Sathyandranath Ragunanan âMacâ Maharaj is one of the iconic figures from the struggle against apartheid. Maharaj became involved in liberation politics as a young man. At the age of twenty-nine, he was arrested and convicted on charges of sabotage. After serving twelve years in prison on Robben Island with Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and other liberation stalwarts, Maharaj went into exile to continue the fight against apartheid. During the systemâs waning years, he returned to his country to conduct dangerous underground activity. Maharaj subsequently became Minister of Transport in the first nonracial democratically elected government.
In his biography, Mahraj provides a telling account of his initial encounter with bureaucrats from the previous regime (OâMalley 2007). As he recalls, âThose of us who came into the cabinet from the ANC had a huge sense of wariness about the existing civil service. At the same time, the civil servants had a huge sense of unease about us. They just didnât know how to relate to us. Some of our peopleâs wariness was so strong that it literally translated to âI wonât show it, but Iâm going to get rid of this bastard as quickly as possible. Not because the man is bad, but because I proceed from the assumption that he comes from the old guard. I want someone else I have confidence in from my ranks. So until then, Iâll just interact civillyââ (OâMalley 2007, p. 406). Maharaj goes on to describe how he developed an amicable relationship with his Director-General, Dr. C. F. Scheepers, for three months before the latterâs replacement was appointed. Maharaj, explaining his motivation for not reappointing Scheepers, states, âWas I distrustful of Scheepers? No. I got rid of him because he was not suitable for managing the consultative process that I wanted to inculcate as the key instrument in policymaking â one which would ensure that the concerns of all stakeholders were taken into consideration. The DG had to be someone who would come in with confidence and would have the personality to win the confidence of all the role players. I needed a person who would relate to all the players without transmitting his suspicion and who would respect the facts. Dr. Scheepers was not suitable for that role. But I did not interfere with the other senior staffâ (OâMalley 2007, p. 408).
Maharajâs brief account reveals much about the significance of representative bureaucracy for governance. When the African National Congress (ANC) came to power in 1994 as part of the Government of National Unit (GNU), with the National Party (NP) and the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) as its junior partners, it encountered an unrepresentative bureaucracy established by the NP to perpetuate oppressive rule by the white minority and ensure the political disenfranchisement and economic exploitation of the black majority . A long history of colonization, minority rule, and racial discrimination profoundly skewed the demographics of the South African bureaucracy, such that whites, who constituted approximately one-seventh of the countryâs population, occupied nearly nine-tenths of all administrative, clerical, professional, and technical positions in the public sector (South African Institute of Race Relations 1989). With the ratification of a new constitution and enactment of landmark legislation and regulatory changes, the ANC set out to transform the public service into a bureaucracy that is broadly representative of the South African population in order to uphold the cherished values of representativeness and equality enshrined in the constitution . As Chapter 10, Section 195 of the 1996 Constitution states, âPublic administration must be broadly representative of the South African people, with employment and personnel management practices based on ability, objectivity, fairness, and the need to redress the imbalances of the past to achieve broad representationâ (Republic of South Africa 2017). Now a quarter-century since the dawn of nonracial democracy, the ANC has achieved notable success in transforming the public service into a bureaucracy that is broadly representative of the citizenry.
Maharajâs account also points to the role of representative bureaucracy as a mechanism for ensuring political control of the bureaucracy. During the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA) negotiations, which paved the way to a new political dispensation, ANC leaders expressed concern about the need to bring the bureaucracy under its control and transform it into a responsive instrument of democratic governance. A bureaucracy still under the control of the white minority was deemed to be an obstacle to bringing about the transformation of society and the economy envisioned by ANC leaders, one that would require implementing an ambitious and far-reaching policy agenda aimed at undoing the harm caused by apartheid and uplifting the historically disadvantaged who constitute a large majority of the population. What was needed was a bureaucracy representative of the South African people and its elected leaders, infused with the values of a liberal constitutional democracy, and dedicated to implementing the policies of a black majority government.
Finally, the story raises the issue of bureaucratic performance. Maharaj explains that he replaced the Director-General (DG) not because he distrusted him but because he lacked the right skills and disposition to manage the department and formulate policy in an effective manner. While in power, the ANC has employed affirmative action to promote representation of blacks , women, and those with disabilities on both instrumental and normative grounds. From a normative perspective, demographic transformation of the bureaucracy serves to promote the constitutional values of representativeness and equality (Ndletyana 2008). In addition, the ANC has endeavored to create a broadly representative public service in order to improve public sector performance (Ndletyana 2008; Department of Public Service and Administration 1995, 1998). The belief is that a representative bureaucracy will possess certain qualities critical to governmental performance that the apartheid bureaucracy lacked, including legitimacy and support from the public, the ability to communicate with a multiracial and multilingual citizenry, empathy for historically marginalized communities, and a strong commitment to serve and respond to the needs and expectations of all South Africans.
Representative bureaucracy is the central theme of this book. What were the reasons behind the reforms initiated to transform the South African public service into a representative bureaucracy? How has this transformation come about, and what does the public service look like now, particularly in regards to representation of blacks, women, and those with disabilities? Most importantly, what happens to the performance of bureaucracies as they become increasingly representative? How does representation of historically disadvantaged groups impact the performance of public organizations, and what are the causal mechanisms linking bureaucratic representation to performance? These are the questions this book sets out to answer.
Focus of the Book
The theory of representative bureaucracy rests on the basic premise that the demographic composition of public organizations matters. The social identity of public employeesâincluding their race, ethnicity, gender, and other features that constitute identityâcan affect popular attitudes towards bureaucracy, the degree of legitimacy conferred on the institution and its members, and the extent citizens are willing to comply with laws and regulations, cooperate with bureaucrats, and engage in coproduction of public services. Social identity also influences the behavior of bureaucrats themselves, their responsiveness to citizens, organized groups, and politicians, and their performance.
Since Kingsleyâs (1944) groundbreaking study of the British civil service , representative bureaucracy has emerged as a central focus of public administration and governance. Kingsley considered a representative bureaucracy one that is dominated by a societyâs ruling class and whose ranks are filled by members of that class. Krislov (1974) viewed this as a distortion of the concept of representative bureaucracy, arguing instead that a representative bureaucracy is one that is reflective of society. A main assertion made by representative bureaucracy researchers is that a bureaucracy that mirrors the citizenry, so that all social groups, including minorities and women, are proportionally represented within it, has intrinsic value apart from any consequences it might produce. As Mosher (1982) argues, a representative bureaucracy signifies an open system to which all citizens can turn for social or economic support, and for protection and justice, regardless of their social origins or identity; it is also designed to limit employment discrimination and ensure equality of opportunity for all. In short, a representative bureaucracy comes to embody Abraham Lincolnâs notion of government by the people (Mosher 1982).
Representative bureaucracy promotes citizen satisfaction with public services , increases trust and confidence in government, and confers legitimacy on the administrative organs of the state (Theobald and Haider-Markel 2008; Gade and Wilkins 2013; Riccucci et al. 2014). Long (1952) and Krislov (1974) concluded that the legitimacy of American bureaucracy rests largely on two key features: that compared to the other branches of government, its demographic composition more closely resembles American society, and that in its decision making, it is more in...