PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND ALLIANCE POLITICS IN SOUTH AFRICA

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 3 PRINCIPLES  OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND ALLIANCE POLITICS IN SOUTH AFRICA

Introduction

The Alliance in South Africa between the ANC, SACP and COSATU has brought into sharp focus the role of Alliance Politics; specifically in relation to the nature and role of government and the nexus between politics and public administration. The Alliance gave rise to different expectations and demands from the Alliance partners, but also the general public in so much as it pertains to the policy direction and the way in which governance in a democratic state ought to happen. This, since 1994, led to numerous calls from various social sectors for the Alliance to be ended.
An effective and progressive developmental state is a central objective of the present government in South Africa. The inherent nature of a developmental state is pro-poor and the ability to intervene decisively and cogently in the economy and society to bring about the desired social and economic developmental goals. At the core of this is the commitment to bridge the historical divides of race, class, gender, geography and more contemporary divides such as HIV/AIDS and disability.
In 2004, the ANC’s Election Manifesto, the “People’s Contract” (supported by both the SACP and COSATU) called for the establishment of a common system of public services. This common system, which is in essence a unified system of public administration, remains a key goal of the South African developmental state.
When considering the context outlined above, it becomes clear that public administration is an important variable as the nexus between policy and delivery of services to the South African public. Given this central role of public administration, it is necessary that the practice of public administration be explored together with a discussion of the theories of public administration. Some of the challenges faced by the current administration will also be discussed. Approaching the discipline of Public Administration in this way requires that the relevant literature associated with Public Administration be reviewed and discussed. In addition, the significance of public administration theories in contemporary South Africa’s public service will be expanded upon.

 What is Administration?

The word itself is loaded with ambiguity and definitions of it flourish. Berkley (2004: 23) concluded that administration is a process involving human beings jointly engaged in working towards common goals. According to Cloete (1981: 23), all spheres of human activity contain administration. Administration can also be a cooperative human action with a high degree of rationality, which means that cooperative action is intended to maximise certain goals (Gordon, 1947: 65).
When applied to different contexts and situations, the word “administration” is used to refer to almost every sphere of activity. Some basic dictionary definitions state that the verb administers means, inter alia to govern, rule, control, direct, operate or make something work.
Gordon (147: 70) stated that administration can also be equated to the operational area of government. Mfene (2009: 211) quotes Woodrow Wilson, who asserted that “administration is the most obvious part of government, it is government in action, and it is the executive, the operative, the most visible side of government.”

What is Public Administration?

There is no consensus as to what Public Administration is. Is it an art, a craft, a science, a profession, a field of study or discipline? In the end, Public Administration, to some degree, is each of these things even though individuals may differ on how they view it (Cayer: 2003: 10).
Fry (1989, 78) approaches Public Administration as a duality with two distinctive, but closely related activities. It deals with the administration or management of matters which principally have to do with society, politics and its sub-parts which are in essence not private, commercial or individualistic. It also deals with the disciplined study of these matters. In a reductionist way, public administration has to do with managing the business/realm of government and other public entities. This definition transmits the essence of public administration and is likely to encompass the vast majority of activities and concerns related to contemporary public administration.
Public Administration can also be the term used to “mean the study of selective practice of the tasks associated with the behaviour, conduct and protocol of the affairs of the administrative state” (Kuye et al, 2002: 5).
Not only is public administration concerned with the execution of the laws, rules and regulations of the government of the country (Cloete, 1988: 16), it crucially is also concerned with formulating and executing policy. What is evident is that public administration has to do with the making and implementation of policy of government and public programmes and includes the management of organisations and activities that are involved in this public policy and programmes spheres.
The policies that a government formulates, adopts and the effectiveness with which it is implemented directly impact on the delivery of services to society. To this end, public administration contributes to the shaping and implementation of policies where these policies find expression in rules and regulations (Coetzee, 1988: 45).
In Cayer’s (2003: 1) reflections on public administration, he compares it to life in a swamp. In this scenario, footing is uncertain, the path is unclear, the terrain keeps shifting and, the alligators are mean and hungry. Whereas business administrators have some degree of certainty through formulaic approaches, public administrators do not have this luxury given that the environment in which they work is much more unstable. The political landscape, shifting political power relations, economic swings and unpredictable social issues all affect the public administrator. They are accountable to more than one authority, including elected political officials and the public-at-large. Not only must they account for the responsible use of financial resources (taxpayers’ money), but they are also expected to be responsive to the espoused democratic values of the government system.
In Cayer’s world, the administrative swamp is populated by changing political forces, shifting economic conditions, the media, interest groups and demanding citizens. In addition to this, internal dynamics, such as employee interests, inter-agency conflict, and bureaucratic routines, lie in wait for the manager who attempts to drain the swamp and establish firm ground on which to work (Cayer, 2003: 32).
The porous boundaries of public administration add to the difficulty in defining it. Government can generally be described as intrusive as it is involved in almost everything that people do. This intrusive nature of government is the result of it being the apex service provider that binds society through ensuring an element of fairness between the different citizens in seeking to generally bring the most benefits and least harm to society. The aim of government can be described as bringing stability to the nation through the maintenance of social cohesion and social tranquillity. Structures for civility and civil order are thus created (Cayer, 2003: 37).
With the increased involvement of government in society, the need for more agencies arises and with that more administrators to see to it that government policy is implemented. In implementing policy, administrators also assume the role of policy formulators as they develop the requisite expertise and skills in identifying what will work best in any given situation. The recommendations that administrators make to policy-making bodies – usually the executive branch of government – place administrators in a position to shape future policy developments. Similarly, administrators’ interpretation of the general policy positions to specific conditions of elected officials effectively renders them policy-makers (Cayer, 2003: 38).

Public Administration: Art, Science or, Craft?

Science is based on universal laws or tendencies which are applicable in any situation. The scientific management movement used this approach as a catalyst in their attempt to establish public administration as a science. Public Administration is a discipline within the social sciences which itself is imprecise when measured by the standards of the physical sciences (Peters, 2003: 35). This does not however, mean that Public Administration should not strive for as much certainty as possible. Instead, scientific approaches are integrated, where appropriate, with public administrators being made fully aware that much of their success depends on the degree to which they adapt to the continuously changing conditions.
There is a view amongst certain scholars that public administration would be better served by a post-modern approach where the emphasis is on discourse and collaboration among citizens, administrators and public officials rather than embracing positivist, rational approaches.
Many who perceive the need for public administration to be located in the practical sciences, believe that political values can be separated from the administrative process. In this approach, administrators are separated from policy-makers and it is the values of policy-makers that are reflected. This view led to the evolution of what has become known as the politics/administrative dichotomy. The attempt for this approach was to establish public administration as an entity, separate from politics and more scientific and managerial in orientation. The concept of separating politics and administration was given intellectual legitimacy through the essay, “The Study of Administration”, written by Woodrow Wilson in 1887.
Notwithstanding the fact that public administration today eschews the reality of separation, the separation continues to be challenged as it is an important analytical distinction for understanding the innumerable aspects of public administration. The separation of policy/politics and administration was accepted as a fait accompli in the field of public administration until as late as the 1950s and 1960s (Peters, 2003: 54).
After the Second World War, the supposedly scientific discourse of the Scientific Management School was increasingly being challenged. Scholars like Herbert Simon (1947) characterised the principles of administration that were advocated by the Scientific Management School as proverbs which were not in conflict with one another or whose opposites were just as plausible, if not more. Simon was in favour of developing a true scientific approach to administration and to this end developed the concept of fact/value distinction as a guide to the new science.
Simons’ work provided a renewed interest in the politics/administration dichotomy as well as serving as a stimulus for renewed interest in more scientific approaches to analysing public administration (Jun 2002: 45).
Public administration began to resemble the character of a profession in its emerging identity and in its adoption of scientific methods (Jun, 2002:46). The development of professionalism in public administration gave rise to new debates. The main advocates of the debate involved scholars such as Herman Finer (1941) and Carl Friedrich (1941) with their respective schools and followers. For Finer, public administration had a responsibility to respond to elected officials and adapt to the ever-changing or shifting environmental forces. Friedrich’s core argument centred on the fact that administrators were obliged to adhere to scientific standards, represented by professional standards and generally accepted practice.

 Public Administration: Collective Human Activity

All administration, including public administration, is dependent on the effort of individuals who constitute the administrative organisation (Cayer, 2003: 4). Meeting most of the common objectives in any organisation requires the organisation to attract members (with particular (the right mix of) skills, attributes and attitudes) and gain their cooperation. In order to get members to not only comply with but also support organisational objectives, it is imperative that members interact with and relate to one another. Administration must take into account the complexities of human nature as it is impacted on by such complexities.
Administrators in the public service must deal with a wide spectrum of people – not only those who constitute the organisation, but also with those interested members of the various political environments (including elected political officials, citizens, interest groups and clients of organisations). The internal organisational dynamics and the external environment lead to a continuously changing, and at times perplexing, setting for public administration (Cayer, 2003: 39).

Theories of Public Administration

At least three broadly defined approaches can be identified in the study of public administration. These are the Classics, the Behaviouralists and the Administration as Politics approach. The discussion that follows focus on the impact of these three approaches on public administration.
The essay, “The Study of Administration”, written by Woodrow Wilson in 1887, is held by many to be the origin of the self-conscious study of public administration in the United States of America. In his essay, Wilson argued for the absolute separation of administration from political and policy concerns. In his view, the concerns of public administration should be exclusively with the “detailed and systematic execution of public law”. Political officials and politics generally were tasked to set the agenda for administration, but not to get engaged in administrative activities so as to “manipulate its offices”. Following his definition of separating administration from politics, Wilson concluded that the task of the public administrator, which encompasses the selection of appropriate means to accomplish given ends, was not significantly different from any other administrator.

CHAPTER 1  BACKGROUND TO THE ANC-COSATU-SACP ALLIANCE
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Fighting for Freedom: The Period Before 1990
1.3 Negotiating Democracy: 1990 to 1994
1.4 Democracy at Last: 1994 to 1999
1.5 Consolidating Democratic Gains: 1999 to 2004
1.6 Can the Centre hold? 2004 to 2012
1.7 Summary
CHAPTER 2  RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Defining and Understanding Research
2.3 Typologies of Research Methods
2.4 Data Collection Techniques
2.5 Research Paradigm
2.6 Methodology Selected for the Study
2.7 Purpose of the Study
2.8 Objectives of the Study
2.9 Problem Statement of the Study
2.10 Research Question
2.11 Significance of the Study
2.12 Need for the Study
2.13 Limitations of the Study
2.14 Structure of the Study
2.13 Summary
CHAPTER 3  PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND ALLIANCE POLITICS IN SOUTH AFRICA
3.1 Introduction
3.2 What is Administration?
3.3 What is Public Administration?
3.4 Public Administration: Art, Science or, Craft?
3.5 Public Administration: Collective Human Activity
3.6 Theories of Public Administration
3.7 Functions of Public Administratio
3.8 Public Administration in Contemporary South Africa
3.9 Legislative Framework for Public Administration in South Africa
3.10 Challenges of Public Administration in South Africa
3.11 What is the Future of Public Administration?
3.12 A Theoretical Paradigm of Alliance Politics
3.13 Summary
CHAPTER 4  A CRITICAL DISCOURSE OF THE ACCORD BETWEEN THE ANC, SACP AND COSATU
4.1 Thoughts on Governance
4.2 Thoughts on the Developmental State
4.3 Thoughts on Government Failure
4.4 An Overview of the ANC
4.5 An Overview of COSATU
4.6 An Overview of the SACP
4.7 Summary
CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS OF THE ANC-SACP-COSATU ALLIANCE
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Common Interests
5.3 Divergent Interests
5.4 “In-between” or “Twilight” Interests
5.5 The Alliance and Public Policy
5.6 Leadership and the ANC’s Role in the Alliance
5.7 The Alliance and Governance
5.8 Summary
CHAPTER 6 FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Synoptic Overview of Research Findings
6.3 Specific Findings and Recommendations
6.4 Conclusion
BIBLIOGRAPHY
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT