Professor Sipho Seepe
A cabinet reshuffle is part and parcel of a functioning democracy. It is a consequence of democratic expression that is linked to the electoral process. The current Cabinet reshuffle is necessitated by the shifts that have occurred within the ruling party arising out of its 55th national elective conference.
In this regard, President Cyril Ramaphosa is spoilt for choice given the significant number of ministers and deputy ministers who failed to garner enough support to serve on the party’s powerful national executive committee.
Ministers who failed to make it include politically formidable personalities such as Pravin Gordhan, Naledi Pandor, Nathi Mthethwa, Blade Nzimande, Thulas Nxesi, and Maite Nkoana-Mashabane.
However, their failure to make the ANC’s power structure does not automatically disqualify them from being members of the Cabinet. Constitutionally, the president may select any number of ministers from among the members of the National Assembly; and may select no more than two ministers from outside it.
In other words, for as long as these figures remain members of Parliament, they are eligible. The recent resignation of David Mabuza as deputy president has placed undue pressure on Ramaphosa to act.
Equally, Ramaphosa’s comfortable victory has arguably strengthened his hand. The fact that this is his second term frees him from having to look back over his shoulder. He has nothing to lose.
An editorial from the February 7 edition of Business Day sums up the kind of advice that has come from many quarters. The piece argues that the country needs a “war cabinet” drawn from the best among ourselves inside and outside his party within the constitutional limits that narrow his options. Our country is blessed with a vast talent pool of ethical South Africans of all races with appropriate qualifications, experience and expertise.
Sadly, we live in the world of factional and cantankerous politics where, as the editorial argues, “narrow party self-interest, as exemplified by the cynical ‘deployment’ of the worst among us as long as they wore party regalia, has proved a curse for our nation”.
This type of environment requires bold and resolute leadership – traits demonstrably in short supply in Ramaphosa’s personality. Expectations of swift action on his part have come to naught. Indeed, decisiveness has never been his forte. The socio-psychological impact of indecisiveness is devastating. Indecisiveness grounds departments and paralyses the government. Ministers suspected of facing the chop are unable to make decisions. When they do, officials do not take them seriously since officials know all too well that these may be overturned by the next minister.
Of all the presidents since the dawn of democracy, Ramaphosa has proved to be the most indecisive. Ramaphosa has just been all talk and no action. Having positioned himself as Mr Clean, he had an opportunity to remove cabinet ministers who were involved in state capture as far back as October 2022, after receiving the report of the Zondo Commission. That was not to be. Ramaphosa is not as strong as some have suggested. He knows very well he must accommodate powerful individuals such as Gwede Mantashe and Bheki Cele in his Cabinet.
The above should put paid to any illusion that the country’s needs would supersede personal interests in the determination of who should serve in the Cabinet. Besides, we have been here before. In announcing his Cabinet in February 2018, Ramaphosa said: “Fellow South Africans, I have decided to make certain changes in the composition of the national executive. These changes are intended to ensure that the national government is better equipped to implement the mandate of this administration and specifically the tasks identified in the State of the Nation address. In making these changes, I have been conscious of the need to balance continuity and stability with the need for renewal, economic recovery, and accelerated transformation.”
The promise of a better-equipped cabinet was not to be. If anything, Ramaphosa’s years in office have been a total disaster. The handling of Covid-19 is indicative of Ramaphosa’s presidency. Former editor and columnist of the Sunday Times Peter Bruce described Ramaphosa’s mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic as nothing short of an omnishambles – “a situation that has been comprehensively mismanaged, characterised by a string of blunders and miscalculations”.
In the final analysis, we are judged not by the promises we make, but by the actions we take when faced with seemingly insurmountable odds. This axiom is applicable as we await with bated breath the performance of the soon-to-be-announced Cabinet.
Ramaphosa’s first term was so disastrous that some have been so bold as to suggest he is the worst president South Africa has produced since the dawn of democracy. Mulling over this, Duma Gqubule, research associate at the Social Policy Initiative, writes as follows in the February 7 edition of Business Day: “Whichever way one slices the data, Cyril Ramaphosa’s presidency has been a disaster for the economy… there were eight out of 10 quarters of declining gross fixed capital formation, a measure of investment, before the lockdown at the end of March 2020. In February 2019, the government announced a R100 billion infrastructure fund. Four years later, it does not contain a cent. Despite four investment summits where pledges of R1.1 trillion were made, GFCF plunged to 13.1% of GDP in 2021 – the lowest since 1946, when the Reserve Bank started collecting statistics — from 16.4% in 2017.”
Using state capture or Covid-19 as an alibi for Ramaphosa’s glaring incompetence will not do. Unfortunately, that is all the ammunition he has. Is there any hope for the future?
The likes of Peter Bruce are not optimistic. Writing in the October 16, 2022 edition of the Sunday Times, he could not have been blunter: “Ramaphosa re-elected means broadly that nothing will change. Sure, he would have new party colleagues to whom he would need to extend patronage in the form of cabinet jobs and the like. But we would still be stuck with a leader who cannot seem to join up talk and action, who simply cannot make things happen… Cyril reborn is pie in the sky. Just not going to happen.”
In a normal democracy, a leader with such demonstrably poor performance would volunteer to leave office. Ramaphosa’s situation is not made easier by the fact that he is internationally damaged goods as a result of the Phala Phala matter. Some things have a habit of not going away no matter how much those involved choose to put their heads in the sand. Both Marikana and Phala Phala will continue to be permanent features of the public discourse.
South Africa needs a leader who is decisive, bold and driven by conviction. Ramaphosa is not that leader. His team is doomed to fail, as it has to spend time second-guessing him.
*Professor Sipho Seepe is an independent political analyst.