DA has pretentions of being the government but is unclear what good governance means: a debate with a supporter
This is an edited version of a debate I had this weekend with a DA member on Politicsweb about what good governance means and if the DA has what it takes. As before, while acknowledging Mmusi Maimane is a "weak" leader and they have problems, he insists they know and do have what it takes. However, as the debate progressed he was unable to list the criteria of good governance except "clean audits". The full exchange can be found here.
The DA’s and their supporters’ assertion “The DA should be judged on its performance in government, and its potential to run the country” comes from a variety of people. They say, “The ANC is bad, and problematic as the DA is with their weak leader, confused position, in-fighting, etc, they're the best and only option available.”
Ironic then that with this position, they list small parties like COPE’s, UDM’s, etc problems as if the DA doesn't have ample of its own. In other words, their reasoning breaks down because the values a party ought to have and be judged on is moot, i.e. efficient, technocratic government are the only criteria. The Chinese Communist Party today is one such – “performance in government and potential to run the country”, which indubitably is very good on technical grounds but their human rights record is appalling.
So no, in democracies, “performance in government and potential to run the country” is not and has never been the only or most important criteria. I'm surprised those who say they know the DA's history have a defective and/or naive understanding of democracy and its history. Their argument “vote DA to keep out the ANC or to lower their voting numbers” is about expedience, or as I recently wrote, “a mercenary contract, a marriage of convenience that's bound to end in tears”. Give up principles for power, loot and even love, which is the strongest human emotion, and a person is left with nothing, barely a conscience.
Mmusi Maimane was a poor choice as leader. Then party leader Helen Zille chose him and the party congress meekly went along with it just as the ANC did with former president Jacob Zuma time and again. The DA's current situation is partly his fault, partly that they're trying to market a product neither their traditional supporters nor the ones they're trying to attract - poor black, the ANC's traditional base - believe in or want (like Woolworth's missteps with David Jones brand in local stores, neither fish nor fowl).
But mostly, they almost completely lost their liberal value system that was present under Leon et al. I was right about the DA before and know I'm right now because insiders like ex-DA MP Wilmot James (and others) identified similar problems a few years ago.
Last, I don't understand DA members. They’re in politics but are so defensive. They take offense where none exists. Saying someone is, for example, “naive” is not an insult especially when there are worse adjectives that describe what I'm seeing in them – disingenuous, delusional, head-in-the-sand come to mind. And well-meaning, but that doesn't mitigate it.
The DA and their members say: “Moral governance is a central part of good governance”. But say China is “one of the worst run countries in the world, because it is a continual infringement on people’s rights and is terrible to the environment”.
My reply to that is nowhere in the words “performance" and "potential to run the country” is it mention or implied “moral” government. Performance is a technical, moral-free metric. Note “morality” is more a psychological or religious term. I think the one they mean apropos governance is “ethical”.
The pertinent question is: what are the standard criteria for good government (hint good financial management aka locally as “clean audits” is one but not the most important, which is the WC's and DA's claim to fame in this regard)?
That is evasive and disingenuous and running scared of an argument they initiated.
Even if one is not an expert in governance, they ought to know the criteria for effective and efficient and good government. It's almost common sense to anyone with management exposure.
Ten years ago I was a contract auditor on auditor-general (AG) audits and on private audits too. I know for a fact good financial management, the outcome of which are “clean audits”, are not and have never been the only consideration for effective government which the Zille and WC government, DA, politicians, media and public mistakenly think.
There are other key performance indicators or areas which are not part of financial year-end audits because they're beyond the scope of a financial audit. The AG had, or still has, a seldom used audit performed with a financial audit or at other times called “value for money audit” that was separate and distinct from the scope of financial audits. There is a belief that “clean audits” are unique to SA. It's not, and not unique to government audits either because all financial audits include compliance with legislation – Companies and Income Tax acts, etc as part of their scope. Government audits have a host of legislative compliance factors too, which with the financial aspect are called “clean” outcomes.
I won't list the other factors for good government (see here) but overall South Africa scores poorly on all indicators. The same deficiencies come up year after year. The fact is regarding good government the DA is a one-trick pony – clean audits. That is something that cannot be wished away.
The DA contend they’re not a “one-trick pony” and point in rebuttal to their Western Cape government departments and state it’s “polar opposites” to the ANC. And one sees the trend of improvements of DA governance over time.
Further, they say, in "2009 there was no WC department with a clean audit, now 84% of them get it. Mid-Vaal has been getting consecutive clean audits for years now, the municipality wins awards, attracts investment, delivers services better than any other municipality in Gauteng. Drakenstein has the lowest water wastage in the country.
"The Western Cape the best education outcomes, and the health department has a way to alert people to pick up their free medication when it available (and deliver it to those that are housebound) ... These achievements can't even be imagined elsewhere in the country. And on and on the DA goes, in some place for two decades.
"Transparency, honesty, prudence... are all requirements for good governance. But probably the greatest reason that the DA does well is because they are accountable.
"And the claim of "one trick pony is absolute crap."
To this I respond WC's audit outcomes confirms that's it’s only thing they've built their claim of “good” government on. But expediently ignore it's not the only factor or the most important either. It’s like they’re trying to balance a multi-variable equation when they only have one variable.
I agree, though, in terms of audit outcomes the WC is better than ANC-run provinces and departments. But there's no fight because the ANC set the bar so low so that passing is very easy. Also, the DA, like the ANC, are well paid to do their jobs, so don't expect me to praise them for that. Do you praise the bus driver for getting you to the destination? No, he's doing his job so why should we praise the DA, or Ramaphosa or any government official if and when they do?
By my reckoning there are three broad criteria for good governance (liberal democratic principles a given): obey the letter and spirit of the law, regulations and policies; good public service (see Batho Pele) and good, competent technical and professional management in all areas. See, I didn't say “excellent” because that's an ideal rarely achieved especially in governments (except perhaps the efficient Swiss and Germans).
These are in the constitution in one form or another e.g. Batho Pele principles and administrative justice and obviously everyone, especially the state, is obliged to obey the law. But you don't even mention Batho Pele. They don't want to debate but play politics.
Officially, there are 18 areas or indicators of good government only seven of which are financial management and audit-related. Overall the country scores poorly in all but one, and that's debatable too, in terms of the number of years the same problems raised year after year.
The WC does well in financial and audit matters, but arguably less so in the others. And in that they're little different to the ANC.
They are unable to substantiate their arguments like DA MP Geordin Hill-Lewis I engaged a week ago who insisted their good news claims are correct but was unable to substantiate it and instead referred me to another politician's – Zille's – unverified claims as his “source”, i.e. confirmation bias.
The claim the “Western Cape the best education outcomes, and the health department has a way to alert people to pick up their free medication”.
The department of education has distanced itself from the matric pass rate as a measure or indication of achievement in the schooling system. "Contrary to popular belief, the matric pass rate on its own is not a good measure of academic achievement in the schooling system, nor was the pass rate ever designed for this. However, the pass rate can serve as a measure of the opportunities open to our youths."
SA's national matric pass rate has shown an overall upward trend since 1995 to now. (This is to be expected with the declining academic rating of the certificate, low pass rate requirements in subjects and government promoting pupils.) But the DA credit the WC's good results solely to the DA. Don't WC's pupils study and sit national exams and teachers instruct them, or is it all due to DA WCED officials' work?
In 2009 when the DA took over mid-year the WC's pass rate was 75.7%, above Gauteng's 71.8%. In 2008 under ANC-run WC it was 78.4% (Gauteng 76.4%). So by their superficial logic that it must be credited for the improving pass rate, in 2009 the DA caused a drop in the pass rate from 78.4% to 75.7%.
The fact is even under ANC administrations, historically WC and city services were relatively good and better than other (ANC-run) provinces with the possible exception of Gauteng. And as I said, national matric pass rates were improving since 1995.
Health: is alerting patients on medicine collection the only thing they can think of to recommend the WC? The South Africa Health Review published annually is a comprehensive survey of national health, public and private. In 2016's user satisfaction of WC's public health service scored 53%, the third lowest in the country and one percentage above Gauteng. The national average is 58% and even reported badly run ANC provinces like EC rank better. The TAC reports 'WC's public health system is failing the people who rely on it'. Like education or any service, it's irrelevant it claims its services are better than other provinces because WC citizens don't live there.
I'm not knocking the DA's good record where it exists but don't believe, with evidence, it's as good as they and their supporters claim. And when one examines it closely one finds it's a three-card con trick. People say I'm obsessed and vexatious about the DA but even seasoned writers and analysts are not interrogating what good governance really means, bringing it down to the lowest common denominator, and often fail to contextualise it and put the “DA vs ANC, which is worse” into silos when the principle is overarching.
The DA has pretentions of one day being in government but is unclear what good governance means. There's no point debating them.
[End]
Ironic then that with this position, they list small parties like COPE’s, UDM’s, etc problems as if the DA doesn't have ample of its own. In other words, their reasoning breaks down because the values a party ought to have and be judged on is moot, i.e. efficient, technocratic government are the only criteria. The Chinese Communist Party today is one such – “performance in government and potential to run the country”, which indubitably is very good on technical grounds but their human rights record is appalling.
So no, in democracies, “performance in government and potential to run the country” is not and has never been the only or most important criteria. I'm surprised those who say they know the DA's history have a defective and/or naive understanding of democracy and its history. Their argument “vote DA to keep out the ANC or to lower their voting numbers” is about expedience, or as I recently wrote, “a mercenary contract, a marriage of convenience that's bound to end in tears”. Give up principles for power, loot and even love, which is the strongest human emotion, and a person is left with nothing, barely a conscience.
Mmusi Maimane was a poor choice as leader. Then party leader Helen Zille chose him and the party congress meekly went along with it just as the ANC did with former president Jacob Zuma time and again. The DA's current situation is partly his fault, partly that they're trying to market a product neither their traditional supporters nor the ones they're trying to attract - poor black, the ANC's traditional base - believe in or want (like Woolworth's missteps with David Jones brand in local stores, neither fish nor fowl).
But mostly, they almost completely lost their liberal value system that was present under Leon et al. I was right about the DA before and know I'm right now because insiders like ex-DA MP Wilmot James (and others) identified similar problems a few years ago.
Last, I don't understand DA members. They’re in politics but are so defensive. They take offense where none exists. Saying someone is, for example, “naive” is not an insult especially when there are worse adjectives that describe what I'm seeing in them – disingenuous, delusional, head-in-the-sand come to mind. And well-meaning, but that doesn't mitigate it.
*
The DA and their members say: “Moral governance is a central part of good governance”. But say China is “one of the worst run countries in the world, because it is a continual infringement on people’s rights and is terrible to the environment”.
My reply to that is nowhere in the words “performance" and "potential to run the country” is it mention or implied “moral” government. Performance is a technical, moral-free metric. Note “morality” is more a psychological or religious term. I think the one they mean apropos governance is “ethical”.
The pertinent question is: what are the standard criteria for good government (hint good financial management aka locally as “clean audits” is one but not the most important, which is the WC's and DA's claim to fame in this regard)?
The DA’s response to this is: “When you consider political parties’ past and potential performance you are considering all aspects of their governance”.
That is evasive and disingenuous and running scared of an argument they initiated.
Even if one is not an expert in governance, they ought to know the criteria for effective and efficient and good government. It's almost common sense to anyone with management exposure.
Ten years ago I was a contract auditor on auditor-general (AG) audits and on private audits too. I know for a fact good financial management, the outcome of which are “clean audits”, are not and have never been the only consideration for effective government which the Zille and WC government, DA, politicians, media and public mistakenly think.
There are other key performance indicators or areas which are not part of financial year-end audits because they're beyond the scope of a financial audit. The AG had, or still has, a seldom used audit performed with a financial audit or at other times called “value for money audit” that was separate and distinct from the scope of financial audits. There is a belief that “clean audits” are unique to SA. It's not, and not unique to government audits either because all financial audits include compliance with legislation – Companies and Income Tax acts, etc as part of their scope. Government audits have a host of legislative compliance factors too, which with the financial aspect are called “clean” outcomes.
I won't list the other factors for good government (see here) but overall South Africa scores poorly on all indicators. The same deficiencies come up year after year. The fact is regarding good government the DA is a one-trick pony – clean audits. That is something that cannot be wished away.
*
The DA contend they’re not a “one-trick pony” and point in rebuttal to their Western Cape government departments and state it’s “polar opposites” to the ANC. And one sees the trend of improvements of DA governance over time.
Further, they say, in "2009 there was no WC department with a clean audit, now 84% of them get it. Mid-Vaal has been getting consecutive clean audits for years now, the municipality wins awards, attracts investment, delivers services better than any other municipality in Gauteng. Drakenstein has the lowest water wastage in the country.
"The Western Cape the best education outcomes, and the health department has a way to alert people to pick up their free medication when it available (and deliver it to those that are housebound) ... These achievements can't even be imagined elsewhere in the country. And on and on the DA goes, in some place for two decades.
"Transparency, honesty, prudence... are all requirements for good governance. But probably the greatest reason that the DA does well is because they are accountable.
"And the claim of "one trick pony is absolute crap."
I agree, though, in terms of audit outcomes the WC is better than ANC-run provinces and departments. But there's no fight because the ANC set the bar so low so that passing is very easy. Also, the DA, like the ANC, are well paid to do their jobs, so don't expect me to praise them for that. Do you praise the bus driver for getting you to the destination? No, he's doing his job so why should we praise the DA, or Ramaphosa or any government official if and when they do?
By my reckoning there are three broad criteria for good governance (liberal democratic principles a given): obey the letter and spirit of the law, regulations and policies; good public service (see Batho Pele) and good, competent technical and professional management in all areas. See, I didn't say “excellent” because that's an ideal rarely achieved especially in governments (except perhaps the efficient Swiss and Germans).
These are in the constitution in one form or another e.g. Batho Pele principles and administrative justice and obviously everyone, especially the state, is obliged to obey the law. But you don't even mention Batho Pele. They don't want to debate but play politics.
Officially, there are 18 areas or indicators of good government only seven of which are financial management and audit-related. Overall the country scores poorly in all but one, and that's debatable too, in terms of the number of years the same problems raised year after year.
The WC does well in financial and audit matters, but arguably less so in the others. And in that they're little different to the ANC.
They are unable to substantiate their arguments like DA MP Geordin Hill-Lewis I engaged a week ago who insisted their good news claims are correct but was unable to substantiate it and instead referred me to another politician's – Zille's – unverified claims as his “source”, i.e. confirmation bias.
The claim the “Western Cape the best education outcomes, and the health department has a way to alert people to pick up their free medication”.
The department of education has distanced itself from the matric pass rate as a measure or indication of achievement in the schooling system. "Contrary to popular belief, the matric pass rate on its own is not a good measure of academic achievement in the schooling system, nor was the pass rate ever designed for this. However, the pass rate can serve as a measure of the opportunities open to our youths."
SA's national matric pass rate has shown an overall upward trend since 1995 to now. (This is to be expected with the declining academic rating of the certificate, low pass rate requirements in subjects and government promoting pupils.) But the DA credit the WC's good results solely to the DA. Don't WC's pupils study and sit national exams and teachers instruct them, or is it all due to DA WCED officials' work?
In 2009 when the DA took over mid-year the WC's pass rate was 75.7%, above Gauteng's 71.8%. In 2008 under ANC-run WC it was 78.4% (Gauteng 76.4%). So by their superficial logic that it must be credited for the improving pass rate, in 2009 the DA caused a drop in the pass rate from 78.4% to 75.7%.
The fact is even under ANC administrations, historically WC and city services were relatively good and better than other (ANC-run) provinces with the possible exception of Gauteng. And as I said, national matric pass rates were improving since 1995.
Health: is alerting patients on medicine collection the only thing they can think of to recommend the WC? The South Africa Health Review published annually is a comprehensive survey of national health, public and private. In 2016's user satisfaction of WC's public health service scored 53%, the third lowest in the country and one percentage above Gauteng. The national average is 58% and even reported badly run ANC provinces like EC rank better. The TAC reports 'WC's public health system is failing the people who rely on it'. Like education or any service, it's irrelevant it claims its services are better than other provinces because WC citizens don't live there.
I'm not knocking the DA's good record where it exists but don't believe, with evidence, it's as good as they and their supporters claim. And when one examines it closely one finds it's a three-card con trick. People say I'm obsessed and vexatious about the DA but even seasoned writers and analysts are not interrogating what good governance really means, bringing it down to the lowest common denominator, and often fail to contextualise it and put the “DA vs ANC, which is worse” into silos when the principle is overarching.
The DA has pretentions of one day being in government but is unclear what good governance means. There's no point debating them.
Comments
Post a Comment