Implementation of Leadership and Personal Development Planning in South Africa

Introduction

Post-1994, the dream of the masses (previously disadvantaged groups), was a vision of self-governance, prosperity, equality, liberation and a sense of belonging and patriotism. Most of all, the yoke of Apartheid was demolished, it was a new future that held promise, a better life for all. The dream was never fully realized, because inequality is still prevalent, in fact, South Africa is the world record holder in terms of inequality after 25 years of democracy, the small minority is still wealth and the large majority is still enriching the wealthy and is impoverished even further (World Bank, 2018). In fact, Tshishonga and De Vries (2011), describes the thoughts of the nation about the developmental practises and policies as “framed ideologically as opposed to being pragmatically grounded in implementation reality”. A person must admit that some changes occurred on many fronts, not real tangible economic change, which benefit the masses occurred, the most important change that is required is the power that controls the economy, which is still subjected to the domination, management and exploitation of the minority capitalist system (Tshishonga & De Vries, 2011). The success of any policy should be evaluated on its ability to address the majority of needs of the intended target. Addressing the interplay between policy intentions and policy implementation will be the central theme in this chapter. The chapter seeks to highlight what transpires during a policy processes and models in the South African context.

What is Development?

• It is a process that creates growth, progress, positive change or the addition of physical, economic, environmental, social and demographic components. The purpose of development is a rise in the level and quality of life of the population, and the creation or expansion of local regional income and employment opportunities, without damaging the resources of the environment (Gomersall, 2004).
• If it is accepted that development is not just about economic growth, but the promotion of redistribution and the reduction of inequalities, then the value choices involved in such changes are vital and involve important and complex ethical issues (Evans, 2014).

What is Policy?

It is a statement that provides a guide for decision–making by members of the organization charged with the responsibility of operating the organization as a system (Bates & Eldredge, 1980:12).

What is Developmental Policy?

It refers to activities that aim to reduce poverty, implement fundamental rights and promote sustainable development globally (Hieneman et al,1997:14-17).

What is Developmental Policy?

It refers to activities that aim to reduce poverty, implement fundamental rights and promote sustainable development globally (Hieneman et al.,1997:14-17). The literature will critically analyse the core factors that led to the inability of the development policies of the ruling government to deliver on its developmental promises. Developmental theories in existence will be compared to the development policies, theories and activities of the ruling government of the day to make sense of entire development effort with the intention to determine its inadequacies, challenges, successes and failures. The literature hypothesises that significant factors contributed to the inability of the government to develop the country into one of Africa’s greatest.

Hypothesis 1: The wealthy minority has such a hold on the government that it controls its actions and because of this power, they are in a position to dictate to government their wants and wishes (Neo-colonialism).

Hypothesis 2: The lack of leadership capacity that is unable to steer the South African ship according to the wishes of the majority underprivileged masses.

Theories of Development

For the purposes of this literature, four main theories have a direct bearing in terms of the development theories of South Africa. These theories include modernization, dependency, world systems and globalization. Development theories are guidelines for the transformation of the social circumstances of a nation, with the express intent of satisfying the authentic desires, dreams and needs of its citizenry by means of the sensible and sustainable utilization of the natural resources and systems (Reyes, 2001).

The Three Main Characteristics of Modernization

The modernization theory of development is driven by a strong government where different spheres society work together for the common (differentiation of political structure) and secularization of political culture, where the state and religion is distinctly separate, with the specific focus to address inequality, impoverishment and economic growth as opposed to religious focusing on religious norms. The modernization theory seeks to augment the capacity of a society’s political system. Countries in Europe and the USA embarked on such a system with success. This system is rooted in capitalism (Reyes, 2001). This theory is a failure in developing countries, the Brandt Commission (1980), was established under the auspices of the United Nations in 1977, which found that development based on modernity failed due to the fact that the masses did not benefit. Reid (1995: 47-48) went a step further and proclaimed that it led to “starvation and despair” of the masses. South Africa is following in this path, although it must be said that modernisation has not led to starvation, improvements on a mass scale are not visible in South Africa (Matunhu, 2011).

Dependency Theory

The dependency theory concentrates on the development of domestic markets, the industrial and agricultural sector is viewed an important sector for development in order to improve worker’s income and ineffectual government is required to drive national development environments in order to enhance standards of living (Reyes, 2001).The issue is that Europe and other global countries are using this model in Africa, thus, industrialism and agriculture, provide work, but it is these other countries that are in control of these sectors and thus, are the beneficiaries of this model, this phenomenon is especially true of South Africa seen from the background that most of the countries’ riches are under control of the minority capitalists (World Bank, 2018). This situation was brought about colonialism, one can then say that colonialism is alive and well in Africa and South Africa, just with another name called neo-colonialism (meaning, a country indirectly under control of another country). Stoneman and Suckling (1987), states categorically that South Africa went from Apartheid to Neo-colonialism.

World Systems Theory

In the world systems theory, the world economy is the central figure as a means of development (Reyes, 2001). South Africa did not benefit from the world economy, in fact, South Africa is slipping down a slippery road in terms of the economy, unemployment rate increase year-on-year (DuToit, De Witte, Rothmann & Van den Broeck, 2018).

Globalisation Theory

The globalisation theory, as with all the other development theories propose that implementation of these theories will bring about much-needed development, which benefits the underprivileged masses, all these theories have their own distinctive character which is a means to gain the desired result and has delivered positive outcomes and these theories are not meant as a standalone feature that delivers

Positive outcomes. Theories are developed and become outdated as time pass and are replaced by newer theories are developed and it evolves as time pass (Shareia, 2015). These theories have its criticism, but more important is the correct implementation that produces results, sees Appendix, Table 1. In terms of South Africa, the implementation of development theories is not the problem, it is deeper than that, it is more complex. One could say the leadership vacuum developed after the death of Nelson Mandela, as mentioned previously in the literature, a lack of leadership capacity and the other barrier, minority capitalist that control the government. Policy-making process are non-linear and in some instances up to eight stages are identified, such as indicated by Hayes; Peter Bridgman and Glyn Davis’s. The stages comprise of: Issue identification, Policy analysis, Policy instrument development, Consultation (which permeates the entire process), Coordination, Decision, Implementation and Evaluation. Barkensbus (1998:2) indicates only four stages in the policy cycle, which includes agenda setting; policy formulation; policy implementation and policy evaluation with a feedback loop.

The Power Clusters focus on the groups as the sources of power in the policy-making process. It describes the roles that groups play as the central role and underestimation of the roles played by institutions and public officials. This model is not quite different from the Iron Triangle because both of them place emphasis on group power. The success of these group models depend on the forums that would ensure that interaction takes place to facilitate debates which would largely depend on institutional arrangements, for instance members of a particular portfolio committee would wield more power when they sit in commissions where policy pertaining to their field has to be developed regarding their line function.

Top-Down and Bottom-Up Planning

The Top-Down models as indicated by Mazmanian and Sabatier (1983:20); Brynard and Erasmus (1995:169); and Sabatier (1986) in Cloete and Wissink (2008:187) view implementation actions of officials and target groups to be in line with the goals embodied in the authoritative decision which is located at the central level of government. Where policy at that level should take decisions to address the following: To what extent were the action of policy implementers in keeping with the objective and procedure of a policy? To what extent were the objectives of the policy realised within a specified period? Which major factors affected policy outputs and impacts? How was the policy reformulated in order to make it more effective? (Cloete and Wissink, 2008:187).

The national authority which could be the cabinet is best placed to pass laws, statutes and regulations that are most relevant to produce the desired results and address the questions raised above. Mazmanian and Sabatier (1989) in Matland (1995:146) argue that the probability of successful implementation is dependent on: (1) tractability of the problem, (2) ability of statute to structure implementation, and (3) non-statutory variables affecting implementation. One such variable could be the political landscape at play, extreme stinginess or the reluctance to spend money on programs that could be viewed as unfruitful expenditure. Those who propound top-down models tend to propagate policies that could be generalized, that exhibit patterns and have variables that could be manipulated at the top, Matland (1995:146). It is believed that by making policy goals clear and consistent; limiting the extent of change that is necessary; minimizing the number of actors and placing implementation in the agency that is sympathetic with the goals of the policy, will improve chances of successful implementation.

However, Matland (1995:147) points out that there are several challenges associated with this model to policy implementation, such as the strong desire to generalize. This would require that consistent recognisable behaviour patterns across different policy arenas should be found. The conventional top-down models on social policy should take into account the interest and needs of the community; the value system and the political factors that influence the perception on policy. As a consequence, top-down models usually lack details on current and future social and cultural options which may be relevant for an appropriate assessment of social policy proposal. According to Matland (1995:147) three sets of criticisms are levelled against top-down models to policy implementation, namely: Taking the statutory language as their starting point. This fails to take into account the contribution of actions taken earlier in the policymaking process which might constitute barriers to implementation process if not carefully studied. Their views of implementation as an administrative process and thereby ignoring the political implications associated with the policy process. Their insistence of clarity; formulation of rules that could be traced back to Max Weber‘s view on bureaucracy and the separation of politics from administration, could lead to the proponents of this model in trying to insulate a subject that is in itself embedded in politics, to be apolitical. Their over-reliance on the statute as key actors without recognising the contributions made by local actors. Local actors are merely seen as impediments to successful implementation and need to be controlled. In reality it becomes very difficult to control other agents in the policy cycle because the implementers have knowledge of the community for which the policy was developed, and that gives them an edge to modify the policy and thereby becomes street level bureaucrats.

The Bottom–Up Approach Planning

There is a belief that to realistically understand implementation it would be best if policy could be viewed from the targeted beneficiary’s point of view as well as the impact that the policy has on it. It should be borne in mind that implementation takes place centrally, e.g. where the National government would centralize programs and determine how the program would be managed. According to Matland (1995:146) this process of centralising policy management is called macro-implementation. The macro-implementation of policy would require clear rules and regulations; clear time lines; clear measures to evaluate the impact of policy which would be ideal in situations where bureaucratic control could be exercised. In the case where the administration is big with varied value systems and political tensions, the macro-implementations process would be exposed to exploitation and sabotage if the implementers are not in favour of the proposed policy, as they are expected to react to the macro-level plans. These reactions of local implementers could result in variations in the interpretation of the central plan.

When centrally planned programs are to be implemented at a local level and also on a large scale, environmental dynamics should be accounted for. Local implementers are members of their community; they are influenced by a local institutional setting, and they would develop their own programs to be implemented because they have local knowledge. Matland (1995:146) argues that contextual factors are found in the environment within which the macro-implementation takes place and determine what actually gets implemented; in the process altering rules.

Capitalist Dominance (Neo-Colonialism)

South Africa has never rid itself of external powers, it can be said that the country has political power and no economic power, the power (capital) is in the hands of external powers, they have the overall controlling power and they maintain the status quo. In 2006, the former President, Thabo Mbeki warned about neo-colonial development that was implemented by the North on the South (Ajalu, 2001). An example today is the China influence on the one hand; China is viewed as the “big” investor in Africa, but reading between the lines, then one realises it is just maintenance of Chinese dominion over Africa of which South Africa forms part of. On the other hand, white monopoly capitalist (1% of the population) rule since they own 70.9 percent of the country’s wealth (World Bank, 2018). Seen from this background it is clear that external forces control the country’s economy and thus is the barrier to development. An opposing view of monopoly capital controlling the economy comes from political analyst Moloeketsi Mbeki where he states that it is a notion of the ruling governing party to use this rhetoric to hide its own failures, Mbeki claims that only a handful (100 000) individuals, which he refers to as the ruling elite make up this group and thus, if they are in control economically then they are also politically in control and that is not democracy and the ruling party cannot allow the messes to know that they are not in control. Furthermore, he added that that is a good number of black people in that elitist group (Gqirana, 2016). This narrative suggests that the developmental efforts of the government expanded elitist capture of government. Brazil serves as an example where the agribusiness forms the elitist group, which is “imbedded” in the government so much so that benefits derived by this group has a subsequent negative impact on inequality and rising farmers are neglected due to the fact that more resources are available for the benefit of the elitists. These conditions create barriers to development (Karriem & Hoskins, 2016). Evans (1995) posits that South Africa consists of three key elements pertaining to development. He calls South Africa a developmental state, predatory and an intermediate state, thus the country show development, in this case, the country complies to the tenets of development, thus circumstances exist where projects are delivered effectively and efficiently, in the case of the predatory state, elitist capture the state and since there is no complete control of development, it is referred to as an intermediate state (Evans, 1995).

Lack of Leadership Capacity

When we look at the history of the development process, it is marred by ineffective leadership, hence the country started off with the Redistribution and development plan in 1994, this plan was abandoned due to its failure to develop a new plan. The Growth, Employment and Redistribution (Gear) was born. Gear made way for the plan we have today, the National Development plan started in 2012, the vision of this plan is for 2030, thus it may be too early to comment on this plan. However, looking back at past experiences, it is hard to have faith that this plan will succeed (Moyo & Mamobolo, 2014). The development plans, on paper, was deemed as great, however, the problem is not the plans, but the inability to use strategy to successfully implement and drive it to its conclusion (Gomersall, 2004). The measure of success of a government is the perspectives of its citizenry and the current perspectives are not good (Lodge, 2014).

Conclusion

South Africa is known for developing great plans, but implementation breakdowns are common. The other characteristic is that the strategy applied to implement these plans lack capacity and in other cases, the viability of plans are discovered after the implementation process. This show a lack of understanding of development plans. Secondly, barriers are recognised at a later stage and are not dealt with, in simple terms, leadership capacity lack. Then Neo-colonialism has a hold on power and they exert this power to maintain control over the development of South Africa. The ideal is to have a capable strong leadership that is willing and able to steer the South African ship during troubled times and see it through.