Dictators do not provide reasons for their actions. Kings and Emperors long ago did what they liked; no one dared to question them. In a constitutional democracy it is - or should be - different.
The cabinet reshuffle attracted widespread negative comment. His judgment was not questioned about those he fired or those appointed; mainly it was about those not fired.
The response from the presidential office was illuminating. ‘The Presidency wishes to remind the opinion makers that the President of the Republic uses his prerogative when appointing members of the National Executive. He does not need to provide reasons.' For sheer unadulterated arrogance, that statement takes the cake.
The president has the right to make whatever appointments he chooses. But the whole country has the right to question those appointments and to wonder why some of them were made and others not made. We pay their salaries out of our taxes and out of the VAT we pay. Ministers are there to run our government for us - the people -- and if they are inadequate or downright bad at the job we have the right to question the president's judgement or lack of it in using his prerogatives or, indeed, failing to use the prerogatives to fire the non-performers.
Every cabinet in the world has some pockets of excellence, some not so good and some hovering between poor and awful. South Africa is no exception. The reality of politics is that presidents and prime-ministers need to compromise and balance imperatives and sometimes put up with people who would not be their first choice but for party or other reasons must be accommodated. There are few democracies, however, where plainly bad ministers like Angie Motshekga continue endlessly in office. Failures should be fired.
What about the minister responsible for ensuring South Africa's food security: Tina Joemat- Pettersson? She is clearly a disaster area - promoted far above her competence level; unable to understand the values of our constitution; at odds with the agricultural community and endlessly mired in financial scandal. Why was she retained?
Then there is the minister who presides over the Department of Labour, Minister Mildred Oliphant. Perhaps ‘Minister of Unemployment Promotion' would be a better name. So would ‘Minister of Labour chaos and unrest.' It is difficult to think of a less suitable MP to be entrusted with the task. She is a pleasant person but that is all.
Another is the mild-mannered Minister Jeff Radebe survives despite a poor record in the Justice Department. The advice he has given to the president on a variety of issues and the management and governance disasters for which he is responsible do not matter. How can he allow the National Prosecuting Authority to remain without a head for the whole year so far? Could it be that Minister Radebe's brother-in-law, Patrice Motsepe, is the reason for his survival?
One could go on. There are a number of other ministers who should go and the president should be held to account for his failure to use his prerogative to get rid of them. He owes us an explanation: why does he allow proven incompetents to continue running our affairs?
Douglas Gibson is former Opposition Chief Whip and ambassador to Thailand on Twitter @dhmgibson
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
