in 2003, Motlanthe,