Joel Netshitenzhe
Government communication in Public Service transformation and the African Renaissance
11 May 1999
In
this input I proceed, firstly,
from the premise that the
act of political liberation
is but the beginning of
a long process of social
change; and that the aim
of social change is to attain
self determination and a
measure of sovereignty as
a country. (One says a measure
of sovereignty given the
process of globalisation
in the current age.)
Secondly,
the aim of social change
should be to lay the economic
foundation both for the
creation and improvement
of socio-economic conditions
of citizens and, in our
case, especially the poor.
I
believe that there would
be no debate around the
critical role the state
should play in such a massive
project of social change.
Therefore the issue of transformation
of the public service should
be approached from this
perspective. We cannot lay
hold of an apartheid or
colonial state machinery
and try to use it to achieve
what would in fact be an
anti-thesis of what that
state was, i.e. to create
an anti-apartheid and anti-colonial
new social order.
In
case some might say that
this public servant is starting
to sound like a politician,
I should say that this is
not a party political matter.
It is the dividing line
between liberation and political
neo-colonialism or political
neo-apartheid. If indeed
transformation of this public
service is not premised
on an understanding that
we are building a new order,
then we will not be able
to transform this service,
in the first instance; but
secondly, we will not be
able to
ensure that it fulfils the
prescripts of the constitution,
including political, social
and other rights.
Therefore,
it is not a matter of accident
that there are battles around
these questions: what kind
of state machinery should
we build; what kind of public
service, and who should
occupy strategic positions
in this machinery: be it
the Judiciary, the National
Director of Public Prosecution’s
Office, the Reserve Bank,
GCIS and so on.
I
was informed - and I’ve
now listened to it - that
the DP amongst its adverts
in this election campaign
has one that claims Joel
Netshitenzhe - mentioning
me by name - says that the
ANC should take over the
Reserve Bank and all other
kinds of institutions. I’m
trying to resolve this matter
with relevant institutions
because they are misrepresenting
what I may have said wherever
they got it from. But the
point I’m making is
that it is not accidental
that there are battles around
these questions, precisely
because changing the state
machinery is the dividing
line between whether the
democratic project will
succeed or not.
I’ve
had a quarrel with Paseka
Ncholo saying to him he
has emboldened some of these
characters. The impression
created is that, after they
had harassed him, he announced
that he would be resigning.
These forces are now celebrating
this as a victory, and in
fact he has overheard one
of them saying we have succeeded
with Paseka; let’s
identify others for targeting.
It
is not accidental that there
should be these battles
because those who do not
want change would not want
to see an effective public
service, a transforming
public service. The recent
battles around the eligibility
of Constitutional Court
judges includes arguments
which amount to saying that
you have to have supported
apartheid or sat on the
fence to qualify to be a
judge of the Constitutional
Court. The same applies
to tender procedures, issues
of affirmative action and
broadly the question of
ownership of wealth.
We
should expect it to be more
so with communication which
is a critical centre of
power which cuts across
all government activities.
This is where the battle
of ideas take place. It
is where the national soul
is shaped; it is where the
character of a nation or
even a continent is forged
. Paulo Frere captured this
succinctly when he said:
"A
society beginning to move
from one epoch to another
requires the development
of an especially flexible
and critical spirit. Lacking
such a spirit, people
cannot perceive the marked
contradictions that occur
in society as emerging
values in search of affirmation
and fulfilment clash with
earlier values in seeking
self-preservation".
He
couldn’t have described
SA better, regarding the
challenge that we face as
we embark on renewal. And
the reality is that the
communication agenda is
defined by those who control
local, continental and global
means of communication.
In our own country, 82%
of ABC registered publications
are controlled by 4 companies.
Changes that have taken
place in the past few weeks
have, most probably, worsened
the situation.
In
such a situation it becomes
critical to have policies
that seek to transform the
media environment, but it
is also very critical to
have an effective Government
Communication and Information
System.
Given
the demographics of the
news-rooms; and given these
problems of ownership I
have referred to, it does
not require a rocket scientist
to appreciate that society
is therefore not provided
with balanced information.
The Government has an important
role to ensure, where necessary,
that it communicates directly
with the people without
any apologies.
But
related to this is the very
question of the paradigm
within society as a whole.
I
watched a youth program
on television on Freedom
Day and they were talking
about the need to popularise
what you can call "struggle
poetry "and "struggle
literature". And after
a long discussion and convincing
arguments on this, amongst
the calls that came in was
a constant refrain from
certain sectors of society
to say: No, but we are a
rainbow nation; we must
forget the past!
What
this means is that this
nation should be soulless;
it shouldn’t know where
it comes from; it shouldn’t
know about those people
who fought to set up the
democratic state. The same
people, mind you, will argue
that the youth should study
Shakespeare and Alan Paton;
but because we are a rainbow
nation, we must ignore the
other literature. This must
be questioned; and it is
one of the challenges of
communication in the broader
sense.
In
line with what Deputy Minister
Essop Pahad said, if you
were to ask a South African,
when last did they hear
about Kenya and Tanzania,
all of them, if they were
honest, will tell you that
it was when the United States
Embassies were bombed and
the FBI descended on the
"dark continent".
We have no information about
the education policies in
Tanzania or Kenya, or about
the budgets that they have,
nor about their parliamentary
debates. We will never hear
about that. Something must
change in this current paradigm
of discourse.
This
then is the context within
which those in the public
service carry out their
tasks. We need to develop
a new value system based
on, first and foremost,
our self- worth as a people,
as South Africans and as
Africans: as a public service
that is meant to serve the
people.
This
public service needs transformation
so as to become an instrument
that serves the purpose
of building a new democratic
order, both ensuring cohesion
of this nation-state and
coercion where necessary.
You therefore need to change
the doctrines, as we are
doing with Batho Pele, the
White Paper on Defence,
Defence Review, the White
Paper on the police and
so on.
But
you also need to change
the personnel and ensure
that you have among them
people who believe in and
fought for democracy, people
who are loyal to the constitution
both in word and in deed.
And about that there should
be no apology.
What
role should government communication
play in all this? In our
country there is an obligation
that comes from the constitution
that government should provide
the population with information
about its policies and activities.
Further, the RDP asserts
that it is not possible
to have development without
mass involvement. And by
extension it is not possible
to have mass involvement
without information: an
informed citizenry is a
citizenry that can actively
participate in changing
its life for the better.
What
does this mean in actual
practice? A number of things
need to be changed.
Firstly,
quite often when reference
is made to government communication,
this conjures up images
of "spin-doctors"
and Ministerial Liaison
Officers who try to influence
as much as possible what
the media establishment
says. This is important
and critical; but the strategic
focus should be on those
who are the primary target
of government programmes,
the poor and the disadvantaged.
The
primary emphasis should
be to change this understanding
of communication by, among
others, introducing what
we term "development
communication" as a
basis of government operations.
Its content should be to
inform people about their
rights and obligations as
citizens; to inform them
about the socio-economic
programs and opportunities
and how to access them;
to provide citizens with
information that they can
use for purposes of their
health, education, welfare
and so on - for their self
preservation and development
as a human resource.
The
challenge is to provide
citizens with information
about how they can take
part in local, provincial
and national discourse so
that they influence the
direction in which the country
is going. And various means
have to be used for purposes
of such development information:
direct communication with
the public is critical,
involving what we call community
liaison, where leaders go
directly to communities
and address them, listen
to them and reply to their
questions; video road shows,
cultural activities, folklore
and so forth.
Like
in all other areas of work,
in the Government Communication
and Information System we
have also suffered from
a malaise: that is, when
we look for experience,
for expertise, for lessons
to learn from, we rush to
Europe and America. But
the reality is that, in
Africa and in Asia and particularly
in India, there are many,
many creative examples of
development communication
through the usage of culture
and of folklore.
Development
communication has to include
what is now part of government
policy: to set up a Media
Development Agency that
can assist small and community
media not only in setting
themselves up, but also
in surviving in this difficult
market environment.
It
also includes the setting
up of tele-centres, because
being poor does not mean
that you cannot use modern
links of communication.
In a number of areas with
these tele-centres, people
see them as critical in
improving their own lives,
with information that students
can use, information resources
for teachers, nurses, business
people to access government
tenders, and so on. In a
partnership with the Department
of Communications and the
Universal Service Agency
we wish over time to set
up as many of these tele-centres
as possible.
The
second paradigm that needs
to change is one regarding
the artificial separation
between communication and
the public service in general.
Our starting point here
is that what Batho Pele
says is correct: everything
that the public service
does is public communication.
It
would not help much if you
had the best communication
strategies on welfare, housing
and education, if what the
citizen experiences when
applying for a child grant,
for a pension or for a home
loan, is arrogance and insults
from the public service,
or demands for bribes. The
best communication strategy
will not resolve those problems.
What those public servants
are doing is an act of public
communication because they
are telling the public who
this government is and how
it operates.
A
communication programme
on human rights will fall
flat if what citizens experience
is brutality from security
agencies.
Related
to this is the Open Democracy
Bill which is before Parliament.
On the one hand, the rich
and powerful will seek information
to frustrate change, they
will try to use the Bill
for that purpose. One example
is the Anti-tobacco Bill
where the tobacco companies
were demanding that the
Minister should provide
them with all the information
that she used to reach a
decision, so that they can
assess whether she was able
to properly process that
information. On the other
hand, it is quite possible
in the public service to
use the Open Democracy Bill
to leak information in order
to prevent change and claim
the protective barrier of
a "whistle blower".
Yes
there is a danger; but I
believe that openness and
effective communication
can also be an antidote
to such resistance. It ensures
that the mass of the people
know what government is
doing and what it stands
for, and they can act in
defence of the process of
change.
I
will conclude briefly with
some observations on the
issue of the African Renaissance:
essentially to reiterate
what Deputy Minister Pahad
said. Firstly, it is true
that the African Renaissance
idea has gained currency
on the continent. But there
are a number of challenges:
- how
do we ensure that it
captures the minds of
the mass of Africans
on the continent to
become their way of
life;
- how
do we ensure that articulation
of the AR and enthusiasm
for it is continental
in earnest and seen
as the property of the
political, ideological,
economic and cultural
leaders of the continent;
and
- how
do we convince the world
through our communication
and action in the fields
of diplomacy, culture,
sports and religion
that we are capable
as a continent to acknowledge
those things that divide
us but are able to use
those that benefit us
for the common good
of the continent!
What
are these issues that unite
us, issues around which
states on the continent
can give leadership?
I
believe every African wishes
to see Africa uplifted from
the lowest rung of human
development; we want to
see the continent liberated
from the crippling debt
burden; we want to see Africans
enjoying improving trade
relations and taking advantage
of the comparative advantages
of the continent; we want
to afford our children and
population in general quality
education, quality health
care and quality housing,
and we want to allow the
creative sprit of our artists,
natural scientists, philosophers
and others free reign. Lastly
we want to ensure that our
people enjoy human rights
and democracy, however that
democracy is defined.
It
is within this context that
we should address the communication
challenges outlined earlier.
Amongst the critical questions
is the layer of ownership
of media on the African
continent and how to ensure
that the approach of development
communication becomes a
systematic continental strategy!
How
do we speed up joint massive
projects such as the one
that started with the Africa
Telecom conference for the
development of the telecommunication
infrastructure on the continent,
with a clear slant towards
popular benefit such as
tele-centres? Shouldn’t
the continent develop a
joint communication strategy
through bilateral and multilateral
bodies, including the OAU,
for promoting the continent
abroad?
One
example of this is that
we have managed to convince
all right-thinking people
all over the world about
the crippling debt burden
that the continent suffers
from, which not so much
of the continent’s
own making. But has the
continent worked out proactive
ways of arguing how such
relief will be used for
the benefit of the people?
The answer is no!
Instead,
what then happens is that
it is those developed countries
who start devising conditions
to attach to the provision
of such debt relief. This
may be because Africa does
not agree within itself
what those conditions should
be, to ensure that if there
is relief it does not go
into the pockets of individuals
in power and the bureaucracies.
So a good campaign, a good
communication approach that
has made an impact. But
we may lose the battle because
we do not have the necessary
follow-up mechanisms.
Further,
we can do as much as we
should to convince the international
community about the renewal
that we are embarking on.
But if we are involved in
internecine conflict; if
there’s genocide in
some countries; if there
is proof of individual self
aggrandisement … a
communication strategy will
have no impact.
A
communication strategy needs
to be accompanied by - in
fact reflect - practical
programmes to correct our
weaknesses as a continent.
Among the things that need
to be urgently done is to
ensure that at least journalists
on the continent embrace
the broad consensus that
I referred to earlier. We
should strive to ensure
that they cover developments
on the continent from the
point of view of the interests
of the continent.
This
is not to argue against
freedom of expression or
individual initiative in
reporting and analysis;
but I’m convinced personally
that journalists everywhere
do this: they cover developments
from the point of view of
the interests of their own
people, their own countries
and their own continents.
To
give an example, we asked
our people in GCIS to do
research: When President
Nelson Mandela was abroad,
recently he uttered very
strong remarks about Bosnia
and about Nato regarding
the current military campaign.
Day-in and day-out we have
searched TV news bulletins
on BBC and CNN but couldn’t
find one instance where
those repeated statements
by the President were reflected.
We
are convinced that if the
statements were in support
of Nato, the BBC and CNN
would have reported on them.
They would do this without
being instructed by anyone.
Their approach in the UK
and US newsrooms is that
they are promoting the self-interest
of their people and their
countries at war, whether
that war is right or wrong.
(We are still searching,
but we can’t find any
reference to the President’s
statements.)
One
of the things that may happen
during the course of this
year is the organisation
of a conference of African
journalists to discuss,
among others, precisely
this question of self-interest,
at least judicious self-interest.
In addition, the continent
should strive to have co-ordinated
celebrations of the new
millennium.
Together
we should work to improve
our internal and external
communication as governments
and as societies. Communication
structures have a central
role to play in this, but
it is even more critical
that government as such,
and the public service in
general, are oriented towards
open and transparent discourse
with their own people and
the wider world.
Joel
Netshitenzhe
CEO, GCIS
Issued by Government
Communication and
Information System
(GCIS)
top |
