Earlier this month, President Jacob Zuma responded positively to an appeal by Minister in The Presidency Responsible for the National Planning Commission Trevor Manuel for the National Development Plan (NDP) to be reaffirmed as the country’s development ‘road map’.

However, he also deftly recast the document, which has been heavily criticised by both the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the South African Communist Party and even within Cabinet, as an ‘umbrella’ for a range of strategies, rather than the sole economic plan of government.

Speaking in the National Assembly ahead of Zuma, Manuel maintained that the main disagreements were over the strategies rather than with the NDP’s goals for creating jobs, growing the economy and ensuring economic inclusion. He added that, even if the criticism of the proposed strategies was valid, it would be imprudent to hold off from tackling South Africa’s serious socio- economic challenges in the interests of securing ‘complete consensus’.

Zuma responded by confirming that the NDP offered a “long-term socioeconomic development road map”. He also held up the establishment of a planning entity as a key achievement of the fourth ANC administration, while noting that few other policy documents had ever enjoyed such widespread support.

Nevertheless, he used his response to the debate on The Presidency Budget Vote to highlight government’s other economic strategies. Particular emphasis was given to the New Growth Path – a plan favoured by the African National Congress’s (ANC’s) alliance partners.

He also suggested that the focus now shift to providing constructive input on the NDP ‘proposals’, so that these can be incorporated into the Medium-Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) of government.

By emphasising the MTSF, Zuma opened the door to those who argued that the NDP is ‘not written in stone’, as well as to those who feel that planning, which was opened up to a commission comprised of private citizens, should be institutionalised as a core government function.

This may not be a bad idea at all, particularly given that there are many problems with the NDP as it stands. Thus repositioning it as an umbrella of ideas and values rather than an actual plan could facilitate progress and avert an ideological tussle similar to the one that unfolded around the 1996 Growth, Employment and Redistribution policy.

We will watch this space with interest.