We have detected that the browser you are using is no longer supported. As a result, some content may not display correctly.
We suggest that you upgrade to the latest version of any of the following browsers:
close notification
Date
: 25/05/2005
Source: T Mbeki: The Presidency
Title: Mbeki: The Presidency Dept Budget Vote 2005/2006
Speech of the President of the Republic of South Africa,
Thabo Mbeki, on the occasion of the Budget Vote of The Presidency:
National Assembly, Cape Town
Madame Speaker and Deputy Speaker
Deputy President of the Republic
Honourable leaders of our political parties and Honourable Members
of Parliament
Ministers and Deputy Ministers
Directors General, Advisers and Senior Officials
Distinguished guests, friends and comrades
The Chief Whip of the Majority Party, the Hon Mbulelo Goniwe, has
informed me that we have in the gallery a delegation from Cradock,
the hometown of the outstanding patriot, the Rev James Calata. I am
pleased to welcome them to the House and this debate. I hope that
their presence in the National Assembly will help them to gain a
better understanding of the important work done by the Honourable
Members and inspire them actively to act with our National
Parliament in future.
Today, May 25th, is Africa Day, which many of the peoples of our
continent have marked for over four decades as a public holiday, to
honour the establishment of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU)
in 1963 and celebrate the African dream. I am therefore pleased to
take advantage of this opportunity to convey our best wishes and a
message of solidarity to our fellow Africans everywhere, including
those in the Diaspora.
The establishment of the OAU 42 years ago constituted an important
statement that the peoples of Africa share a common destiny. This
inclusive intergovernmental institution was charged with the
responsibility to promote the unity of our continent and lead us on
the long road to the total liberation of Africa, and its successful
development in conditions of peace, stability and democratic
rule.
In this context, we would like to reiterate our thanks to the
peoples of our continent for their unwavering support for our
struggle to end the apartheid crime against humanity and achieve
our liberation.
Once again, we would also like to thank our fellow African Heads of
State and Government for giving us the honour to host the Founding
Conference of the African Union (AU) during the year of the 90th
Anniversary of the oldest liberation movement on our continent, the
African National Congress (ANC).
Africa has charged the AU with the task to take the work of the OAU
to a higher level. By linking its establishment in 2002 with the
founding of the ANC nine decades earlier, Africa’s leaders
made the statement that as our continent had united to realise its
total liberation, so would it use this historic achievement to
unite and address the challenges of peace, democracy, development
and ending Africa’s marginalisation among the community of
nations.
The holding of the Founding Conference of the AU in our country
also underlined both that we share a common future with the rest of
our continent, and that we have a responsibility to contribute
whatever we can, towards the realisation of the new goals that
Africa has set itself, as reflected in the Constitutive Act of the
AU.
These goals constitute a directive to the contemporary African
state. They underline the fact that the state is not an end in
itself, but a social institution established to carry out various
tasks. Our own Constitution also serves this purpose.
On the role of The Presidency and the Executive, this Constitution
says, “The President is Head of State and head of the
national executive ... The executive authority of the Republic is
vested in the President. The President exercises the executive
authority, together with the other members of the Cabinet by ...
(among other things), developing and implementing national
policy.”
Because of these constitutional provisions and the actual
imperatives we face, we would like to dedicate this address on the
Budget Vote of The Presidency to the issue of the role of the state
in our process of reconstruction and development. We do this fully
mindful of the need to maintain the necessary and dynamic balance
between the state and the private sector.
Our presentation will include some reflections on what we have to
do to position the state so that it contributes effectively to the
realisation of the goals of building a winning nation, pushing back
the frontiers of poverty and ensuring a better life for all.
The efforts of the Executive in this regard will be greatly
enriched by such contributions as the Honourable Members and our
National Legislature as a whole may make, both during the
discussion of the Budget Vote of The Presidency, and
afterwards.
The 17 May 2005 edition of the Financial Times, published eight
days ago, carried an article discussing the issue of the role of
the state, drawing on recent and current developments in Latin
America. Among other things it said:
“The role of the state – which policymakers were trying
to cut back for most of the 1990s – is undergoing a rethink
... There is now pressure for the state to play a bigger role
...
“There is a growing belief that the public sector should be
strengthened and work in harness with the private sector. In its
own study, the IMF concluded that ‘an improved and strategic
role of the state is essential. Corruption and weak governance in
Latin America have tended to undermine market activity, with the
resulting burden falling heavily on the poor’.”
Most interestingly, the Financial Times quoted one of the principal
architects of the so-called Washington Consensus, John Williamson,
which had set the stage for the reduction of the role of the state,
in favour of the market, as saying:
“I’m not an enthusiast for the minimum state. You
can’t get away from the fact that it has to play a more
active role, but I don’t see an alternative
ideology.”
Recognising the critical importance of this issue, the World Bank
devoted its 1997 World Development Report to the topic, “The
State in a Changing World”. After discussing various
developments up to that point, leading to a reduction of the role
of the state, the World Bank said:
“Many have felt that the logical end point of all these
reforms was a minimalist state. Such a state would do no harm, but
neither could it do much good. The Report explains why this extreme
view is at odds with the evidence of the world’s development
success stories, be it the development of today’s industrial
economies in the nineteenth century or the post war
‘miracles’ of East Asia. Far from supporting a
minimalist approach to the state, these examples have shown that
development requires an effective state, one that plays a
catalytic, facilitating role, encouraging and complementing the
activities of private businesses and individuals. Certainly,
state-dominated development has failed. But so has stateless
development – a message that comes through all too clearly in
the agonies of people in collapsed states such as Liberia and
Somalia. History has repeatedly shown that good government is not a
luxury but a vital necessity. Without an effective state,
sustainable development, both economic and social, is
impossible.”
From the very beginning of the democratic order, we recognised the
fact emphasised by the World Bank, that our “development
requires an effective state” and that “without an
effective state, sustainable development, both economic and social,
(in our country) is impossible.”
Commenting on this issue on 30 June 1999, and speaking from this
rostrum, we said that the poor in our country, the disempowered,
require a strong state to redress the imbalance of power that
derives from our history and the fact that we have a relatively
well-developed capitalist system.
The Financial Times article, to which we have referred, said the
burden arising from corruption and weak governance in Latin America
has “(fallen) heavily on the poor.” Similarly, we
argued in 1999 that a minimal state in our case would further
increase the burden of poverty and marginalisation already carried
by the poor of our country.
Specifically we said, “Behind all the words we have quoted,
is the fundamental idea that everything must be left to the great
leveller, the market, which is driven by the notion that 'self
regarding interest is predominant over social interest', as Jeremy
Bentham put it.
“In our own specific situation, what this means is that those
who are fittest to survive will survive. Those who are best abled
will qualify on the basis of merit. Those whose race defined them
as sub-human must now have no access to state support which state
must, after all, retreat to allow those who have the means to
survive and dominate, dominate.”
Our development model therefore includes the fundamental
proposition that we need a strong state to achieve the sustainable
social and economic development to which the World Bank referred.
This is as true of our country as it is of all other African
countries and other developing nations.
Given the serious development challenges we confront, focused on
ending poverty and underdevelopment and the racial and gender
disparities in our country, as well as bridging the development gap
between ourselves and the countries of the North, we have thought
it necessary that we undertake a critical assessment of the
organisation and capacity of our democratic state.
When we delivered the State of the Nation Address earlier this
year, we announced that we had asked our Forum of South African
Directors-General (FOSAD) to carry out this work. As the Honourable
Members are aware, earlier this month the Cabinet discussed the
FOSAD Report at a meeting attended by Deputy Ministers, Premiers
and the national and provincial Directors-General, and asked FOSAD
to do more work on this issue.
Reflecting the challenges we face, given our history and therefore
the legacy that democratic South Africa inherited, our Constitution
prescribes that the democratic state has to pursue such objectives
as:
* healing the divisions of the past;
* ensuring our unity in diversity;
* guaranteeing the equality of all our people across racial, gender
and other divides;
* protecting the dignity and freeing the potential of each
person;
* improving the quality of life of our people; and * ensuring
social justice for all.
Necessarily, the review of the functioning of the democratic state
must assess whether it is organised and has the capacity to carry
out these tasks. Success in this regard is fundamental to the very
stability and viability of the democratic state and is therefore
being addressed by the FOSAD process as one of its most critical
challenges.
Having achieved our liberation some time after the liberation of
all African countries, with the exception of Western Sahara, we
have the advantage that we can learn from our continent’s
experience, to understand the importance of respecting the
constitutional goals we have listed, to ensure the stability and
viability of our democratic state.
The passage from the Report of the World Bank, which we cited,
mentioned the reality of failed states, such as Liberia and
Somalia. This must focus our attention on the failure in these
countries to address the centrifugal tensions that ultimately led
to the seemingly irreconcilable conflicts that caused the collapse
of these states. Nothing that is happening or has happened in our
country suggests that our new democracy is threatened by such an
eventuality. Indeed, many at home and abroad have noted the
remarkable national cohesion we have achieved despite our past and
continuing reality of deep-seated racial, gender and socio-economic
divisions.
However, this should not serve as cause for complacency. There are
various matters that arise as part of our daily reality, which
indicate the fault lines that can emerge and generate conflicts
that we do not need.
I refer here to such issues as:
* the few demonstrations we have seen in some of our
municipalities, apparently driven by feelings among some among the
poor that so far, the democratic order has failed them;
* the political mobilisation based on the assertion that the
democratic order is focused on denying the Afrikaner people their
identity and legitimate rights; and,
* attempts to mobilise the Zulu-speaking people on the false basis
that they share so-called ‘national interests’
different from the interests of other South Africans.
We can say with confidence that none of these instances present any
immediate danger to our democracy. But they do reflect and seek to
exploit the class and nationality fault lines we inherited from our
past, which, if ever they took root, gaining genuine popular
support, would pose a threat to the stability of democratic South
Africa.
I mention all these to make the point that one of the tasks of the
FOSAD process is to address the capacity of the democratic state to
ensure our national and social cohesion, consistent with the
prescriptions in our Constitution, and the fundamental task to
build a democratic South Africa that belongs to all our people,
united in their diversity.
In this regard, bearing in mind our involvement in the process of
Africa’s renewal, we must mention that it is clear that the
peace and stability the peoples of Africa seek has to be based on
the national and social cohesion we strive to guarantee for
ourselves.
The absence or weakness of this cohesion gives an impetus to the
centrifugal tendencies to which we have referred. Understandably,
these will be stronger in the national states created by
colonialism, and kept together in the past by the power of
repression exercised by the colonial power, an experience shared by
almost all the African states.
Africa’s search for peace and stability, and therefore the
creation of the necessary conditions for development, means that
Africa and the AU should consciously confront this challenge. Our
own support for Africa’s process of renewal means that we
must develop the skill and sensitivity to work with our sister
African countries to achieve such social and national cohesion in
all the countries of Africa.
The experience in many of the countries in which we are and have
been involved directly confirms the correctness of these
conclusions. Among others, this relates to the Comoros, Burundi,
the Democratic Republic of Congo, C