Cabinet reshuffles are reductive

The reshuffling of Cabinet has traditionally within the ANC been aimed at consolidation of power and maintaining the balance of forces within the tripartite alliance. However, in recent years it has been used by presidents as a mechanism to neutralise political rivals within the party.

At the peak of the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture, some political analysts and political parties attempted to put forward the apolitical ideal that cadre deployment was redundant and must be done away with.

David Maimela, founder and executive director of The Polisee Space, a public policy think-tank and consulting firm, correctly responded that to suggest one can “de-politise the state, was quite naive, misleading and shows lack of understanding of basic public policy concepts and statecraft”. I agree.

Maimela further stated that legitimate concerns around the process of selection and quality of the cadres deployed by political parties must not make us think we can do without deployment.

However, the limitation of Maimela’s argument was excluding the embedded political interests in cadre deployment.

From 2009 onwards, the reshuffling of Cabinet has created a distinct separation between departments considered to be a priority. It is a balancing act between the interests of party, president and state that informs the political and economic trajectory.

ALSO READ: Drastic change not something our president is known for

As a result, over the years we have witnessed the political battleground to be the finance, mineral resources and energy and public enterprises departments. Then there are those departments that although inherently political rely more on what Maimela identified as a more rigorous process of selection, such as the departments of international relations and cooperation and health.

At the far end of the spectrum are what I term the “politically dormant ministers”. These appointments fall into two categories: politically neutral or allies of the president. These are peace offering appointments or tokens of appreciation.

The president’s conscious trade-offs between party and state interests has had a huge impact on the poor and working class who are dependent on these ministers to deliver on their mandates.

For example, we must ask why does Basic Education Minister Angie Motshekga survive reshuffles despite her questionable track record?

The damning Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (Pirls) report alone ought to have been enough for President Cyril Ramaphosa’s predecessor to relieve her of her duties. In the case of Ramaphosa, the Pirls report, the haphazard handling of Covid and the damning findings of the 2030 Reading Panel Report ought to have been sufficient to relieve Motshekga of her duties.

So we must ask: whose interests does she serve? Are they that of the party, president or state? And why are we so lenient in holding the president to account for his political appointments?

ALSO READ: Cabinet reshuffle: Cosatu cautions against recycling of incompetent ministers

The answer I believe is simple. Collectively, we have allowed political analysts to reduce the scope of Cabinet reshuffling to the perceived centres of power.

This feeds a false narrative of security, political stability and overall well-being. This fails to account to the average South African who is dependent on departments such as basic education to deliver quality education.

In order for the state to operate effectively and efficiently, all portfolios demand equal attention and a rigorous process of selection.

-Maqwelane is a PhD candidate at Rhodes University