Is government
able to hold officials accountable?
Yes,
those in public office are sufficiently held accountable to the public. Firstly
it is utmost important that one should understand the values and
principles of democracy when discussing public matters within a democratic
state. However, it is also essential that one should understand that
South Africa is under the supervision of a democratic form of government where
accountability is regarded as the golden concept that no one can be against.
Having understood the roles and responsibilities hold by government officials
in all different levels of government and how they are mandated to work in the
public office.
Those in public offices understands very well that they have
been elected or voted into public office, simply to represent the public. They
themselves have the obligation and roles to perform while ensuring that
public’s needs are being championed by the government. Because these people are
public representatives, which means they are anticipated to be trustworthy
towards the public and ensuring transparency in everything they does that
concerns the public. However, it is of no doubt that under a democratic state
and as far as South African political context is concern, those who hold public
office are held accountable.
It is the traditional principles of democracy that those who
hold public office must be held accountable for their wrong goings.
Nevertheless, in many instances ministers and heads of government departments
often use the privilege of being in the public office to milk the money of the
public and enrich themselves and their families. Some of them they commit
maladministration and improper conduct by certificating their relatives and
friends into a public positions. To concretize this phrase on the basic
foundation of a democratic system of government, I therefore, get the sense
that accountability is necessary and it cannot be demolish in the country that
uses democracy as form government. Unlike in an autocratic form of government
where power is over used towards the public.
It is the right and responsibility of the public to ensure
that those who have committed misconduct in the public offices are dealt with
decisively so as to account for their dirty deeds. In a contemporary political
discourse even the head of state is expected to be held accountable when he or
she commits misconduct. Knowing precisely that the head of state elects
ministers and other heads of government departments. Now this might rises
questions, or sometimes one can try to argue to say, how the head of state can
be held accountable when found doing or done wrong doings. For example
violating the constitution of the country. Definitely the answer is yes, it is
possible that even the president is held accountable, because that’s the reason
South Africa has the constitutional court, which part of it is to deal with
matters of accountability in the president towards its citizens.
Few years ago, the Mail & Guardian newspaper reported
that South African president, Jacob Zuma, built his private house in Nkandla in
the outskirts of Kwazulu-Natal with the state money. Moreover, this is to say
the president was found committed misconduct prior to his obligation in the
public office. In other words public’s rights has been violated in this case,
and therefore accountability must be applied in order to maintain the integrity
of the system of government, democracy in South Africa. And that was exactly
what had happened to him, he has to be compelled to pay back the money which
was stolen from the taxation of the public. Even though sometime it seems a bit
difficult to make those who hold public offices to account, but prior to the
constitution of the country accountability is nonnegotiable.
Another example, this year, the deputy minister of Higher
Education and Training, Mduduzi Manana, was reported by the Eye Witness News to
have assaulted a women. Him being the public figure and having done wrong
before the eyes of the public, such act definitely tested the reality of the
South African law enforcement in terms of the accountability as enshrined in
chapter 10 of the 1996 constitution of the republic of South Africa.
The government itself had to take a firm decision against
him and found him guilty for assault. In addition to this, he himself came to a
realisation that he had wrong the public and thereby he decided to apologise
publicly to the entire nation. Meanwhile he saw the need to resign from the
public office, because he misrepresented the public by his action. This story
somehow shows that in South Africa the government tries to hold government
officials accountable in a procedural manner.
Nevertheless, accountability has become an icon for good
governance in both the public and private sector. In the recent years The
Citizens Newspaper found that, Hlaudi Motsoeneng, the former SABC COO has
constituted maladministration and improper conduct, this come after he was
found having occupied the SABC COO position illegally. The SABC being one of
the public institution which is designed to educate the masses of South Africa,
was in the hand of an unqualified COO. This case had to be taken to High court
and to the public protector to investigate, reason being, this institution
involves the public more than an individual. However, Hlaudi Motsoeneng had to
account for his wrong doings. He was then removed from the office as COO of the
SABC.
To this end, the government carried the obligation and right
to continuously ensures that those who hold public office are held accountable
for their wrong doing, in respect of the values and principles found with the
constitution of the republic and for acceleration of open government towards
its citizens who elected them to public office.