When public office becomes a survival strategy

There is a difficult question that South Africans should be asking more openly: When does public office stop being a responsibility to society and become a strategy for personal survival?

The question is not about political activism. It is not about whether individuals have the right to organise, contest elections or seek positions of leadership. Those are fundamental features of a constitutional democracy.

The deeper question is what happens when political office becomes the destination for people who may have failed elsewhere, or when access to public power is treated as a means of escaping accountability rather than accepting responsibility.

South Africa's Constitution does not envisage public office as a refuge. It places enormous responsibilities on those entrusted with state power. Public representatives are expected to serve the people, uphold the Constitution and act in the public interest.

Yet our political environment increasingly raises uncomfortable questions about the relationship between political survival and public leadership.

There is a growing phenomenon in which political activism is presented as sufficient qualification for governance. But activism and governance are not the same thing.

To mobilise people is one thing. To govern them responsibly is another.

Governance requires competence, judgement, institutional understanding and an appreciation of the consequences of decisions. It requires leaders who understand that the power attached to public office is not personal property. It is held in trust for the public.

This becomes particularly important when individuals who have been involved in political battles, institutional controversies or allegations of wrongdoing position themselves for public office. Allegations are not convictions, and accusations must never be treated as proof of guilt. But neither should political ambition automatically erase legitimate questions about conduct, accountability and suitability for office.

The constitutional principle is simple: public power must serve the public good.

A political career should therefore not become a mechanism through which accountability is avoided. Nor should a public position be regarded as a form of political insurance against personal or organisational difficulties.

The danger is that when public office becomes a survival strategy, the priorities of governance can become distorted.

Instead of asking, What can I do for the community?, the question becomes, What position can secure my political future?

Instead of protecting institutions, leaders may become preoccupied with protecting political networks.

Instead of building functioning municipalities, departments and public entities, political energy is spent on factional battles, appointments and the preservation of influence.

This is where South Africa's democracy faces one of its most serious tests.

The people who queue for public office are not merely asking for a title. They are asking for access to public resources, institutional authority and the ability to make decisions that affect millions of lives.

That requires a much higher standard than political popularity.

Citizens have every right to ask prospective leaders difficult questions. What have you built? What have you delivered? What institutions have you strengthened? How have you treated public resources? What have you done when those around you were accused of wrongdoing? Have you demonstrated the ability to accept criticism and accountability?

These questions should not be regarded as political persecution. They are legitimate questions in a constitutional democracy.

There is also a responsibility on political organisations themselves.

Political parties cannot simply become vehicles for recycling individuals from one position to another whenever their political fortunes change. They have a responsibility to examine the character, competence and record of those they put forward for public office.

A candidate should not be considered suitable merely because they are a skilled political operator.

South Africa needs political leaders who can distinguish between winning power and using power responsibly.

The distinction matters.

Winning an election gives a politician authority. It does not give them ownership of the state.

Being appointed to a public position gives a person responsibility. It does not give them immunity from scrutiny.

And political activism may give someone a platform. It does not automatically provide the qualification required to govern complex institutions.

This is not an argument against activists entering government. On the contrary, many of South Africa's finest leaders emerged from political activism. The lesson of history, however, is that activism must ultimately be converted into responsible governance.

The citizen must come first.

That is why the question of whether public office has become a survival strategy deserves serious attention.

If political office is pursued primarily because it provides protection, influence, income, status or an escape from political irrelevance, then society has a problem.

Public office should be a commitment, not a lifeboat.

It should be a responsibility, not a reward.

It should be an opportunity to repair institutions, expand opportunity and improve people's lives—not a mechanism for protecting individuals from the consequences of their own political choices.

South Africans should therefore demand more from those who seek to govern them.

We should move beyond the politics of personalities and slogans and begin interrogating records, competence and integrity.

The real qualification for public office should not simply be the ability to mobilise a crowd or survive a political contest. It should be the demonstrated ability to serve people, respect institutions and accept accountability.

Our Constitution deserves nothing less.

And neither do the people.

By Fundile Gade, Writing in his own Personal capacity, ANC PEC Member Eastern Cape, Social Activist