Durban 30 October 2000
Sir Brian Elwood, President of the International Ombudsman Institute;
The Honourable Emile Short, President of the African Ombudsman Centre and
Ombudsman of Ghana;
Members of Cabinet;
Mr. Lionel Mtshali, Premier of KwaZulu-Natal, MEC's and traditional leaders;
Advocate Selby Baqwa, the Public Protector of South Africa;
Mr. Obed Mlaba, Mayor of Durban;
Honourable Public Protectors and Ombudsmen;
Members of Parliament;
Members of the Judiciary;
Members of the Diplomatic Corps;
Distinguished Guests;
Ladies and Gentlemen:
It is indeed an honour to welcome to our country our distinguished guests coming from around the globe to attend the VIIth International Ombudsman Institute Conference.
As this is the first time since the establishment of the International Ombudsman Institute in 1978 that its Conference takes place on the African Continent, I take the liberty to welcome the Institute and the delegates to Africa as well.
We trust that your experiences here will help to ensure that Africa will in future be considered by others as a suitable venue for the holding of such important Conferences as yours.
The fact that it had been decided to bring this conference to South Africa also strengthens us in our continuing efforts to entrench a culture of accountability and transparent and effective governance in our own country. In the Preamble of the South African Constitution the people of our country expressed their wish to build a united, democratic, non-racial and non-sexist South Africa, able to take its rightful place as a sovereign state among the family of nations.
Your presence here over the next few days communicates the very encouraging message that we have moved firmly towards the fulfilment of the wishes of our people.
The establishment of the office of ombudsperson in democratic South Africa was originally provided for in the 1993 interim Constitution. Our first and current Public Protector, Advocate Selby Baqwa assumed office on October 1, 1995.
The final Constitution of 1996 grouped our Ombudsperson, called the Public Protector, together with other independent institutions, such as the Human Rights Commission, the Commission for Gender Equality and the Auditor General in a chapter entitled "State Institutions Supporting Constitutional Democracy."
Our Constitution and statutes guarantee the independence of these institutions.
As a country, we have, in addition, sought further to reinforce the pursuit of the objectives towards which these institutions are committed by instituting a variety of other measures.
These have resulted in an increase in the number of statutory tasks delegated to the Public Protector.
The Executive Members' Ethics Act of 1998, for example, provides that the President must publish a code of ethics relating to the Executive that prescribes standards and rules aimed at promoting open, democratic and accountable government.
Members of Cabinet, Deputy Ministers and Members of the Provincial Executive Councils must comply with these rules and standards.
Any alleged breach of the code must be investigated by the Public Protector, who must submit a report on his/her findings to the President or the Premier, as the case may be.
The recently enacted Promotion of Access to Information Act, which will soon come into force, also empowers the Public Protector to resolve any dispute relating to the operation or the administration of this very important legislation.
Our people have become aware of the fact that not only do they now have a Constitution that protects their fundamental human rights, but also that they have the right and possibility to seek redress if these rights are violated.
Thus the institution of the Office of the Public Protector has become widely known and a respected public institutional citizen.
Moreover, as the Public Protector has gone about its work, more and more public servants and those holding public office have come to understand the importance of the Public Protector in the strengthening of our constitutional democracy.
There is therefore increasing acceptance of the fact that this assists government at all levels to maintain an efficient and people-centred administration.
In turn, this enhances the possibility further to improve co-operation between government agencies and the Office of the Public Protector for the benefit both of the institutions concerned and the citizenry at large.
These processes are of the greatest importance to us as we strive everyday to entrench the principles of transparency, accountability and service in the functioning of our system of governance.
For many of us, they have a particular resonance since we were brought up by a liberation movement that espoused the principle - the people shall govern!
When we came into government in 1994, we did not have the advantage of a tabula rasa with regard to any element of national life.
We did not inherit a clean slate on which we could write the mores of the new order and implement these without fear of hindrance from any inherited impediments.
In reality, we inherited the apartheid state machinery and system of governance virtually intact. The difficult work of establishing the new democratic system of governance is still going on and will continue for some time.
The system we inherited was necessarily characterised in part by intentional lack of transparency and accountability. Since it was dedicated to the oppression of the majority, necessarily, it had no history or culture of service to the majority of our people.
As the distinguished delegates are aware, the achievement of the practices of transparency, accountability and service does not rest solely on the existence of statutory instruments and the establishment of institutions and processes dedicated to this objective.
It depends also on the people who constitute the system of governance, both officials and public representatives. Undoubtedly, many of those we inherited from the apartheid system of governance continued to work within the new, still informed by the principles and practices of the old.
Our experience in this regard confirms what social science teaches, that the process of changing the minds of people almost always invariably lags behind the transformation of institutions.
We therefore continue with our work to build a new public service informed by the values and objectives of the democratic order.
I make these remarks in part because I believe that it would be important that this Conference should address the specific matter of how the Office of the Public Protector can assist in a more comprehensive manner in the building and consolidation of democracy, especially in those countries that are new democracies.
I believe that, in these circumstances, Public Protectors should not be content merely to determine rights and wrongs with regard to matters brought to their attention.
Bearing in mind that their own institution is operating within the context of an evolving situation, it would seem only natural that the Public Protectors should examine what else they should do to offer advice to society as it battles to win the struggle for stable democracies.
Happily, a number of your planned Workshops and Plenary Sessions provide space for the consideration of this matter.
Presumably, this will also include consideration of the possible abuse of the institution of the Public Protector by competing political groups as they struggle to discredit one another, with each seeking to diminish the influence and public standing of its opponents.
On previous occasions, I have taken the liberty to refer to the 1997 World Development Report of the World Bank, entitled " The State in a Changing World", with which the delegates are undoubtedly familiar.
This Report begins with the words:
" Around the globe, the state is in the spotlight. Far-reaching developments in the global economy have us revisiting basic questions about government: what its role should be, what it can and cannot do, and how best to do it...
" The approach of the twenty-first century brings great promise of change and reason for hope. In a world of dizzying changes in markets, civil societies, and global forces, the state is under pressure to become more effective, but it is not yet adapting rapidly enough to keep pace. Not surprisingly, there is no unique model for change, and reforms will often come slowly because they involve a fundamental rethinking of the roles of institutions and the interactions between citizens and government...
" People living with ineffective states have long suffered the consequences in terms of postponed growth and social development. But an even bigger cost may now threaten states that postpone reforms: political and social unrest and, in some cases, disintegration, exacting a tremendous toll on stability, productive capacity, and human life...
" Instances of state collapse are both extreme and unique, but they are growing... " The quest for a more effective state even in the established industrial countries suggests that the returns to incremental improvements are high. This is especially true in countries where the effectiveness of the state is low...
" Reform of state institutions is long, difficult, and politically sensitive. But if we now have a better sense of the size of the reform challenge, we are also much more aware of the costs of leaving things as they are."
I have quoted the World Development Report at this length to support your efforts to assess the importance of the global challenge of the transformation of the state to the institution of the Public Protector.
Once again, I would like to suggest that the place this institution occupies in the matrix of institutions that constitute the modern democratic state gives the Public Protector the unique possibility to make suggestions about various interrelated matters.
These include measures that should be taken to:
The matters you have to deal with as Public Protectors bear directly on issues of morality.
We consider this to be a matter of great importance to our own country, relating as it does to the issue of corruption and other crimes.
Accordingly, we would be most interested to hear what this Conference says about the question of ethics.
Again, it would seem to us that the Public Protector is better placed than, say, the judiciary or the Auditor General, to draw general conclusions bearing on the issue of ethics in society, using the information he or she accesses during the course of his or her work.
There is reason to believe that the challenge of the defence of ethical society is increasing rather than diminishing. I say this because of our own experience which, to some extent, is explained in a very cogent manner by the financier, George Soros.
In his book, "The Crisis of Global Capitalism", he writes:
" One of the great defects of the global capitalist system is that it has allowed the market mechanism and the profit motive to penetrate into fields of activity where they do not properly belong...
" The promotion of self-interest to a moral principle has corrupted politics and the failure of politics has become the strongest argument in favour of giving markets an ever freer reign.
" The functions that cannot and should not be governed purely by market forces include many of the most important things in human life, ranging from moral values to family relationships to aesthetic and intellectual achievements. Yet market fundamentalism is constantly attempting to extend its sway into these regions, in a form of ideological imperialism. According to market fundamentalism, all social activities and social interactions should be looked at as transactional, contract-based relationships and valued in terms of a single common denominator. Activities should be regulated, as far as possible, by nothing more intrusive than the invisible hand of profit-maximising competition. The incursions of market ideology into fields far outside business and economics are having destructive and demoralising social effects. But market fundamentalism has become so powerful that any political forces that dare to resist it are branded as sentimental, illogical and naïve."
If George Soros is correct, and I believe he is, then we have to absorb the lesson fully that the effort to establish effective, transparent, accountable and people-centred states has to confront a global tendency towards the adoption by all of us as individuals, of the principle of self-interest as the overriding value that informs our behaviour.
Criminal syndicates, many of them operating across frontiers and disposing of considerable sums of money, constitute one of the threats against which we have to contend. They, of course, thrive on the deification of the principle of self-interest above all else.
The implications of this to the work of the Public Protector are very clear.
The rebirth of Africa that the African masses are striving for can only succeed if the principles of democracy, transparency, accountability, good governance and human rights are adhered to.
In this regard, I believe that the institution of the Public Protector has an important role to play as a combatant for the African Renaissance.
Many instances in various parts of our Continent remind us of the enormity of the challenge we face.
One of these is represented by the efforts in which the people of the Cote d'Ivoire are engaged to return their country to democracy.
It seems perfectly clear to us that, among other things, the various political forces of that country must come together in a government of national unity so that, together, they can overcome come the consequences of the December 1999 coup d'etat and the recent flawed electoral process.
The challenge we face is also represented by the current violations of the cease-fire in the Democratic Republic of Congo, despite the most recent agreements solemnly entered into by Heads of State only a fortnight ago in Maputo.
These violations seem to be driven by the wrong and destructive concept that some still continue to entertain that force, rather than political solutions, is the preferred option for the resolution of Africa's problems.
As government, we want to commend the IOI for the outstanding work that has been done over the past 22 years to promote the concept of ombudsperson and to encourage its development throughout the world.
The number of delegates attending this conference from around the globe is a clear indication of the appreciation of the successes of this organisation and its critical role in future.
Undoubtedly, your discussions will empower you to improve your performance as ombudspersons, who seek to promote the interests of the people that you serve.
It will also help those of us who sit in executive positions to meet our own commitments to the masses of our people in ever better and more effective ways.
I trust that you will also have an opportunity to see something of our country and people, who will receive you with great warmth and enthusiasm.
I am also certain that they will communicate to you, who joined in the world-wide offensive to end the apartheid crime against humanity, both their thanks and their conviction that we are on course in our continuing struggle to achieve a better life for all our people, regardless of race, gender or age.
I wish you a happy stay in our country as well as success in your deliberations.
I thank you.