Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni, who has political oversight over government communications, at a media briefing held in Cape Town on November 13, 2024. The GCIS has come to be linked with mismanagement, ineptitude and internal tensions, resulting in an inadequate execution of the mandate bestowed on it by the Constitution, says the writer. Picture: Jairus Mmutle/GCIS
Dr. Reneva Fourie
THE South African Constitution (1996) unequivocally states: ‘Everyone has the right of access to – (a) any information that is held by the state … ’. The Promotion of Access to Information Act (Act No. 2 of 2000) reinforces this fundamental right. Citizens frequently access this law to obtain personal information or expose corruption. However, there is a pressing need to strengthen its implementation regarding how the government communicates information about governance to the public.
The right to access information is constitutionally enshrined because it is a fundamental element of the democratic process. Every government action must be communicated to the broadest audience possible, using clear and understandable language. Open communication that promotes transparency and accountability is essential for effective governance and cultivating unity and cohesion within society. It is a critical factor in bridging the trust gap between the public and government and must be prioritised.
The Government Communication Information System (GCIS) within the Presidency exists precisely for this reason. Its mission is to ensure effective government communication, set standards, maintain message coherence, and proactively inform the public about government policies and achievements. Since its launch in 1998, billions have been allocated to the GCIS. Nonetheless, a notable portion of the citizenry remains uninformed about fundamental aspects of governmental operations and its ongoing activities.
At the outset of establishing the Government of National Unity, the Democratic Alliance made several demands regarding appointing their own personnel and vendors. This situation raised concerns about their adherence to public staffing and procurement processes in the jurisdictions where they govern. Moreover, it exposed an inadequate comprehension of fundamental governance principles. Public service appointments and procurement processes are subject to stringent laws and regulations. These prescripts are bolstered by robust internal and external control measures, the compliance with which must be accounted for in Parliament.
Although this information is publicly available, the apparent unfamiliarity of a well-established political entity such as the DA with governmental operations suggests that such information may not be as accessible to the public as it should be. Most citizens do not have the time or resources to thoroughly engage with a plethora of legislation, governmental strategic plans and annual reports, Auditor General findings or parliamentary debates. Additionally, regular visits to their local Parliamentary Constituency Office are only feasible for some.
Furthermore, South Africa’s glaring socio-economic inequality means that while urban areas are typically well-connected and have reliable internet access, rural communities and informal settlements often struggle to stay connected. This digital divide implies that relying on social media or websites for communication is insufficient to ensure that all citizens receive vital government information. Consequently, the majority of citizens depend heavily on the GCIS to keep them informed.
The apartheid government had a formidable Department of Information, which adeptly facilitated the dissemination of apartheid propaganda both domestically and internationally. In the context of increasing international isolation, this department initiated various projects focused on publishing, media relations, public relations, lobbying and diplomacy to enhance the public perception of the South African government at that time. While these efforts ultimately led to the Muldergate scandal – and it is imperative that the GCIS does not replicate such practices – this chapter in history underscores the weighty emphasis that the apartheid regime placed on strategic communication.
The communication capabilities of the apartheid regime were competently countered by the accomplished communications department of South Africa’s dominant liberation movement. Although the African National Congress and the South African Communist Party were banned and operated in exile, their publications were recognised for their exceptional quality.
Consequently, the reach of these publications was extensive, including inside the country, as facilitated by a robust underground network. Radio Freedom, which broadcast on shortwave radio, ensured that members and supporters were informed of the January 8 statement, among others.
The United Democratic Front proficiently distilled the then-banned information through innovative methods, making it more accessible and relatable to ordinary citizens. Coherent communication and relatively cohesive action were maintained throughout the Congress movement until 1990. This comprehensive strategic communications astuteness was gradually neglected once the ANC-headed alliance assumed power, much to its detriment given the enormous investments that opposition parties make in this area.
However, the post-1994 government recognised that freedom of expression and access to information is integral to a democratic society.
Hence, it established a communications task group (Comtask) to provide recommendations on restructuring government communication to align with the new constitutional aspirations. The outcomes of the Comtask gave birth to GCIS, with Joel Netshitenzhe as its inaugural Chief Executive Officer. Under his leadership, it grew into a sterling, world-class entity. Regrettably, more recently, the GCIS has come to be linked with mismanagement, ineptitude and internal tensions, resulting in an inadequate execution of the mandate bestowed on it by Comtask.
When governments fail to communicate with clarity, transparency and timeliness, the consequences are not just significant – they can be catastrophic. Mediocre communication erodes public trust, fuels social unrest and undermines critical policy implementation. In today’s world of instant information and global connectivity, the risks associated with poor government messaging are at an all-time high. A disengaged citizenry inevitably feels powerless, which breeds political apathy and creates fertile ground for populist movements that exploit fear and ignorance. It is thus imperative that GCIS be restored to a communications powerhouse. Consideration should be given to decentralising some of its operations to maximise impact without weakening strategic cohesion.
This is important because the dangers of poor government communication are profound and multifaceted. Given that information is power, we must find innovative ways to connect with those communities that may struggle to access mainstream communication channels. By doing so, we can empower citizens and foster a greater sense of understanding, involvement and ownership among the populace. These inclusive practices enhance governance efficacy and reinforce the vital social contract required for a vibrant and thriving democracy. An effective GCIS can contribute to an environment where everyone feels valued.
* Dr Reneva Fourie is a policy analyst specialising in governance, development and security.
** The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of The African.
