In Chapter 2 the concept 'distributed governance' context bound by democracy, was explored in relation to Hegemony and power, to illustrate how these two facets of Critical Theory influence distributed school governance as practiced in Gauteng schools. This chapter will deal with a comparison of school governance as practiced in Uganda, Britain, Sweden and Canada to what is taking place in Gauteng public schools. The literature revealed that increased degrees of transference of authority (that is power) over matters including financial control, administrative arrangements, curriculum content and educational direction have been delegated or devolved to interested role-players in school education such as parents, learners, educators and other local community bodies (Aspin,1995:30). The democratic devolution of power to local role-players in education has been justified by the participatory principle of assigning responsibility to the people who will most benefit from the education provided in schools (Aspin, 1995:30).
Globally education decentralization involves improving efficiency, effectiveness and democracy (Gershberg & Winkler, 2003:1).The introduction of democracy in South Africa demanded that equity, in all spheres of society be achieved, although it is also often acknowledged that because decentralisation makes localities more reliant upon their
65
economic and social endowments, some aspects of equity may suffer in the absence of adequate compensatory mechanisms (Gershberg & Winkler, 2003:2). In reality, reform practices must attempt to optimize the sometimes inevitable trade-offs between efficiency, equity, and democracy while seeking to improve on all three (Jimenez & Paqueo, 1996:377-378). The roadmap and implementation of distributed governance is inherently a political process; thus, the decisions about making these trade-offs rightly occur in the political arena (Ahmad, 1997: 380). In the 21st century, the conditions of being a global or regional power have changed and strategic and political role players such as controlling, global money circulation, determining the international agenda, deployment of military power in key regions, and being the “centre of attraction” internationally, have become absolutely necessary (Crouch & Vinjevold, 2007: 11,12).
3.2 SOUTH AFRICA’S POST–APARTHEID SCHOOL GOVERNANCE RESTRUCTURING
The South African Schools (SASA-Act 84 of 1996), guarantees a determined commitment to representative and shared governance in schools incorporating the concepts of accountability, transparency and public involvement (SASA - Act 84 of 1996). Upon closer scrutiny of the SASA (Act 84 of 1996), it should enable all role players on the SGB equal participation in decision-making processes within the school environment. Adams and Waghid (2005:25) view participation, community engagement, rationality, consensus, equality and freedom as the constitutive principles of the South African democracy when distributed school governance was conceived of in 1996. However the nature of distributed governance in schools has changed from its initiation in 1996 particularly at the micro level.
This is primarily because policies have been changed which has resulted in the swing of the pendulum of power away from the SGB to the state (Myburgh, 2004:12). Key representatives of the state vocalise the state’s attitude to the formulation and implementation of policies, as the sole responsibility of government. The first post 1994, Minister of Education, Professor Bengu defined policy goals and policy implementation plans, when he averred that “implementation plans can only really be made by a government” (DBE, 1998:33). In DBE’s record of successes since 1994, it suggests that policy and legislation are control mechanisms for fundamental change (DBE, 2001:29).
These government declarations affirm Sarason’s (1990:123) contention, that most government piloted education reform endeavours, are based on an inherent theory of change which predicts “that change can come about by proclaiming new policies or by legislation”. It is assumed that policies will be put into practice by SGBs if there are strong
66
controls to ensure that the bureaucracy diligently executes directives from the DBE. This fixation with control by the state is why amendments to the SASA have diminished the SGBs decision-making power and has seen a definite shift from decentralised school governance to centralised governance (DBE, 1998:33).
This current version of shared school governance (which is synonymous with distributed governance) has implications for democracy in South Africa. Froneman (2001:10) regards democracy as a contested term, because the totalitarian countries described their forms of government as democracies or people’s republics. Froneman (2001:10-11) reveals that in South Africa attitudes to democracy, society, law and the Constitution (Act 108 of 1996) are deeply contested, not only in white but also in black society. Steyn (1999:6) explains that the term “democracy” can also include the model of social democracy. Social democracy aims to achieve equality by means of state control. Equality in democratic theory refers to political and moral equality, equal treatment by public administration, equality before the law, equal opportunities, equal respect as a human being and equal consideration for the different needs of individuals and communities. Equality DBEs not entail that the state should enforce uniformity or absolute similarity on its citizenry. Selected democrats of the Schumpeterian School (Schumpeter, 1943 quoted by Sartori, 1987:213) regarded unprecedented public participation as a peril to democracy, because the efficiency of government and effectiveness of the state may be adversely affected.
On the other hand, social (also known as participatory) democrats argue that greater participation leads to improved effectiveness (Barber, 1984:150) and should be sought after.
Participatory democrats emphasise that participation educates citizens and stakeholders to transform their interests for the public good (Pateman, 1999:12). Barber (1984:155) suggested that the two terms, participation and community, form part of the unitary concept:
citizenship. There are divergent modes of participation including voting, campaigning, group activity, attending meetings contacting representatives and officials, protesting, petitioning, fundraising, canvassing and boycotting (Parry & Moran, 1994:46). According to Pateman (1999, id) a participatory democrat himself, specifically, proposed ways to democratise workplaces, the family, media, neighbourhoods, schools, and decision-making on human relations in the natural environment. He maintained that all these sites comprise ‘political systems’ in a general sense, which are linked in some way with the state, as they depict places where policy decisions are made based on power relations, and they are thus subject to democratisation (Bacharach, 1997:70-71).
67
The introduction of increasing decentralisation of financial, political, and administrative responsibilities to local spheres of government, local institutions, and communities, has seen participation emerge as a focal principle of the South African state, in order to guarantee equality and access to schools. In this respect Afrikaans-medium schools were singled out by the previous Minister of Education – Naledi Pandor, as institutions that obstruct the redress of past discriminatory practices, equal access, and transformation (Malherbe, 2004:26). Malherbe (ibid) further maintains that there is inexorable pressure on Afrikaans-medium schools to become parallel-Afrikaans-medium or dual-Afrikaans-medium institutions. Her (Naledi Pandor’s) justification was that these schools neglect education in the indigenous languages and this policy inflicts a one-sided humanistic view of religion on learners. Policies that demand conformity, deny diversity and impose uniformity and may now seem appealing in the name of equality, but are doomed to fail eventually, because one cannot build a unified nation by denigrating another, as history has taught us. The need recognised in the preamble of the South African Schools Act (Act 84 of 1996), namely, to protect the diversity of languages, culture and religion in school education, should be enshrined. The important democratic principles of decentralisation, distribution of authority and partnership in and mutual responsibility for education must be fostered and respected within school communities. Any partnership must be built on mutual trust and respect. As Young (2000:5) advises, “using democratic processes to promote legal, administrative, and social change toward greater justice is hard work”.