I listened with some interest to a radio show on SAfm about a week back on the controversial issue of ‘cadre deployment’.

The FW de Klerk Foundation outlined why it had decided that the ruling African National Congress’s (ANC’s) policy of deployment was a threat to the Constitution and should be probed by the Public Protector.

The foundation’s Centre for Constitutional Rights, which laid the complaint, was especially perturbed by a National Treasury report that found that 28% of municipal employees were political deployments into positions that did not previously exist. It said the policy did not appear to be in line with legal requirements governing government appointments and could be leading to cronyism and corruption.

Defending the policy was ANC spokesperson Lindiwe Zulu, who indicated that, in a democracy, the winning party had every right to choose those whom it wanted to occupy key government posts.

She also argued that, if properly managed, deployment could improve the effectiveness of government, given that political appointees not only understood the policies and aims of the governing party, but also had the necessary backing to guide and drive implementation.

Interestingly, the debate more or less coincided with the release of the so-called ‘Dinokeng Scenarios’ report, compiled from interactions involving 35 prominent South Africans drawn from civil society, business and government.

In the most optimistic of the three scenarios, the report paints a picture of a society that acknowledges the development of a professional civil service as a “key ingredient of growth”.

This so-called ‘Walk Together’ scenario sketches the years 2015 to 2017 as follows: “The time has gone for civil-service appointments to be used as rewards for political loyalty. The civil service is now representative of the population, so the affirmative action policy is dropped and skilled members of minority groups are actively recruited back into public service. This helps to reinforce a sense of ‘one nationhood’.”

It is a compelling vision, which, the authors indicate, hinges materially on whether the current “trust deficit” can be overcome. And to achieve that will require that “citizens re-engage”, “strengthened” State capacity, and for “leaders from all sectors [to] rise above their narrow self-interests and contribute purposefully to building our nation”.