Is it a big deal that Cyril Ramaphosa’s presidential izimbizos have come at a huge cost to the taxpayer — R44m for four events in just eight months?
The costs were disclosed to parliament this week by co-operative governance and traditional affairs minister Velenkosini Hlabisa, in a written reply to questions from DA MP Frederik Badenhorst, and reported by the Sunday Times.
Granted, public engagement is healthy and necessary for a first-hand perspective of what the people on the ground are grappling with daily. This allows community members to engage ministers and other stakeholders. Presumably these couldn’t otherwise be resolved.
But after so many years of public service protests and clear signs of a disgruntled populace, is it justified to spend this much money to gather information already at their disposal? If the report is anything to go by, the provincial government of Mpumalanga was the biggest spender on the one-day imbizo, splurging R14.9m at Emalahleni on March 7 this year.
This is the same province where residents protest over service delivery month in and out. Besides the obvious fact that it was part of the election campaign trail, what could be so mysterious about the issues people face in the country? Should this not have been an opportunity to rather provide the service relief the people need?
Two months later, the Northern Cape joined the party, spending R8.6m for the president to spend the day under a marquee with residents of Kuruman and surrounding areas on May 11 this year, with Hlabisa’s department chipping in R4.3m.
Reports at the time indicated that the imbizo programme “presents a platform for communities to lay out the challenges they face to the president, his cabinet and provincial and local government”.
During the imbizo, residents told of challenges, including a lack of access to water, a lack of educational and vocational training facilities for youth, housing challenges and crime-related issues, according to the government news agency. The big question is what about this dialogue could not have been anticipated? What was the big reveal?
At a philosophical level, these debates imbue our democracy with requisite exchange of ideas that ought theoretically to form the cornerstones of a flourishing democracy. In reality, the expensive talk shows reflect the perennial story of a South Africa where talk is cheap and, once the politicians roll their car windows down leaving their areas, the pretence is over. Issues raised are arbitrarily closed and the politicians are never to be seen again. Is it necessary for the people to relive and discuss their everyday struggles for politicians to discharge their duties?
Hlabisa said that the money was spent on logistical arrangements such as infrastructure and transport, and meals. The fact that a rare benefit in the form of a meal seems justified for this kind of spending should make us wonder if the government is anywhere near prioritising the needs of the poor. What does one meal and a T-shirt do for someone who has lived their lives without water and sanitation, without roads in good condition, without reliable energy supply, with unemployment and other underlying socioeconomic issues?
Instead of spending government resources on road trips and talk shows, the government could have used them to resolve the challenges that have become so obvious to all. This is not the time to still be at the discovery level. To answer the initial question, it should be a big deal that this much money is wasted in such a pointless exercise. It is, in fact, an insult to the very poor who were reportedly being consulted. If after 30 years of democratic governance their challenges remain a mystery to the leaders, what hope is there for solutions?
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.