JENNY CARGILL: Super-presidency, or souped-up delivery?

As the new administration finds its footing, the increasing concentration of authority within the presidency has sparked considerable debate.

Critics argue that this shift reflects the emergence of a “super-presidency,” fuelling calls from the opposition for a dedicated parliamentary oversight committee. However, supporters praise the presidency’s focus on delivery and tangible outcomes, as exemplified by the Operation Vulindlela unit.

Adding to the complexity is an unusual partnership with the private sector, which has drawn both praise and criticism. This trend is not unique to SA; it mirrors a broader international phenomenon. 

Across the globe centres of government, such as a president’s office, are assuming oversight of functions traditionally managed by government departments. This shift is not without controversy, but is gaining traction due to several factors. 

We are living in unprecedented times, marked by urgent demands for change. The transition from an industrial to a technological era is occurring against the backdrop of a looming existential crisis for the planet and escalating geopolitical tensions. New models of organisation and production are essential, and governments worldwide are struggling to keep pace.

It is challenging to articulate coherent policies suited to a rapidly changing, uncertain future. Equally difficult is developing the organisational agility necessary to deliver effective results in this environment.

The pressure on governments to be more results orientated is not new. Various responses have emerged, but none has been as appealing as the delivery approach initiated by Tony Blair in the UK. As British prime minister Blair established a dedicated unit to oversee and intervene in the implementation of a select set of priorities, setting a precedent that continues to influence governance models today.

This is what is unfolding in the presidency of Cyril Ramaphosa. There are several critical priorities that have been centralised under the presidency’s project management office, which oversees Operation Vulindlela, the national energy crisis committee, the national logistics crisis committee, the Just Energy Transition Investment Plan and employment programmes, among others.

This delivery approach has proven effective in various contexts. In developed, well-resourced governments it enhances performance, especially in areas requiring complex, cross-cutting co-ordination, while also integrating “data for action” systems that enable timely problem-solving and decision-making. In contrast, less resourced or failing states often emphasise accomplishing tasks that should be routine.

SA finds itself somewhere between these extremes. The state’s deteriorating delivery systems have entrenched poor work habits, inadequate capabilities and ineffective cultures. As a result even basic tasks require enormous effort. On the other hand, there are pockets of effective delivery that are being leveraged to improve outcomes.

SA is also distinguishing itself through innovative partnerships, notably with business, aimed at addressing delivery failures. While this is a global trend, SA serves as a unique test case, particularly for low- to middle-income countries that grapple with governance and economic challenges but possess external expertise that can be harnessed to support state delivery, over and above the conventional contractual arrangements, such as public-private partnerships. 

The business partnership focuses on the three areas of crisis — in energy, logistics and crime — and offers a range of support. Some aspects are straightforward, such as funding and deploying expertise, while others are more complex, particularly when policy, strategy and planning enter the mix.

The national energy cisis committee was tasked with ending load-shedding, a challenge requiring the implementation of reform measures in the absence of a cohesive reform policy. Those involved likened this task to “repairing and redesigning a plane in mid-flight,” highlighting the need to blend day-to-day problem-solving with the introduction of longer term reforms.

There is much that cannot be anticipated. For example, lifting the regulatory limit on private generation in renewables had the unintended consequence of constraining grid access and with that the public procurement programme, which functions according to different rules and at a different pace.   

This scenario is not unique to SA; many governments face similar challenges where the ideal sequence of policy development followed by implementation is increasingly unattainable. The intertwining of these processes raises the risk of allowing specific interests to exert disproportionate influence over policy formulation, and therefore requires careful management. 

This brings us to the issue of parliamentary oversight of the presidency. There is a strong case for ensuring that the presidency’s interventions achieve their intended outcomes. Effective oversight requires robust assessment measures. However, as my colleague in Argentina, Martin Alessandra, notes in his co-authored book The Centre of Government Revisited, there are “methodological challenges to accurately measuring the true impact ... of the organisation and practices of the centres of government.” He emphasises the need for a careful approach to such measurement. 

What is not needed is the conventional public sector performance measurement, where real outcomes are often avoided and critical intangibles — centred on leadership, competencies and work cultures — are overlooked precisely because they are difficult to quantify.

The delivery approach spearheaded by the project management office in our presidency has been effective because these intangibles are allowed to flourish. Risk-taking, flexibility, responsiveness and the ability to co-ordinate complex, criss-crossing relationships and organisations are the lifeblood of its success.

It is crucial not to stifle this dynamic approach with the usual institutional mechanisms to which governments are accustomed. The challenge for governments is therefore to find institutional accommodation of these special organisational responses, rather than co-opting them into the existing frameworks that are ill-suited to the era ahead.

• Cargill is CEO of Strategy Execution Advisers and author of ‘Trick or Treat, Rethinking Black Economic Empowerment’.