Recently, the Governor of the Hardap Region was quoted in the media as
reading the Riot Act to local and regional authorities in her region. Should
one join her or not in her crusade at this juncture? I am not quite sure.
Hold on, don’t jump to conclusions! Lest you misunderstand me I am not
saying our local and regional governance structures somehow and at some
point do not need ironing out. Examples of a system gone wayward abound. One
need not look further than to the concerns often expressed by the principal
officers of the Ministry of Regional and Local Government, Housing and Rural
Development at various occasions over governance – rather mis-governance –
at these levels. I am just unsure whether reading the Riot Act to them is
the remedy or cure that they may need. In fact, how has the Honourable
Governor decided that what their malady (ies) is/are that need the remedy of
a Riot Act? I am inclined to think that it is easy reading the Riot Act to
the converted. Are these officials converted? If there are any converts
among them they may only be a handful. And by converts in this context I
mean those having had a basic introduction and induction to their working
environment for a start, and disciplined in one or the other aspect of their
work before being thrown in at the deeper end. In a nutshell, are these
officials, both elected and appointed, equipped before being entrusted with
the duties they are assigned, some of which are fiduciary in nature. I
wouldn’t think this is the case all the time and for most of them. In that
sense, what these officials need is more than a mere Riot Act. How can they
make sense of this Riot Act if in the first place they are not qualified,
however rudimentary and broadly defined this qualification may be.

Yes, I am sure our principals would be quick to point out to the formal
preliminaries often undertaken to prepare these officials, among them
workshops and what-have-you. Obviously one cannot discard them but one
doubts their comprehensiveness, especially in view of the fact that most of
our officials may be coming from a zero knowledge background at worst. I
would argue that such preparations should be thorough if they are to be
meaningful in supplanting the scant qualities these officials already
possess if they do at all. I think this is the crux of the matter and not so
much whether a Riot Act exists and how often and loud it should be trumpeted
or not. Have we been choosing the best on offer in any locality or region?

The best in this regard does not only mean scholarly qualifications or
truthfulness to whatever political ideals. In fact, in the eyes of most
politicians or political parties, party loyalty, a euphemism for cliques,
has often been the number one qualification criteria. The interest of the
local community has in most cases been subjected to the presumed greater
interest of the party and its big shots at head office, remote-manoeuvring
the situation through local agents who are at the end of the process are
rewarded with positions, as undeserving of these positions some of them may
be. This has been the context in which the rolling out of governance to the
local and regional levels has been taking place, a fact that political
parties would not readily admit to. This is also the environment in which
the Riot Act is read and applied.

Out there in our localities and regions, we have people with integrity to
occupy these offices and bring to these public offices and our people there
the dignity, diligence, dedication, commitment and a sense of duty needed in
uplifting these communities. Yet, such people are most of the time bypassed
for political yes-men/women with little track records, be it in terms of
serving these communities in one aspect or another, or in terms of having
instilled the public with the requisite confidence that they can in reverse
deposit their trust in them. This is not to ignore well-meaning officials in
our local authorities and regions, but they are few and far in between. It
seems meritocracy, however you may define it, whether it is in terms of
academic qualifications, good standing and service, to mention but a few,
hardly applies when it comes to electing and appointing officials at the
local and regional levels.

Certainly, elected bodies at these levels must reflect the diverse make-up
of their constituent communities if they are to champion and carry these
diverse interests. A healthy balance must be struck between elected
officials dedicated to service for their communities, politically conscious,
not with regard to party politics but local interests and commitment to
service to these communities at the one end of the continuum, and good
standing, which includes financial stability, at the other end. There is no
denying that some of the woes at these levels of governance, particularly as
they relate to the misappropriation of public funds by our officials, are
induced by financial instability among some of our officials. We are living
at the end of a double-edged sword in the sense that between the two strands
of those entrusted with public affairs, the appointed and elected officials,
none seems to be prepared well for the task and duties at hand due to
historical legacy. It is a case of the blind leading the blind. One obvious
disqualification for those wishing to assume office, elected or appointed,
is failure to pay for services.

If anything, this is an indication of financial instability, and electing or
appointing someone like that to public office is not only gambling with
public trust but also risking public funds. The temptation is great of
him/her helping himself/herself to pubic funds to lessen his/her financial
burden or either somehow cooking something up to write off his/her debt. The
probability of one or the other misdemeanour is high.

Yes, I agree that Rome was not built in a day but I do not think sporadic
piece-meal administration of remedial doses is the answer. With hindsight
one would tend to think that the seemingly slow pace at which the rolling
out of governance to the localities and regions has been taking place is a
blessing in disguise. What use is it to roll out mismanagement? Certainly I
do not subscribe to the pre-Apartheid notion when we submitted in the face
of Apartheid apologists that we had the right to rule and misrule ourselves.

Let’s work at our own pace and according to our own agenda to roll out real
democracy and not mismanagement to the regions and local authorities. If the
time has not arrived for us to devolve functions to these levels of
governance, it has simply not. However, the first thing must come first.
This first is to ensure that those to whom these functions are to be
entrusted are in a position to carry them out with the minimum hitches,
inhibitions, and not tempted by material cravings to help themselves to
public resources. In that event the Riot Act would barely be necessary.
Ineffectiveness, corruption and lack of skills amongst council officials
contributed to the mismanagement of public funds, which resulted in the
non-improvement of service delivery, the Minister of Regional, Local
Government and Housing then, Joël Kaapanda, stressed in 2003. He did not end
there but added: The problems being faced by you are quite complex and will
require systematic long-term support. Need I say more? There are simply no
quick fixes. Neither is the Riot Act the answer. Merit is the guide. Service
is the goal. Upliftment is the missi
on. Humbleness is a virtue. Craving is a
vice.