Young people of South Africa are pressed from all sides. They face many issues, including extraordinarily high unemployment and the constant struggle to access opportunities such as post-school education and other skills development opportunities, as well as access to funding and business support. The National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) was ostensibly established to help change their lot. To date, its record is contested. It has battled to get its affairs in order and has struggled to fight the widely held view that it is a useless entity, merely existing to enrich the princelings of the ANC and its tripartite alliance partners and further their political aspirations. Thus, many have vigorously campaigned for its disbandment as a result of their frustrations and anger.
With the appointment of the new board, the GNU has a golden opportunity to turn the tide and deliver a suitably capacitated board that can be widely accepted as the best among the youth, with the capacity to drive the youth agenda in a way that services all youth of the republic. This monumental task is, after all, the agency’s raison d’être. The NYDA Act, as amended, instructs that the entity is “aimed at creating and promoting co-ordination in youth development matters”.
Given the challenges facing young South Africans, one would expect that the entity charged with their affairs would be led by the best among them. By extension, when the opportunity to appoint new leadership of the entity is available, one expects that the body entrusted with this task and to which the entity accounts (in this case, the Portfolio Committee on Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities), would seek out the best among the youth. Lastly, one can fairly expect that, in so doing, this body would ensure that the process is proper, complies with the law and is seen to be credible.
For what it’s worth, in terms of the law, the appointment process is a multi-stage one that begins with the committee, then moves to the National Assembly and concludes with the president finally appointing the board and designating its chairperson and deputy chairperson.
Whatever dreams other young people may have had to serve their country or hope that the entity will begin serving more than just the power brokers may as well be forgotten. This is a purely arithmetical and contextual deduction.
As an engaged South African, I have followed the process with keen interest. I have hoped that the GNU would be intentional about turning the tide with the agency. Unfortunately, as with many things in our beloved country, the signs thus far are concerning.
This last week, the committee interviewed board candidates. In the interviews, it quickly became clear that the committee was also concerned about the pervasive view I have spoken of. Thus, one of the questions that was put to candidates was about that.
I pause to clarify that the criticism has never been to suggest that fellow South Africans should not be supported by state institutions because of their proximity to the governing party/ies and their leaders. The constitutional right to freedom of association is broadly well understood and accepted in society. Instead, it has been that, in a democratic society striving for equality and equality of access to opportunities, those close to the governing party/ies and their leaders should not be advantaged at the expense of those who are not. At the very least, these state institutions should not be vehicles for facilitating the personal enrichment and the furtherance of the political ends of their leaders and/ or those close to them to the detriment of other interested persons.
If I were to judge the process right now, on its own merits, it would be that it will most likely deliver yet another board dominated by young politicians and those close to politicians. Whatever dreams other young people may have had to serve their country or hope that the entity will begin serving more than just the power brokers may as well be forgotten. This is a purely arithmetical and contextual deduction. Here’s why.
No less than 10 of the 20 shortlisted candidates are self-declared or widely known “card-carrying members” of major political parties. Curiously, 10 is also the number of candidates the committee has already resolved to recommend for appointment. Additionally, these 10 include two sitting municipal councillors, one elected party official and one candidate for parliament — all of whom are senior members of parties in the GNU.
If history were to be used to establish which candidates are most likely to be recommended and appointed to the board, then it is not unfair to suspect that these are likely the chosen 10. Further, that the other 10 candidates were merely added to legitimise the process. At the very least, the four candidates are likely to be among the chosen seven (given that the act prescribes that the board is made up of seven members) and, from them, a chairperson will be designated. Thus, even if none of the other 10 politically aligned candidates were chosen for the final seven, these four are likely to dominate the new board.
This collusion, if it indeed exists and is a continuing project, may violate the law. It certainly violates the underpinnings of a democratic society striving for equality, equality of access to opportunities and good governance principles — principles that the committee spent time trying to drum into the candidates.
If, somehow, the reader still doubts that there is good reason to be concerned, then allow me to draw your attention to the minutes of the committee’s meeting of November 19 2024, at the beginning of the appointment process. In these minutes, the comments of the committee chairperson are captured as: “The chairperson said ... She added that another meeting would be held the following Friday, November 29, to shortlist candidates for the NYDA board ...”
She said an Excel spreadsheet containing the details of 1,400 applicants for the board positions would be shared with the members. She reminded them that the information in the document was confidential and should not be shared widely via WhatsApp groups, friends or family. She stressed that the document was for members’ perusal only and urged them to review it carefully to identify their 18 preferred candidates before the meeting on November 29. She explained that each candidate had a corresponding number and members should come to the meeting prepared with the numbers of their preferred candidates.
She acknowledged that political parties might need to consult internally about their preferred candidates, but advised that consultations be conducted responsibly and within small groups to maintain confidentiality. She emphasised the importance of complying with the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) and preventing the information from being disseminated publicly.
Later segments of the minutes suggest that this approach was supported by the committee. Further, the minutes of the follow-up meeting on December 3 2024 confirm that this is how the committee developed the shortlist.
To summarise; the committee appears to have shortlisted board candidates in a manner that almost blindly accepted each politician’s preferences, which preferences could have included a political mandate from outside the committee and without the committee properly applying its mind to the same. This, on its own, is problematic and risks jeopardising the process entirely.
The only scenarios I can think of where committee members would agree to and then participate in such a scheme would be where there is a pre-existing back room “deal” to unlawfully engineer particular outcomes, and that deal includes each participant not interfering with the other’s unlawfully appropriated discretion. That, compatriot, is “collusion”. Alternatively, where committee members believed that their votes would be insufficient to change whatever outcome would follow anyway and so would rather the process end as quickly as possible.
Time will tell if these concerns are procedurally or legally well-founded. It will certainly be established in the coming weeks — by mere dint of who will be recommended by the committee, supported by the National Assembly and then finally appointed by the president. If those known to be members and leaders of major parties, particularly in the GNU, dominate the finally approved board, then that will be all the evidence needed to prove the pre-existence of such a collusive deal.
Possible collusion aside, and it is an admittedly huge aside, my biggest gripe with how the committee has conducted this process is less about political machinations. It is more about the 20 shortlisted candidates (some of whom were excellent candidates and are excellent South Africans) and the more than 1,400 applicants. They all deserve better than this. As things are right now, the committee has done them all a disservice.
My gripe is also about the thousands of excellent young people of our beloved country who deserve a fair chance to be considered to serve their country. Lastly, it is about the millions of young people in dire straits, who are fast losing hope and whose only hope is for a government that is serious about getting its house in order so it can better help them change their lives. They all deserve better than what this process is quickly becoming: a farce.
We are old enough to have seen this process unfold in much the same way as it is happening now, with those close to power shooting to the top of the pile and other excellent candidates being rejected simply because of not being politically aligned.
The GNU ought to be better than that. At least, its leaders would have us believe that it is so. If the GNU is serious about serving young people better than previous administrations, they can start by ensuring that this process is not marred by a politics of the stomach, politics of “it’s our turn to eat”, and deliver a new NYDA board that is credible, includes the best young South Africans (yes, even if some are politically aligned) and can earn the confidence of South Africans broadly.
Unfortunately, because of how it has been handled by the committee to date, this may mean restarting the process, yet again.
• Sabelo Chalufu is an independent consultant. Previously, he was a councillor in the City of Joburg metro municipality and director for executive support. He writes in his personal capacity
For opinion and analysis consideration, email Opinions@timeslive.co.za
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.