Daily Maverick
Dailymaverick logo

Opinionistas

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed are not that of Daily Maverick.....

Do ministerial performance agreements work, and can they ensure accountability in the GNU?

Bhaso Ndzendze
By Bhaso Ndzendze
19 Feb 2025
Facebook
0
Like the promised National Dialogue in 2024, ministerial performance agreements (MPAs) for the Government of National Unity have yet to materialise. Yet this is crucial, because each policy issue ought to be aligned with a particular portfolio that is headed by a minister.

When President Cyril Ramaphosa announced his new Cabinet following the ANC’s electoral reversals in May last year, there were many surprised reactions at some of his choices. The skillsets possessed by the members of the national executive seemed misaligned, or missing, in light of the portfolios they were allocated.

It was also clear that far from the Cabinet being streamlined, it had actually been expanded to accommodate (or evade) the non-ANC parties that had agreed to join the president’s Government of National Unity (GNU) call.

The GNU’s Statement of Intent, along with the president’s speech at the opening of Parliament on Mandela Day, ostensibly form part of the government’s policy agenda. As reiterated in the recent State of the Nation Address (Sona), the president alluded to three strategic priorities, namely: to drive inclusive growth and job creation; to reduce poverty and tackle the high cost of living; and to build a capable, ethical and developmental state.

But how exactly each minister is to contribute to the realisation of these goals is not yet clear. Like the promised National Dialogue in 2024, ministerial performance agreements (MPAs) for the GNU have yet to materialise. Yet this is crucial, because each policy issue ought to be aligned with a particular portfolio that is headed by a minister.

About five years ago, the president put this understanding into practice when he published the individual contracts of the ministers under him for the sixth administration.

What are MPAs, and what are they meant to achieve?


The Constitution of South Africa vests executive power in the president, who then performs those functions through ministers who s/he appoints (with the exception of two) from among the members of the National Assembly.

A minimum of five ministries are established by the Constitution (the ministers of Finance, Local Government, Administration of Justice, Defence, and Policing, while the president can create as many other ministerial portfolios as s/he deems necessary (unlike the founding Constitution, the South Africa Act of 1909, which imposed a restriction of 10 ministers).

Thus, over the past number of years, we have seen the Cabinet grow to 32 ministers, paired currently with an historical 44 deputy ministers of their own.

Ministers are responsible to the president and accountable to the National Assembly. Constitutionally, ministers are accountable to Parliament and have a responsibility to the president. 

According to section 92(2), members of the Cabinet are accountable collectively and individually to Parliament for the exercise of their powers and the performance of their functions. It is Parliament’s job to hold them accountable if they act in ways that are contrary to the Constitution and legislation, while the president is their political head and must ensure — through the means s/he deems most appropriate to their tasks — that they are delivering.

Since 2019, there has been some attempt by Ramaphosa to do this transparently. That year, he signed MPAs with his ministers and published them online in 2020. As he said at the time, “we see these performance agreements as the cornerstone of a new culture of transparency and accountability where those who are given the responsibility to serve — whether as elected office bearers or public servants — do what is expected of them.”

In line with the mid-term strategic framework, they all had 2024 as their deadline. With the election behind us, it is safe to say that very few of the major commitments were realised.

While some of the ministers have been reshuffled, dismissed, or resigned, the commitments made still stand. These include commitments to a capable, ethical and developmental state; economic transformation and job creation; education, skills and health; consolidating the social wage; spatial integration, human settlements and local government; social cohesion; and safer communities.

Verdict on MPAs so far


When I analysed each of the MPAs for my book Super President: The History and Future of Executive Power in South Africa, I found that they were not all performance contracts in the true sense. Specifically, there was a tendency to word them so as to avoid responsibility.

Consider the contracts signed by the president and then Minister Pravin Gordhan. In his MPA, the then minister of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) set the target of “ensur(ing) that SOEs contribute to masterplans by the end of 2021” and that “SOEs return to profitability”, in addition to “revitalising” 15 industrial parks, increasing EAF (energy availability factor) to 80% by “stabili(sing) governance and sort (sic) operational and maintenance inefficiencies at Eskom”.

These were big, lofty, and nationally desirable goals. But we find, on the contract, that there is no specific responsibility for this minister — it is blank on the corresponding rows which should provide the minister’s responsibilities. Similarly on the goal to “roll out Transnet rolling stock”, there is no indicator, and no deadline.

Overall, the MPAs of the previous administration had two critical flaws which must be avoided going forward: the lack of minister’s responsibility just discussed; and the lack of actual sanction when ministers do not deliver.

In other words, the president may find the performance of certain members of Cabinet lacklustre, but has never dismissed any of them for this reason. Instead, they have been more likely to be reshuffled, either to another ministry, an international embassy or institution, or to another branch of the government.

The GNU coalition offers an opportunity to do so, particularly as the next election approaches. But just as well it poses the risk of partisanship and could just as likely see well-performing ministers dismissed for no reason other than belonging to the party that got them elected to Parliament.

The recently punted Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on the Presidency would ideally lead to further transparency, including holding the president to account for commitments in his addresses and any changes in the Cabinet (although this remains squarely, and rightly, within his discretion).

The argument I put forward in Super President is for the president to become a minister in his own Cabinet. This is needed now more than ever.

What would this accomplish? In short, it would signal the president’s agenda for the coming five years and allow him to lead clearly from the front on a key identified priority issue. This is not without historical precedent.

Indeed, five of the nine prime ministers and presidents who ruled South Africa between 1910 and 1994 had taken up ministerial roles for themselves — notably Louis Botha with agriculture, BJ Vorster with police, and PW Botha with defence.

In a country faced by multiple and growing crises, a president assuming a key portfolio would provide clarity and direction. DM

Categories:

Tags: