Ten days ago the Institute attended a briefing at the Union Buildings hosted by the head of policy in the Presidency, Mr Joel Netshitenzhe. The briefing was held to launch a 15 year review of the government's performance published by the Presidency. Media reporting on the briefing missed many pertinent points made by Mr Netshitenzhe and generally failed to convey the tone of the briefing.

The Institute and the president's office have had their run-ins in the past. There were the less than favourable comments by Thabo Mbeki on the Institute in his ANC Today newsletters. Then there was the exchange between the Institute and Mr Netshitenzhe in Business Day over the question of poverty in South Africa. Mr Netshitenzhe challenged figures published by the Institute demonstrating an increase in levels of poverty over ten years. The tone of many of these statements were unfortunate and the Institute has long felt that it would be a better ally than opponent for the president's office on at least some aspects of government policy. We were very happy to accept the Presidency's invitation to attend their briefing.

What much of the media reporting on the briefing failed to convey was that Mr Netshitenzhe was remarkably frank and honest in his assessment of South Africa. At several points in his briefing it was apparent that what he was saying would fit well into the Institute's annual South African Mirror briefings. 

On crime, the Presidency reported correctly that levels had peaked in 2002/2003 and generally declined after that point. But Mr Netshitenzhe was eager to concede that South Africans fear of crime deserved to be taken very seriously. Equating attacks on South Africans in their homes and businesses with the fear of terrorism, Mr Netshitenzhe agreed that a great deal more had to be achieved to overcome the levels of particularly violent crime in South Africa.  This is a remarkable about turn from the disgraceful ‘pack your things and go' approach to concerns about crime that came from the former president's security minister.

On the point of poverty and service delivery the Presidency again reported that considerable advances had been made in certain areas. The proportion of people living on a poverty line of approximately R350 per month had come down over ten years - although only slightly. Likewise the government had been successful in various of its delivery activities including housing, water, and electricity.

This is a point that the Institute has been one of very few civil society organizations to highlight over the past few years. But Netshitenzhe's tone was not one of celebrating delivery victories so much as one of concern at whether the successes were enough to meet the expectations of poor South Africans. It is high time that the debate on service delivery moved on from whether it was a glorious success or a horrible failure. As in so many cases of South African policy the real picture is much more nuanced and the real question that should be asked about delivery is whether it is sufficient to meet expectations. 

On the related point of social grants roll-out, rather that celebrating the extent of the reach of social grants Mr Netshitenzhe pointed out that these were not a sustainable way out of poverty. Mr Netshitenzhe conceded that grants created a culture of state dependency and while grants and their rollout would remain a feature of government policy better solutions to poverty and inequality needed to be conceived.

In the short to medium term the government has no option but to continue the grants rollout. In the long term it is encouraging that the Presidency is willing to address the fact that the grants system will never provide a way out of poverty for all South Africans.

But perhaps the most important point was the disappointment expressed at the performance of the managers of the country's schools, hospitals, and police stations.  No change in policy will address the failures of these institutions if the right people are not in place to manage them successfully. In other words the tolerance of less than mediocre management of state institutions must come to an end.

This is a further about turn from the Mbeki presidency's unwarranted tolerance of ministers such as Manto Tshabala-Msimang who should have been sacked. One of Mr Netshitenzhe's proposals was the introduction of super ministries to monitor and supervise the performance of their colleagues. While the Institute might have concerns about any further centralization of government authority it is encouraging that the performance of slack officials is now under the spotlight.

While the report accompanying the briefing was quite upbeat in its tone the briefing itself was a sober reflection on a country that faces considerable development challenges. If this has long been the official line of the Presidency then they should fire their communications and public relations staff because the image of the president's office over the past five years was one of arrogance and of an institution that treated criticism with contempt. It is more likely however that Mr Mbeki's departure has created a sense of greater openness at the office. This is a positive development and long may it continue.

If it does continue the president's staff may stand to gain considerably from frank and honest interaction with critical policy organizations such as the Institute.  While we may be adversaries on certain points of policy we are not enemies and they may find that more often than not we turn out to be useful allies. South Africa will certainly be better off for this kind of positive but critical interaction. 

Frans Cronje is deputy CEO of the South African Institute of Race Relations. This article first appeared in the Institute's online newsletter, SAIRR Today, October 10 2008