Deliberative democratic school governance .1 Introduction

As mentioned earlier, several notable changes took place in South Africa with the advent of democracy in 1994, not the least of which was in the area of education. Not only did the

constitution guarantee education for all, but the promulgation of the South African Schools Act guaranteed democratic deliberative participation for all stakeholders via governance structures in all schools. When the new governance structures came into force, it was not easy for many principals, who controlled their schools in an autocratic fashion. It appears that this

authoritarianism was carried over into many school boards. In the case of SDA schools in the Western Cape, many teachers and parents stated categorically that the school boards operated in a very exclusive manner. Teachers mentioned that if you served on the school board you were counted among the elite. When referring to the school board, the teachers spoke about

“them” and “us”. The teachers therefore felt that they had no voice. Parents felt that they had no voice as well, and admitted they had no idea who served on the school board, and that more parents should be appointed to the school board instead of so many school personnel. Certain principals admitted that they feared that, if more parents were elected to the board, they would

“take over”. Again, one gets the feeling that certain principals were afraid that they would lose control of the board and the school. Certain high school principals stated that allowing learners on the board would be a grave mistake. It was stated that the learners were too immature, could not keep confidences and would not be able to make a meaningful contribution on the board. It was clear that, when it came to representation, learners, parents and teachers were not well

136

represented, thus depriving them of an effective, deliberative democratic voice on the school board.

6.7.2 What is deliberative democratic school governance?

Mabovula (2008, 302) says that:

Deliberative democratic school governance (DDSG) will be a self-renewal strategy to be managed collaboratively on a consensual basis by all members of school

governance. It will need to be carefully planned and implemented in order to benefit all stakeholders. It is an educational strategy that is intended to change beliefs, attitudes and values of school governance stakeholders so that they can better adapt to change.

Its long-term goal will be to increase the school governance capacity for

self-revitalisation, increase its stakeholder ability to adapt to new conditions, solve problems and create a culture that focuses on the continuous growth of the schooling system as a whole.

Elster (1998, 1) says that “[t]he idea of deliberative democracy, or decision making by

discussion among free and equal citizens, is having a revival”. He further states that “under the influence of Jürgen Habermas, the idea that democracy revolves around the transformation rather than simply the aggregation of preferences has become one of the major positions in democratic theory”.

Gutmann and Thompson (2003, 31) state that “theories of deliberative democracy consist of a set of principles that are intended to establish fair terms of political co-operation in a

democratic society”. It is clear from these definitions that there is a need for deliberative democracy in SDA school boards in the Western Cape.

6.7.3 Democratic participation

It is clear that all stakeholder groups must participate in the schooling system by way of governance structures. However, in the case of the stakeholder groups in SDA schools in the Western Cape, many had no say in decision making, policy making and other matters affecting the learners, school, teachers and parents. Gutmann and Thompson (2003, 34) state

categorically that “we cannot justify coercive laws to persons who had no share in making them”. Stakeholder groups feel that they are not part of the system, not part of the governance structure and therefore do not belong. Democratic citizenship therefore is needed. This means that stakeholder groups need to be educated on how to engage and how to belong. Waghid (2010, 21) posits that “educating people to be democratic citizens involves making them aware of the right of political participation, the right to hold certain office and perform certain tasks, and the right to deliberate and decide upon certain questions”. Waghid contends that people must be educated so that they can take their rightful place in society. They must realise that

137

they cannot be excluded from “holding certain positions or performing certain tasks” (Waghid 2010, 21). This education process should help people realise the inclusivity that exists in the governance structures. They must experience what it is like to work with people of different cultures, creeds, religious persuasions and sex. Those things should not prevent people from participating as democratic citizens. They must also realise that being different does not

exclude one from participating with others. Sometimes they must agree to disagree. which is all part of the deliberative process. It is during the educating and training sessions that individuals learn to discuss, deliberate and come to decisions, and that some things often are agreed upon by consensus irrespective of personal feeling. When individuals in governance go through this process of education they also realise their rights as citizens. This makes it easier for them to deliberate and participate in governance structures. I therefore argue very strongly that school boards in the SDA school system should engage in deliberative democratic practices, as this will ensure participation by all, inclusion of all and treating one another as equals. In other words, all will be guaranteed equality of voice. Waghid (2014, 29) states that “democratic education is to give voice … rather than being included as voiceless participants in a democratic activity”. Waghid (2014, 30) also confirms Ranciére’s contention that “equality relates to the capacity of everyone to speak and listen”. In other words, every person therefore has an equal opportunity to speak, thereby exercising the democratic right to be heard.

Equality, however, does not come as a result of waiting for it, but equality is confirmed by participation and intervention. The Ranciérian conception is that, like equality, freedom is not something that people make for others, but that the liberatory actions come as a result of equality of intelligence (Waghid 2014). In other words, democratic deliberation gives people the freedom to express themselves freely. However, this is achieved by giving a voice to the voiceless. This freedom means that “they can see and think for themselves and are not dependent upon others who claim that they can see and think for them” (Waghid 2014, 32).

This is particularly true of school board members, who just attend meetings to vote, not to say a word, and only rubber-stamp as it were, leaving all the speaking to those whom they think are more intelligent. Waghid (2014, 33) puts it very cogently when he says that “democratic education is about people doing things for themselves, which places them in a position to be emancipated in the name of equality”. That is why I argue for education and training – capacity building for all school board members.

6.7.4 Summary

All who serve as governors should be given an equal opportunity to deliberate, participate, and to voice concerns and opinions without feeling intimidated or made to feel out of place.

138

Mabovula (2009, 221) says that the “basic concept is that each school governance individual is to be treated equally, and with due regard to his/her actual personal preferences”. According to Mabovula (2009, 222):

Calls for the inclusion of individuals and/or groups who will be affected by the policy decision under consideration as an important and necessary requirement to achieve true democratic legitimacy. The conditions of inclusion entail the interaction among

participants in a democratic decision-making process in which people hold one another accountable.

I cannot overemphasise the aspect of education and training for school governors to help them realise that it is their right to participate and to deliberate democratically. These rights are enshrined in the constitution and apply to all citizens.

I conclude this chapter with insights from Waghid (2010, 21):

democratic citizenship education is the notion of educating people about the right to deliberate and decide on certain questions. … We should recognize the right of people capable of speech and action to be participants in the moral conversation, whereby they should have the same rights to various speech acts, to initiate new topics and to ask for justification of the presuppositions of the conversation.

Waghid (2010, 21) further concurs that “only then do people become participants in an educative process underpinned by democratic citizenship”.

Administrators of SDA schools in the Western Cape, as well as officers involved in SDA education, would do well to follow the principles contained in deliberative democratic citizenship. In this way, participants in the governance structures will receive the necessary education to govern effectively and efficiently. The end result will be seen in excellent SDA schools in the Western Cape.

139 CHAPTER 7

IMPLICATIONS FOR EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT GOVERNANCE IN SDA