NATIONAL Planning Minister Trevor Manuel seemed at the end of 2009 to have won (mostly) the battle with trade federation Cosatu over his role in government. But that doesn't mean there are no more key questions about his role.
Part of the fight with Cosatu was over who would chair the National Planning Commission, a body which will make inputs to cabinet for consideration as government policy.
Cosatu had suggested that President Jacob Zuma chair the commission. Others put forward Zuma's deputy, Kgalema Motlanthe. All they knew was that this body - which they perceive as having a lot of power once it's set up - shouldn't be steered by Manuel.
But towards the end of 2009, the ANC National Executive Committee backed Manuel, who is a minister in the presidency, to chair the commission. But now the next question is: who will be on the commission? How powerful will it be in practice?
The Green Paper on National Strategic Planning, released by Manuel's office, says the commission will consist of "respected intellectuals, leaders and experts in our country" who will be appointed by the president.
Not surprisingly, Cosatu has objected to this plan, and been backed by some supportive noises from business. Cosatu and business want labour, business and government interests to be represented on the commission. That means a kind of super National Economic, Development and Labour Council (Nedlac).
Manuel is vehemently opposed to this idea. He said the representative model supported by labour would lead to "deal-making and bargaining" and this wouldn't work well in a planning context. He is also opposed to having cabinet ministers on the commission, saying this would likewise lead to deal-making and competition for turf.
"Herding cats" easier than professorial consensus
But what is surprising about Manuel's views is that he is also opposed to the idea that the commission should be a largely academic body, saying "it would be easier to herd cats" than to get decisions out of a commission of 20 professors.
Now, if academics are excluded, which "respected intellectuals, leaders and experts in our country" will form the members of the commission? If you leave out representatives of labour, business, government and academics, who will make the plans?
The fighting about the commission goes to the heart of the kind of policymaking that SA wants. Do you try to please all constituents when picking members of the commission? Do we want a country in which special interests, such as labour and business, make a concrete input into plans for the future? Or should government be allowed to govern without interference?
I think government should govern - but not without consultation. There's a difference between consultation and interference.
A key point is that the commission - despite all the fighting over it - is simply a consultative body. It will make inputs on SA's future plans to cabinet, but will have no actual policymaking ability.
The question that immediately arises is whether the body is needed, especially if setting it up is causing, and will continue to cause, a massive amount of strife. Are the chances not good that it will become one big talk shop, trying to please all the people all the time?
Away with wishy-washy wish lists
If the strategy document that has already come out of Manuel's office is anything to go by, that's exactly what will happen. And of what practical use is that?
This isn't to say that widespread consultation on policy issues isn't a good thing. One immediate issue that comes to mind is the plan to create a National Health Insurance scheme over less than five years (the promise was five years from when the new government came to power in 2009.)
Recently Kuben Naidoo, the treasury's deputy director-general in the budget office, said it would take a "massive dislocation" to take health spending from 8% of gross domestic product to 20%. He said this could only happen over a decade. The inference is that the promise of five years is a pipe dream.
Manuel's office, given the task of planning, should turn all its focus now to the National Health Insurance (NHI) scheme and its costs. Other wishy-washy wish lists and the appointment of a talk shop can take a back seat over this issue. It shouldn't just be left up to the treasury to point out the problems in trying to set up the NHI scheme.
This is something Manuel can do - but he should consult widely and make sure all viewpoints are clearly understood.
I have said before that Manuel is a minister without a job. The fight over the planning commission once again illustrates this.
But if Manuel wants to carve a job for himself, he will prioritise an investigation into the feasibility of the National Health Insurance plan, and draw public attention to it.
- Fin24.com