Restructuring the government — a president, nine ministers and a band of DGs are all that’s needed

One of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s first pledges in office on 16 February 2018 was the reconfiguration of government so “the structure and size of the state is optimally suited to meet the needs of the people and ensure the most efficient allocation of public resources”. 

Over the past three years, that has been focused on shifting executive power into the Presidency — think Operation Vulindlela with the National Treasury, the Project Management Office, and the Infrastructure and Investment Office. 

This strategic move is bolstered as Ramaphosa chairs various coordinating structures, including the State-Owned Entities Council, the Presidential Coordinating Council with premiers and mayors, and the Infrastructure Coordination Council. Similar structures exist on climate change, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and investment, alongside a series of advisory working committees. 

All of this, alongside the increasing role of Operation Vulindlela, underlines two structural reforms and policy changes: the recent sale of 51% in national airliner SAA and the upping to 100MW of the embedded power licensing threshold. (Read more here and here.)

What must happen now is a total executive overhaul. Tinkering with the number of Cabinet posts and the size of the national executive would just be putting lipstick on a pig. 

Shedding 19 of the 28 Cabinet ministers and all of the 34 deputy ministerial posts is a step forward. Not to save money — a back of the napkin calculation indicates an annual salary saving of about R116-million — but to finally bring about the efficient spending of public finances in the public interest for the public good. 

Crucially, such a fundamental restructuring would help break up the networks of patronage and nepotism, which most recently have made possible the Covid-19 tender malfeasance. 

It would also help shed the fossilised BS government protocols — everyone defers to the most senior in the room, or the minister, and will not talk unless instructed — alongside the entrenched kicking for touch while citing collective decision-making and process. 

Put differently: fewer ministers, fewer diary clashes and better executive decision-making. And that should speed up governance decisions and implementation, which are almost down to the pace of a dead snail. 

By focusing on nine ministries, various departments can be combined into one fold for better coordination and to drop “working in silos”, as government jargon puts it. No reasons exist why ministers, the political bosses, would be unable to deal with several directors-general (DGs) reporting to them. Those directors-general must be appointed, and account, according to function. Who says it has to be one department, one DG? 

Some changes would be fairly straightforward. 

A Finance Ministry remains, still in charge of the National Treasury. A Defence Ministry stays, as does an International Relations Ministry. 

But the International Relations Ministry would also take charge of South Africa’s foreign intelligence services, whose boss would report to the minister alongside the international relations DG. 

Unbundling the State Security Agency into foreign and domestic services arises from the 2018 High-Level Review Panel Report, and is one of the key tenets to deal with malfeasance and excessive secrecy in intelligence circles. 

An argument could be made for the foreign intelligence service to report to the Presidency, but Ramaphosa is already in charge overall of national security and has been since March 2020 when he re-established the National Security Council. This council includes not only the ministers of defence, police and state security, but also international relations. So, putting foreign intelligence services into the Department of International Relations is not implausible. 

The biggest change would come on the home front, through a Home and Interior Affairs Ministry that would be in charge of people- and citizen-related services — from birth and identity to immigration and social development — as well as police and domestic intelligence. 

This ministry could be a bit of a beast, but effective senior officials would make it work. This would be the catalyst for the integrated population electronic database, never mind a holistic fingerprint system, which the government has battled to bring about for more than 25 years. 

Any doubting Thomases should get in touch with IFP President Emeritus Mangosuthu Buthelezi to chat about his years as home affairs minister in the Mandela presidency and the first Thabo Mbeki administration. 

Bringing together identity-related matters with social development allows cross-referencing on the national population register, and hopefully an easier and more dignified grant and other social development assistance for countless vulnerable and poor South Africans. The overnight or 4am queues and being water-cannoned by the police for not keeping sufficient physical distance at grant offices and pay points do not reflect care and respect for the constitutionally guaranteed dignity of people.  

Such a ministry would also ease applications for passports, IDs and smart IDs and permanent residency, while facilitating visa processes for those wanting to come to South Africa to invest, for critical skills jobs — or just for retirement. Such integration and streamlining have been the topic of countless conversations in the National Economic Development and Labour Council. 

The controversial Border Management Authority perhaps is more readily accommodated in the Home and Interior Affairs Ministry, which would also include domestic intelligence and policing. 

While both entities would report separately to the home and interior affairs minister, putting them under the same political boss may just trigger cooperation — and maybe even proactive responsiveness to communities in the interest of the safety and security the Constitution stipulates for everyone.

Domestic intelligence is supposed to inform the government of risks and threats and provide credible analysis of those. Most of such so-called threats arise at the local level — taxi conflicts, attacks on the vulnerable, or when gatvol communities protest over lack of service delivery. Then, there’s also cybercrime and organised crime such as trafficking in goods or people. 

Legislative and regulatory work would have to be done to finesse the inclusion of the police, but it’s not starting from scratch. 

Rather than the lackadaisical rearranging of the deckchairs in the current amendment of the SAPS Act, a transformative revision would allow the separation out of the uniformed branches, from visible policing to protection services and the specialised units like the National Intervention Unit and Special Task Force, to fall under this new ministry. 

It takes political will to restructure the government and governance beyond the tinkering of a Cabinet reshuffle. And in South Africa’s seemingly permanent election cycle, from municipal to national polls and internal political party contests in between, that political will may well be subservient to internal party political support considerations and the demands of the campaign trail.