Building professionalism and competence in the public sector by Minister for the Public Service and Administration Ms Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi at the sixth Service Delivery Learning Academy in Kempton Park, Ekurhuleni

On June this year saw two events unfolding. Although they may seem to be unrelated to most, the events were actually connected in terms of the issue of trust in public service and government. This trust pertains not only to citizens' relationship with government, but also collegial trust within and across the ranks of public servants, as well as trust between public servants and the Executive.

Whereas previously we might have referred to some of these issues almost in a philosophical and abstract manner, these events have very real consequences that can be either positive or negative. As will be shown, they definitely impact on development and what we can do to alleviate the plight of our citizens, particularly those who are most reliant on the state for their well-being. They undeniably impact on the culture and quality of the public service work environment.

Let me turn to these events I am referring to:

Over a period of almost a month in June, we experienced a national public service strike, a strike which, on the one hand, was about public service employees exercising their constitutionally protected right to strike, a right that we have always respected and are keen to continue respecting within the framework of our democracy. On the other hand though, it was a strike which had ample examples of how the exercise of the rights by some, especially if the boundaries of those rights are pushed and exceeded, does impact negatively on the rights of others. After all, different rights and responsibilities cohabit in the same democratic space and they are bound to one another.

Without going into a detailed analysis of the strike, we have to acknowledge the fact that, whilst unfolding, with or without the approval of union leadership, intimidation of fellow workers and the public did happen. In addition, public services, in some instances even essential public services, were denied to members of the public. In other instances, this resulted in the loss of life of critically sick people and in other instances, medication impacting on long-term health were not available, which over time might have an effect on preserving health.

Education was withheld from our children. Overall confidence in the stability of our economy and overall system was damaged. But more so, fear was instilled in fellow workers and sometimes the public. Given the size of the public service and the effect the national strike had on the economy, for weeks it filled the public discourse and newspaper pages. It catapulted discussions around the public service, ordinarily not regarded as a hot topic. At the start, there was significant public sympathy with public servants and particularly those in the public service professions in sectors such as health, education and criminal justice.

However, as intimidation and violence mounted and access to public services was denied to the population at large, the sympathy moved away and the public's negative perceptions of public servants resurfaced and became re-enforced. A look at some of the newspaper headlines during the period tells the story:
On 17 May (at the time unions decided to take strike action) government was criticised for what was described as an "unrealistic" offer and many newspaper articles clearly favoured a position of significantly higher pay for public servants, linking pay to performance.

On 6 June (early days of strike) a number of headlines pointed to the tensions emerging amongst labour unions, e.g. "When a just cause leads to injustice" (Pretoria News Editorial, "Principal backs strike but slams brutal teachers" (The Star), "Violence lashes nobility of strike" (Sowetan Editorial). On 13 June, the Sowetan maintained its sympathetic coverage, stating that "Union strikes are a last resort by desperate workers," and Pretoria News referred to the courts' decision on granting unions the right to embark on sympathy strikes as a "victory for workers."

On 20 June, even a fairly radical media commentator such as Christine Qunta started to pull from the violent tone of the strike, writing in The Star: "How quickly they turned violent," and in the Pretoria News "Strike should be disruptive, not deadly." By 21 June, the Sowetan demanded in an editorial: "Teach, don't cheat the future," and by 25 June it punts its service under the headline: "We help the victims of Public Sector strike."

By 26 June one headline screamed: "Cosatu plays politics with wage offers," and non-striking Home Affairs officials' story is carried under the headline "We fear for our lives." By 29 June the strike is over and the question is asked: "Now that it's ended, was it really worth it?" and reference is made to the fact that nobody actually won much. One of the papers chose to carry a story under the headline "The job Sister Mpumi loves has turned into a well of bitterness." This was about a professional nurse. This process of creeping disenchantment of the public with public servants as a general category of workers, and the breach of trust within the ranks of public servants are in a way the most damaging and will have the longest impact.

The second event related (though not very directly) to the one I just briefly highlighted took place during the last week of June in Vienna, Austria. It was the 7th Global Forum on Reinventing Government. This year the focus of the discussions was on "Building trust in Government," a theme the organisers considered as of critical importance after it became clear that trust in Government is generally dwindling across the world, notwithstanding clear evidence that there are close associations between higher levels of trust in the institutions of government and development.

In preparation of the Global Forum, the Africa region met and one of the conclusions of that meeting was that government performance is more than likely the single most important factor that influences trust in governance arrangements in a country. Public servants as a collective are therefore logically at the centre of the future of African countries and their people, and that they carry an immense responsibility. If they perform and deliver public services to the people effectively, trust will grow in government institutions. However, by not performing and not delivering public services, they create a slippery slope through which citizens lose their belief in the institutions of governance, paving the way for instability and chaos.

Central in the equation to government performance is obviously competence and professionalism of our public servants. More critically, how does these relate back to the discussion on trust and the undermining of trust and the consequences thereof? As the twenty first century begins, there is broad agreement that public sector managers must be specialists by training and application and professionals by temperament and commitment.

According to the authors Richard Green, Gary Wamsley and Lawrence Keller in their article, "Reconstituting a Profession for American Public Administration", public service professionals will demonstrate "sound moral insight and judgment in their decisions, and exhibit integrity and commitment in institutional missions". Such government officials are involved in a calling to profess and serve public values. The authors argue that university education should focus on development as institutional leaders, while technical competencies in terms of professional management should still be retained.

De Hoog and Whitaker, two American researchers who studied city and county managers in the state of Florida, have identified expertise as the essential characteristic of professionalism in virtually all undertakings, but they also argue that managers must supplement their use of expertise with three specific public service values. These would automatically distinguish public sector managers from their private sector counterparts. First, they suggest there must be an acceptance of democratic values, and therefore the legitimacy of elected officials, with a corollary decrease in individual autonomy as a value. Secondly, there must be an ethic of responsibility to the public at large. And finally, a respect for the expertise of other professionals is required.

In my view, these are not only requirements for public managers, but for all layers of public servants. With the wisdom of hindsight and the history clearly made in June, we need to reflect critically as to how the image of professionalism for public servants has been undermined given the above requirements.

The two June events referred to above highlight the importance for us to raise the level of discussion around the ethics we as a relatively young democratic public administration want to embrace. In a classical sense, we need to establish a public service ethical community. Such an ethical community is not necessarily one in which we all will agree on issues such as the boundaries of our freedoms, or the extent of our obligation to the common good.

We are obliged to reflect on the effect of recent events in various forums and work out how we are going to restore trust within our own ranks and between us and the public we are intent to serve professionally and competently. How are we going to restore respect between us as professionals when we threatened or were threatened with life or limb during the strike action? How do we restore the image of professionalism and the value base of placing people first in our ranks, where two months ago we stooped as low as kicking over the wheelchairs of the physically disabled and infirm or prevented learners from writing their exams and tests in an atmosphere conducive to academic work?

NB: This is an abridged version of the speech delivered by Minister Fraser-Moleketi.

Issued by: Department of Public Service and Administration
15 August 2007