Administrators by Day, Politicians by Night

The curious case of municipal staff who double up as politicians

Photo by Sigmund on Unsplash

Several years ago, National Government sought to amend the Municipal Systems Act. This is one of a suite of laws that regulates the affairs of municipalities and primarily deals with the civil service, how it is employed and how it carries out its functions. This is the staff, not the politicians like your Mayor and Ward Councillor.

One of the issues they sought to deal with was the politicisation of the public service. Alternatively, the de-politicisation of the public service. Thus, the Amended Act now included this nugget;

“Limitation of political rights

71B. (1) A staff member may not hold political office in a political party, whether in a permanent, temporary or acting capacity.”

It is important to note here that it is not mere membership of a political party that is outlawed here. Rather, it is “holding office”, so being an office-bearer like a Chairperson, Secretary, basically anything that gives you certain powers in a party. Additionally, this is applicable to all municipal staff, not just those in senior positions, as the relevant section had provided prior to the amendment.

There are some good reasons for this. It is clear that the senior-most politicians believed that outlawing this would enable the professionalisation of the municipal public service and that this would improve service delivery. Doubtless, the senior politicians would have heard residents and other politicians alike complain bitterly about “cadre deployment” in our civil service – an institution that ought to be non-partisan – and its seemingly hazardous effects on performance. The National Development Plan (remember that document?) also speaks about this phenomenon at length.

Concerns about the politics of the civil service go as far back as the birth of our new republic, with the final result being the inclusion of Section 197 (1) in our beloved, or much maligned, Constitution which dictates;

“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.”

One may struggle to marry that otherwise noble injunction with a civil service filled with card-carrying members of political parties, but we chose to allow that too – Freedom of Association (S18) and Political Rights (S19). Naturally, because of how our democracy has evolved, most of the people who would fit this description would now by and large be members of the ANC, which has dominated our body politic since 1994 and has spread its tentacles far and wide, just as the National Party had done so for decades before 1994. Nevertheless, the point remains.

It is important, for the longevity and prosperity of our democratic project, that the civil service is and remains non-partisan (to strive for an “apolitical” administration would be a waste of everybody’s energies as the government is an inherently political institution). Additionally, those who want to pursue a political calling are free to do so, but away from the administrative positions where they must serve all of us.

We can practicalise this point very simply; say the Manager of your Municipality’s local Billing Department is the Chairperson of the local ANC Branch. What is to stop them from targeting residents who are members of opposing parties with punitive and unreasonably excessive charges or enforcement action like service disruptions, or allowing residents who are ANC members relaxed terms of service they are otherwise not due? Except for a strong and impartial HR department or Supervisor, the Manager in this case can do untold harm to the municipality and residents alike by using their access to state resources to drive a dubious political agenda.

This is a hyperbole to drive the point, but in an ideal world, the Manager would not be allowed to let her political affiliation interfere with the exercise of her duties. Her being a member of a political party ought not to enter the workplace. That said, it is not inconceivable that she may allow her affiliation to influence her professional decisions. Humans being humans, though, the undesirable scenario could conceivably arise, and this is where the danger lies.

Fast forward then to 2022, when the amendment Bill is signed into law by the President, becoming an Act of Parliament. What follows, in 2023, is that the SA Municipal Workers Union, the largest union in the sector, goes to court to challenge the constitutionally of that Section 71 B limitation.

SAMWU mainly argues that the amendment act is unconstitutional to the extent that the limitation bars all municipal officials, and not just Municipal Managers and their direct reports, from holding political office. Yesterday, the Constitutional Court agreed with the Union and struck down the limitation. I have yet to get hold of the judgment, so I have not “studied” it to have a full appreciation of the Court’s reasoning. For now, you and I can feast on the Court’s summary here.

As things stand, though, my general view is that it is appropriate that not all civil servants should be barred from holding office in political parties – only senior/ executive level staff should be because they have access to the most sensitive information in the workplace and some influence in the decisions of the elected leadership. If these officials also hold office in political parties, they would be able to use their positions to hamper the delivery of the government’s agenda, to advance their own agenda or those of their parties. This would be neither good nor desirable.

So, in sum, “politicians” in my headline is not entirely fair. The overwhelming majority of affected civil servants are simply members of political parties, not leaders. We have come to only seriously think of “politicians” as those who hold leadership positions.

Whilst there is nothing inherently wrong or undesirable about being a member or leader of a political party, public servants ought to carry out their responsibilities professionally and dutifully serve all members of the public within their scope of responsibility. Their personal persuasions, beliefs and affiliations, to which they are entitled in terms of law, ought to not enter the workplace.

On a related point: I do wonder to what extent our laws have something similar to the USA’s “Hatch Act”. Alternatively, to what extent could what the Hatch Act seeks to do be either desirable, appropriate and necessary for our purposes in the Republic. According to the responsible agency, the Hatch Act;

“…limits certain political activities of federal employees, as well as some state, D.C., and local government employees who work in connection with federally funded programs. ​The law’s purposes are to ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion, to protect federal employees from political coercion in the workplace, and to ensure that federal employees are advanced based on merit and not based on political affiliation.​​​​”

I’m keen to read up on this, alongside yesterday’s judgment. Maybe I’ll come back with a follow-up. To my mind, there is some value to be gained from it. Who knows, maybe even a Draft Bill could be developed that could find favour in these GNU times where everything is subject to negotiation.

Alright, that’s it for today. Be back soon and, if no one else has told you, I love you.

SC

-----

And now for the subscription business again…

If you’re enjoying this content, you’re likely finding it valuable and it meets your desires. If you’re already subscribed, thank you so much. I appreciate you to no end. If not, please consider doing so below and share this in your networks. I’d like this content to reach as many eyes as possible. My goal is to help slowly shape the country of our best dreams, together.