G Fraser-Moleketi: Address to the Service Delivery Learning
Academy

15 August 2007

On June this year saw two events unfolding. Although they may seem to be
unrelated to most, the events were actually connected in terms of the issue of
trust in public service and government. This trust pertains not only to
citizens' relationship with government, but also collegial trust within and
across the ranks of public servants, as well as trust between public servants
and the Executive.

Whereas previously we might have referred to some of these issues almost in
a philosophical and abstract manner, these events have very real consequences
that can be either positive or negative. As will be shown, they definitely
impact on development and what we can do to alleviate the plight of our
citizens, particularly those who are most reliant on the state for their
well-being. They undeniably impact on the culture and quality of the public
service work environment.

Let me turn to these events I am referring to:

Over a period of almost a month in June, we experienced a national public
service strike, a strike which, on the one hand, was about public service
employees exercising their constitutionally protected right to strike, a right
that we have always respected and are keen to continue respecting within the
framework of our democracy. On the other hand though, it was a strike which had
ample examples of how the exercise of the rights by some, especially if the
boundaries of those rights are pushed and exceeded, does impact negatively on
the rights of others. After all, different rights and responsibilities cohabit
in the same democratic space and they are bound to one another.

Without going into a detailed analysis of the strike, we have to acknowledge
the fact that, whilst unfolding, with or without the approval of union
leadership, intimidation of fellow workers and the public did happen. In
addition, public services, in some instances even essential public services,
were denied to members of the public. In other instances, this resulted in the
loss of life of critically sick people and in other instances, medication
impacting on long-term health were not available, which over time might have an
effect on preserving health.

Education was withheld from our children. Overall confidence in the
stability of our economy and overall system was damaged. But more so, fear was
instilled in fellow workers and sometimes the public. Given the size of the
public service and the effect the national strike had on the economy, for weeks
it filled the public discourse and newspaper pages. It catapulted discussions
around the public service, ordinarily not regarded as a hot topic. At the
start, there was significant public sympathy with public servants and
particularly those in the public service professions in sectors such as health,
education and criminal justice.

However, as intimidation and violence mounted and access to public services
was denied to the population at large, the sympathy moved away and the public's
negative perceptions of public servants resurfaced and became re-enforced. A
look at some of the newspaper headlines during the period tells the
story:
On 17 May (at the time unions decided to take strike action) government was
criticised for what was described as an "unrealistic" offer and many newspaper
articles clearly favoured a position of significantly higher pay for public
servants, linking pay to performance.

On 6 June (early days of strike) a number of headlines pointed to the
tensions emerging amongst labour unions, e.g. "When a just cause leads to
injustice" (Pretoria News Editorial, "Principal backs strike but slams brutal
teachers" (The Star), "Violence lashes nobility of strike" (Sowetan Editorial).
On 13 June, the Sowetan maintained its sympathetic coverage, stating that
"Union strikes are a last resort by desperate workers," and Pretoria News
referred to the courts' decision on granting unions the right to embark on
sympathy strikes as a "victory for workers."

On 20 June, even a fairly radical media commentator such as Christine Qunta
started to pull from the violent tone of the strike, writing in The Star: "How
quickly they turned violent," and in the Pretoria News "Strike should be
disruptive, not deadly." By 21 June, the Sowetan demanded in an editorial:
"Teach, don't cheat the future," and by 25 June it punts its service under the
headline: "We help the victims of Public Sector strike."

By 26 June one headline screamed: "Cosatu plays politics with wage offers,"
and non-striking Home Affairs officials' story is carried under the headline
"We fear for our lives." By 29 June the strike is over and the question is
asked: "Now that it's ended, was it really worth it?" and reference is made to
the fact that nobody actually won much. One of the papers chose to carry a
story under the headline "The job Sister Mpumi loves has turned into a well of
bitterness." This was about a professional nurse. This process of creeping
disenchantment of the public with public servants as a general category of
workers, and the breach of trust within the ranks of public servants are in a
way the most damaging and will have the longest impact.

The second event related (though not very directly) to the one I just
briefly highlighted took place during the last week of June in Vienna, Austria.
It was the 7th Global Forum on Reinventing Government. This year the focus of
the discussions was on "Building trust in Government," a theme the organisers
considered as of critical importance after it became clear that trust in
Government is generally dwindling across the world, notwithstanding clear
evidence that there are close associations between higher levels of trust in
the institutions of government and development.

In preparation of the Global Forum, the Africa region met and one of the
conclusions of that meeting was that government performance is more than likely
the single most important factor that influences trust in governance
arrangements in a country. Public servants as a collective are therefore
logically at the centre of the future of African countries and their people,
and that they carry an immense responsibility. If they perform and deliver
public services to the people effectively, trust will grow in government
institutions. However, by not performing and not delivering public services,
they create a slippery slope through which citizens lose their belief in the
institutions of governance, paving the way for instability and chaos.

Central in the equation to government performance is obviously competence
and professionalism of our public servants. More critically, how does these
relate back to the discussion on trust and the undermining of trust and the
consequences thereof? As the twenty first century begins, there is broad
agreement that public sector managers must be specialists by training and
application and professionals by temperament and commitment.

According to the authors Richard Green, Gary Wamsley and Lawrence Keller in
their article, "Reconstituting a Profession for American Public
Administration", public service professionals will demonstrate "sound moral
insight and judgment in their decisions, and exhibit integrity and commitment
in institutional missions". Such government officials are involved in a calling
to profess and serve public values. The authors argue that university education
should focus on development as institutional leaders, while technical
competencies in terms of professional management should still be retained.

De Hoog and Whitaker, two American researchers who studied city and county
managers in the state of Florida, have identified expertise as the essential
characteristic of professionalism in virtually all undertakings, but they also
argue that managers must supplement their use of expertise with three specific
public service values. These would automatically distinguish public sector
managers from their private sector counterparts. First, they suggest there must
be an acceptance of democratic values, and therefore the legitimacy of elected
officials, with a corollary decrease in individual autonomy as a value.
Secondly, there must be an ethic of responsibility to the public at large. And
finally, a respect for the expertise of other professionals is required.

In my view, these are not only requirements for public managers, but for all
layers of public servants.  With the wisdom of hindsight and the history
clearly made in June, we need to reflect critically as to how the image of
professionalism for public servants has been undermined given the above
requirements.

The two June events referred to above highlight the importance for us to
raise the level of discussion around the ethics we as a relatively young
democratic public administration want to embrace. In a classical sense, we need
to establish a public service ethical community. Such an ethical community is
not necessarily one in which we all will agree on issues such as the boundaries
of our freedoms, or the extent of our obligation to the common good.

We are obliged to reflect on the effect of recent events in various forums
and work out how we are going to restore trust within our own ranks and between
us and the public we are intent to serve professionally and competently. How
are we going to restore respect between us as professionals when we threatened
or were threatened with life or limb during the strike action?  How do we
restore the image of professionalism and the value base of placing people first
in our ranks, where two months ago we stooped as low as kicking over the
wheelchairs of the physically disabled and infirm or prevented learners from
writing their exams and tests in an atmosphere conducive to academic work?

NB: This is an abridged version of the speech delivered by Minister
Fraser-Moleketi.

Issued by: Department of Public Service and Administration
15 August 2007