Service Delivery

Andrew Layman:  PCB CEO

We have many crises of identity in South Africa, it seems to me.   Sometimes the government is the ruling party, and sometimes, as was said by an ANC leader recently, the ANC does not interfere in the running of the government.   It was for this reason that the ANC could urge the government, and its political partner, COSATU, to find a way of resolving the strike.   Some government decisions are made in Luthuli House; others are not, apparently.   COSATU and the SACP are ‘alliance partners’ with the ANC and have a number of people with dual, or even triple, membership.    Yet, increasingly, there are tensions among them with little common purpose as far as the economic development of the country is concerned.    No one admits to these tensions yet they are clear to see, fuelled by maverick individuals who make reckless statements criticising their alliance comrades.   It is the folly of the media, perhaps, to report these statements and to display, despite the pretences, that the alliance is something of a myth, except when votes have to be cast.

At the same time, government is identified as an independent entity, separated as it were from both the ruling party and the nation of tax payers.   While COSATU and its affiliated unions, together with others during the current public service strike, regard the government as employer with a never-ending stream of financial resource, I, as a tax payer, see government as a user of my hard-earned taxes.   I want them to use them wisely.    This has not happened over time.   Perhaps there isn’t a government in the world of which it can be said that it used tax payers’ money wisely.    Governments seem to forget quite conveniently where their money comes from.    I have read that the government of the UK has asked tax-payers to make suggestions as to how it can save enough to ensure that the monumental debt that it faces does not cripple the nation.   Many of the proposals will be trivial, but some, though warranting serious consideration, will be rejected, no doubt, because ultimately governments, and not the electorate or the tax payers, decide.  

This is the nub of the controversy about government departments, and state-owned enterprises, few of which would have survived but for tax-payers money, which purchased World Cup tickets.   They have all justified their expenditure on the grounds that it was essential public relations to woo clients or investors.   If it were possible to identify who benefited from the tickets, I think it would reveal that the majority of recipients were ‘in house’ people who did not need stroking.   However, the point is that to buy these tickets was not the decision of people whose money was used.   Or have I got it wrong?   Do we give our money to the government, in trust, so as to improve our country according to the political promises made at election time, or do we just pay it in because this has become the custom and the law?  

What is clear to me is that service delivery has seen little improvement in recent years.    It has been identified as a priority of government to address this deficiency, but this is not going to be possible as long as workers are demanding increases that are substantially in excess of inflation, without any increase in efficiency or productivity to warrant them.    Last year, despite the woeful performances of municipalities, the increase that cash-strapped municipalities had to find, amounted to 13%, if memory serves me well.   This was well ahead of inflation and, frankly, unaffordable.   Unless income is increased by greater profitability, any increase in excess of inflation is usually unaffordable, especially as far as the public sector is concerned.   The reason is simple.   The objective of any government should be to raise the amount of money available for providing for the nation’s welfare, and lower the amount spent on salaries, wages and administration.   The demands of public sector unions in the recent past have compromised this completely, especially considering that income from taxes has been significantly down.

However, the salient issue is that other patterns of government expenditure need revision, including the remuneration of the most senior people.    If this were done, we might be able to afford to pay doctors, teachers, nurses and policemen and women in accordance with the responsibilities they carry in working to achieve the priority objectives as identified by government.                  

Leave a Comment