House Chairperson, hon members of this House, what is crucial is that we are in the process of nation-building. As proposed in the Green Paper, there are implications in accepting walking on that path.
In the Green Paper it is proposed that since we are a nation, we need to agree on a national vision. We need to have a short-, medium- and long-term national plan. The major implication for that kind of a situation is that there is a need for a planning mechanism; a planning system according to J K Galbraith, as quoted in the document.
In this situation a national buy-in is critical. What are the determinants of a national buy-in? The importance of those determinants is informed by a system that is aware of the fact that, for any nation to succeed, it needs a policy that releases the capacity of its own people. What are the determinants to release that capacity? It is a short-, medium- and long- term predictability, especially in a globalised village, involving an open economy like ours, with limited substitutes against foreign imports. Another determinant is a minimum certainty that society must begin to plan its life in the long term, based on the assertion and existence of that certainty. Other determinants are consistency, which is a hallmark of integrity; coherence, which provides for dependability in the environment within which one operates; and continuity, because there are instances where the success of the project of various stakeholders lies in long-term continuity. Thus, a national planning mechanism must seek to host and affect the above elements.
It seems, in principle, that there is an agreement on all the issues I have just articulated. However, there are challenges that lie in the fear of centrality - at times an attempt to cast aspersions on the role of the state as stated in the Constitution. For instance, I have tried to find the basis of this fear, but I could not find it. Is it sometimes ignorance or negation of our Constitution, or is it ideology for ideology's sake? By the way, there is a difference between adhering to an ideology for change and being a fanatic for an ideology for ideology's sake.
If you read the Constitution, I would not have accused you as a fanatic of your ideology. If you read the following words - in the very same section - that say:
All spheres should and must secure the wellbeing of the people and they must preserve the peace, national unity and the indivisibility of the Republic.
I think if you are not that fanatic, this part is very important. The very same section you read deals with the people of the Republic, not the people of the Western Cape or Eastern Cape. Also, the very same section you have read speaks about areas of common interest throughout the country, as well as the need for effective co-operation.
What does the Green Paper say? There is a distinction between planning and policy-making. Planning, as articulated in the Green Paper, details an account of how to implement policy, thus translating policy into short-, medium- and long-term objectives. It ensures prioritising objectives and sequencing implementation.
Of course, the Green Paper does accept that this distinction is less clear. But it will be argued that the very act of developing a vision and setting long-term objectives, as articulated in the Green Paper, is part of the essence of policy-making. Implementing a strategic plan could be a tool to expose policy gaps.
In other words, a debate on who should plan or implement policy amongst a collective could unintentionally create a cumbersome relationship or interaction. It could border on superfluity. The simple dictionary view of policy states that it is a mere course of action, thus you can plan to develop or devise policy to implement a plan.
How does the Green Paper attempt to address this predicament? It argues that governance consists of a continuum of related activities which feed into one another. These activities are as follows: policy development; strategic and operational planning; resolution; resource allocation; implementation; and performance, monitoring and evaluation. Page 13 of the document states that, "all departments and spheres of government undertake elements of each of these activities".
What determines the depth of these undertakings are the functions and responsibilities as defined by the Constitution. And I repeat, hon Trollip, "as defined by the Constitution". Therefore, I would have been comfortable if you had done a critique of the inadequacy of our Constitution to deal with this phenomenon before speaking about the checks and balances ... [Interjections.]
In other words, one of the key things that we must actually take care of is that, in a country that comes from a divided history, positive leadership exploits every initiative as a means of interaction to continue, through trial and error, to find one another. You don't object to a policy upfront or before it is implemented and declare it a sin. In that context, we have no hesitation, as the ANC, in agreeing with the IFP on the fact that there is a need to begin to look at the extent to which Parliament corresponds with the new initiatives in the executive. This will ensure that we move together for mutual accountability, using a language that ensures we understand one another. In that context ...
... sithi uMzantsi Afrika mawucathule kuhle kunye. Ungaphazanyiswa nto, ube yimbumba yamanyama ngoba ngaphandle koko uyakungenelelwa zintshaba. Bakufika oogqoloma inkungu isemnyama. Khululeka Mzantsi Afrika, ziphathe uzakhe ngokutsha. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[...we say that South Africa must tread carefully as one. It must not be derailed by anything and it must be a united front, otherwise it will be easy for enemies to penetrate our borders. Enemies will catch us unawares. South Africa be free, administer and rebuild yourself. [Applause.]]