Reflections on postmodernism and governance: some implications for South African public administration and management theory and practice

---

Valiant A Clapper
Department of Public Administration, Unisa

Table of contents

Introduction
The death of orthodoxy
Postmodernism
Discourse theory
Sincerity
Situation-regarding intentionality
Willing attention
Substantive warrant
Critique
Postmodernism and public administration and management
Caution
Postmodernism and South Africa realities
General
Discourse theory and constitutionalism
Discourse theory and communitarianism
Conclusion

ABSTRACT

The recent introduction of postmodernism to public administration and management theory and practice holds implications for the development of the discipline particularly in a time when government transformation is an accepted norm. This article explores the currency of postmodernism for South African public administration and management theory and practice by evaluating discourse theory as a postmodern paradigm. It goes on to suggest that both practitioners and theorists may benefit much from adopting postmodern thought. The benefits that may derive from the latter should not, however, blind the theorist or practitioner to caution.

The South African government is currently in the process of major transformations which confront it with new opportunities, new freedoms and major challenges. The fundamental motivation behind this transformation is the quest for the establishment of a democracy after the apartheid era. This article explores the question whether the South African status quo vis-à- vis public administration and management is suitable for the establishment of a civil service which will support and enhance democracy.

Orthodoxy is still commonly accepted as the dominant mode of operation in public administration and management theory and practice. The latter, however, has become increasingly sensitive to concerns and concepts developed in other fields. One of the most recent developments that is exerting an influence on public administration and management theory and practice is postmodernism. Some commentators are making brave claims for the importance of postmodernism for public administration. These claims deserve careful scrutiny, particularly against the backdrop of radical transformation in government institutions and practice and the recent paradigm shifts in public administration epistemology.

This article attempts to outline the claims of Fox and Miller in particular in their articulation of postmodernism vis-à-vis public administration as reflected in their book Postmodern public administration: toward discourse (1995). The outline, that is the model that they suggest, is then briefly evaluated, and consideration is given to its implications for South African public administration and management theory and practice.

It is concluded that postmodernist thought, due principally to its pluralism and tolerant nature, holds positive implications for both theory and practice of public administration and management, as it allows for the unthinking of existing confining paradigms.

It needs to be noted that this article does not purport to establish a new paradigm for South African public administration and management, but represents an attempt to propose a possible avenue down which a fruitful journey may be embarked upon in the search for paradigms that may be compatible or tolerant in the light of South African heterogeneity.

THE DEATH OF ORTHODOXY

Fox and Miller start their challenge to public administration theory and practice by announcing the death of orthodoxy as an acceptable model of governance (1995: 3--6). The term `orthodoxy', as used in this article, was characterised among other traits -- according to the authors -- by Wilsonian neutral administration, Taylorist scientific management and Weberian bureaucratic control. The demise of orthodoxy, they argue, paved the way for alternative approaches to public administration and management theory and practice.

Two approaches contended to fill the vacuum, namely constitutionalism and communitarianism. Constitutionalism represents a continued quest among public administrators for legitimacy and justification of bureaucratic actions. This legitimacy and justification they find in the constitution and related legislation. Constitutionalists argue that non-elected public officials owe allegiance first and foremost to the constitution, and then to political office-bearers: what may be termed constitutional supremacy. Communitarians, on the other hand, endeavour to legitimise total participation of the citizenry in governance because, the argument goes, citizen participation is the life blood of democracy.

Fox and Miller's book arises from a recognition of the inability of orthodoxy to respond in a relevant way to current needs in public administration and management. They contend that bureau„cracy should no longer be the dominant theme in the theory and praxis of public administration and management (1995:8,9). While they recognise the acute need for alternative models to orthodoxy, they are not unduly impressed by what they understand the constitutionalist and communitarian models have to offer in its place. They argue that both constitutionalism and communitarianism are fraught with contradictions.

They see the constitutionalist argument as weak and unconvincing attempts to legitimise the administrative state (Fox & Miller 1995:25, 29--32); a disguised effort to revive orthodoxy. Hence constitutionalism is quite unresponsive to postmodern conditions.

Communitarianism, according to them, is based on an imagined civic consciousness among the citizenry (Fox & Miller 1995:15--18, 35--39). There is a well publicised lack of efficacy and interest in political matters among the public that substantiates their claim (Clapper 1993:64--86).

POSTMODERNISM

Fox and Miller introduce what they believe to be a timely and legitimate model for public administration by first describing the postmodern environment in which public administration must function. This postmodern environment is characterised by a complete distrust of universalism, orthodoxy, and a `one best method'. Instead it is anti-foundationalist, deconstructive, and espouses a profusion of competing `realities'. `Postmodernism is the return of, and revenge of the different, the assertion of the random non pattern, and the unassimilable anomaly' (Fox & Miller 1995:45). In a phrase, postmodernism celebrates otherness.

Weighing orthodoxy, constitutionalism and communitarianism against postmodern conditions, the authors find these models wanting. For example, as constitutionalism aspires to function under postmodern conditions, it is faced with the problem that any attempt to pass anything as a Medes and Persian type canon is bound to be denounced, deconstructed, and summarily dismissed. Communitarianism is faced with the stark reality that postmodern conditions are inhabited by the `citizen' who is absent from the no longer structured real life of society. Citizens under these conditions are not participants. The alleged universal citizen participation activities are merely evocative of 'nostalgic fantasies of true democracy' (Fox & Miller 1995:39).

DISCOURSE THEORY

Against this background Fox and Miller introduce discourse theory as a more relevant and realistic alternative to the models which came about as a reaction to orthodoxy. They believe that their model strives to respond to postmodern conditions.

Anticipating criticism of their model, they are quick to concede that the postmodern condition of discourse has a tendency not to be rooted in anything concrete. This trait of postmodern discourse may jeopardise their model unless the latter is made tangible and is connected to terra firma by its response to specific situations. These situations, they assert, are provided by the needs that public administration must respond to.

They describe their model as being `less concerned with legitimising and more concerned with policy ... (with) what should we do next?' (Fox & Miller 1995:40). This is an exciting and animating question in the South African context where the government seems to be caught in an apparently eternal struggle to prove legitimacy; being strong on rhetoric, but quite weak in the doing department. This the prevalent complaints of a non-delivering Reconstruction and Development Programme attest to.

Fox and Miller assert that their discourse theory is based on authentic and morally defensible discourse. They contend that under conditions of orthodoxy, bureaucratic problem solving is characterised by pre-identified solutions, with the result that no dialogue is entered into. No opportunity is given to define problems, and therefore no situation-specific solutions arise. This situation stifles authentic social action, and makes for unauthentic discourse based on monologue (Fox & Miller 1995:50--52). This was the case with apartheid where each problem was responded to with a neatly packaged preconceived solution which killed off any discussion before it started. Political debate was displaced by media spectacle and resulted in symbolic politics that deliver very little in terms of `concrete ' (Fox & Miller 1995:50--67).

Fox and Miller suggest four `warrants for discourse' in their effort to establish authentic discourse which will accommodate a pluralism of views and multiple conversations. These warrants for discourse anticipate that those involved in authentic discourse will have equal opportunity to influence the discourse, and that the convictions of the participants will, discursively, undergo alteration (1995:117--119). Their warrants for authentic discourse are the following: sincerity, situation-regarding intentionality, willing attention and substantive contribution (1995:120--127).

SINCERITY

The underlying sincerity as a warrant is premised upon the fact that sustained insincerity destroys trust and makes communication almost impossible. Thus, striving towards honesty is a prerequisite for discourse which leads to ultimate activity in the public interest.

Situation-regarding intentionality requires that those involved in authentic discourse should carefully consider the context (regard the situation) of the item under discourse, the lives of those affected, and the broader public interest. This will guard against `abstract ideological posturing that occurs when discussants have no problematic to ponder ...' (Fox & Miller 1995:123). Hence the more concretely a problem is defined, the more authentic the discourse vis-à-vis the problem.

Willing attention dictates that those involved in the discourse must not be apathetic, but passionately engaged in seeking or devising resolutions for the identified problem.

Substantive warrant

The substantive contribution warrant requires that the participants must be efficacious, that is, able to contribute substantively to the solution of the problem.

The stated warrants undergird Fox and Miller's plea for authentic govern„ance that involves both the governed and the governing. Here they call to their aid the thoughts of social theorists such as Hannah Arendt and Jürgen Habermas in support of their argumentation. Both Arendt and Habermas argue cogently for a revival of the public sphere (Benhabib 1992:73--98), that is an institutionalised arena of discursive interaction between society and government (Benhabib 1992:74). In the light of an eroded public sphere both Arendt and Habermas aspire towards a theorisation of the minimal conditions prerequisite for a discursive realm free from structural coercion or manipulation (Villa 1992:712).

It should be noted that Habermas' use of the concept `discourse' in particular seems to be in quest of a universal discourse, and thus supplies the basis for foundationalism (Fox & Miller 1995:74, 114--119). In this sense Habermas' use is non-postmodernist, as it implicates the establishment of a meta-narrative more at home with modernist thought. Showing their awareness of this anomaly, Fox and Miller endeavour to solve it by claiming that they endow the concept `discourse' with a pluralistic rather than a monolithic nature. They argue for plural discourses with plural viewpoints, hence multiple pockets of `truth' (1995:119).

The important claim remains; that is that discourse theory amounts to a plea for authentic contributions towards governance from all who want to and are able to participate.

Although there are points of agreement between discourse theory and communitarianism, the models must not be seen as synonymous. The main difference lies in the insistence of communitarianism that all citizens must participate, as opposed to the plea of discourse theory that authentic participation takes place only through the involvement of those who embrace the res publica (Fox & Miller 1995:39). Only discourse theory, they claim, strengthens democracy.

A vehicle that makes authentic discourse possible is the policy network (Fox & Miller 1995:12, 149--157). Policy networks may be briefly defined as communities of experts who share a common interest(s) and who operate within a functionally defined policy area (Leishman, Cope & Starie 1995:28). These ideally depoliticised policy networks should be differentiated and categorised according to `interests, membership, resources and dependencies' (Leishman, Cope & Starie 1995:28). It is conspicuous that the employment of policy networks as an ideal instrument for the revival of the public sphere arises from Fox and Miller's deep concern for practical application of their discourse theory, as opposed to letting it disappear into the realm of abstraction. This is obviously an effort to avoid the criticism of utopianism often levelled against postmodernism, stated by Callinocos as postmodernists being dreamers `fiddling while Rome burns' (Parker 1992:11).

CRITIQUE

Fox and Miller's discourse theory is at once exhilarating and irritating: exhilarating for the fresh insights it provides in the light of the demise of orthodoxy, as well as the sober approach it provides in the consideration of constitutionalism and communitarianism; irritating in that it constrains public administration and management theorists and practitioners to move outside the protective framework of established comfortable paradigms. It expands on a very different approach to the study and practice of public administration and management. Discourse theory as an approach to public administration and management has recently been articulated in the works of Villa (1992), Fraser (1989), Habermas (1989) and others, and is therefore not a uniquely Fox and Miller introduction.

There are signs indicating that the application of postmodern ideas to public administration and management is fast becoming imperative, as public managers have ignorantly been operating under postmodern conditions without giving much, if any, attention to it. Hence the practical and epistemological implications of such neglect have not been considered.

Particularly among the South African Public Administration fraternity there seems to be, at worst, an ignorance of postmodern conditions and debate, and, at best, a reluctance to become involved in the debate.

A comparison of some of the latest South African public administration and management publications with the older ones does not reveal anything different, radically new, or particularly inspiring. Laudable efforts to introduce useful originality into public administration and management theory and practice are reflected in the recent books on case-study teaching methodology as applied to public administration (Schütte, Schwella & Fitzgerald 1995; Brynard & Erasmus 1995). While these publications are novel to public administration pedagogy in South Africa, they represent attempts to teach orthodox public administration principles and practices in a way that is already old-hat in the teaching of, among others, legal subjects.

The postmodern condition requires more than just novelty. It requires informed and authentic responses to real issues.

Postmodernism and public administration and management

Because of the newness of postmodern thought to public administration, it is necessary to become acquainted with the jargon of the postmodernist mode of expression. One of the major characteristics of postmodernism is that it questions the validity of the precision and rigour of the scientific method (Parker 1992:2, 10). In this sense it is deconstructive of orthodoxy, and therefore shuns the restrictive language of orthodoxy -- a tendency that is often threatening to supporters of the latter. In reality, however, it may be quite liberating, as it provides the facility to view orthodoxy and other paradigms of public administration and management in a new light. This may lead to the retention of some of the useful aspects of the older paradigms, while responding relevantly and accountably to the status quo.

Fox and Miller successfully demonstrate that the postmodern debate opens up great possibilities for the exploration and establishment of new paradigms in public administration theory and practice as it sets the academic and practitioner free to break away from paradigm fixation. Think back on the recent South African New Public Administration Initiative (NPAI), and its inability to successfully move away from the generic function approach to public administration. The dismissal of NPAI efforts by some of its previously most vociferous spokespersons is one of many factors that make a new approach or approaches to South African theory and praxis of public administration and management crucial.

Caution

The need for a new and sustained paradigm search, however, should not blind the academic to the pitfalls that lie in the wake of such a search. This caution is particularly in order when considering the use of postmodern thought in the search for or development of public administration and management paradigms. The novelty of utilising postmodernist thought and methods in the search for relevant paradigms cannot be embarked upon without the necessary circumspection. There are at least two possible and paradoxical responses to novelty. One response may be fear or reluctance to venture into the unknown and untested. The other may be to embrace them undiscerningly as a cure-all, and to discard out of hand all old paradigms. The academic and practitioner must be aware of this tight rope that needs to be walked.

The danger of being engulfed by a novelty that cannot deliver what it has promised is infinitely exacerbated under postmodern conditions where nothing is final or sacrosanct; that is paradigms are constantly revisited and revised in order to test their validity. Postmodernism is therefore intolerant towards orthodoxies, and it amounts to academic and social suicide to unquestioningly claim dogmatic finality.

Having sounded this clarion call to exercise discretion, there is still a challenge to public administration and management academics and practitioners. The summons laid at the door of these parties by postmodernism is to seriously question and challenge their current relation to the subject and practice as it is constituted at present.

In the light of this, Wallerstein's (1991:1) concept of unthinking is quite valid when it comes to postmodern public administration and management. It assumes a clean break from established paradigms, and an entirely new way of approaching any social science. In this sense it goes further than rethinking which seems to merely require adjustments to old orthodoxies. It should be clear, then, that the postmodern condition demands more of public administration and management practitioners and academics than just radical rethinking. While rethinking is normal and necessary in any discipline, there is still a tendency to not be fully liberated from the paradigms that we criticise. This proclivity has been alluded to with reference to the NPAI. The latter provides evidence that established methodologies are somewhat tyrannical in their inclination to imprison their patrons. Postmodernism may allow a clean break with these dominant epistemologies, and initiate a process of unthinking.

POSTMODERNISM AND SOUTH AFRICAN REALITIES

In this section brief consideration will be given to some salient South African verities in the light of postmodernism and discourse theory.

Again a cautionary note might be in order. The pluralist nature of postmodernism has been subject to criticism. For example, does Ziauddin Sardar (1993:879) have a point when he states so incisively that `(postmodernisms) ... surface pluralism veils a monolithic matrix at its core. Its language, logic and analytical grammar are intrinsically Eurocentric and shamelessly cannibalistic of Others (read `'non-Western cultures'')'. These suspicions need to inform the South African public administration and management academic and practitioner who want to espouse postmodernism without caution.

Discourse theory and constitutionalism

The misgiving with which Fox and Miller view constitutionalism is a point to be carefully considered in the South African context. Previously the South African public servant operated under a dispensation of political supremacy. This implied that the public servant was obliged to function according to the directives of the government of the day. This left the public functionary with little if any discretionary powers. The current interim constitution, theoretically at least, denies the government of the day such absolute powers, determining that the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1993 (Act 200 of 1993) is the highest authoritative instrument for the governance of the country (article 4(1)). Potential arrogation of this authority is dealt with by an independent Constitutional Court. Any action of any public functionary, albeit an elected or appointed person, is, theoretically at least, measured against the Constitution for validation, that is for legitimacy.

Here Fox and Miller's criticism of constitutionalism becomes cogent within the South African context. Does a concern for legitimacy -- for agreement with the Constitution -- make an action of a public functionary moral, just and promotive of the public weal? A case in point is the abolition of the death sentence in South Africa on the grounds that it violates the right to life, a basic tenet of the interim constitution (chapter 3). All indications are that the general public would be in favour of re-instatement of the death penalty in view of the extant violence in South African society. They are prepared to indicate their wishes in a referendum. The government of the day, at least the majority party in the Government of National Unity (GNU), however, is not prepared to allow a referendum, on the ostensible inference that the supremacy of the Constitution cannot be questioned or subjected to public caprice. This seems to be somewhat of an anachronism, however, because while constitutionalism is heralded as gospel, there are various actions and potential actions on the part of the powers that be that putatively negate this claim. Attestations to this are the frequent disputes on constitutional issues that arise between the ANC as majority party in the GNU and the National Party and Democratic Party in particular. Many of these disputes arise because the ANC as majority party in the GNU reputedly frequently violates constitutional principles with impunity.

In this instance discourse theory is perhaps a model that may stifle potential machiavellian tendencies masquerading as democracy. This is so because discourse theory concedes to the necessity of authentic discourse with all parties that may potentially be influenced by a particular policy or policies.

Hence the search should be, not so much for legitimacy, but for responsiveness to real felt and experienced needs, based on authentic and informed consultative dialogue via policy networks. This plea seems evident and supported by calls for a final constitution to be less normative and more specific and informed by authentic discourse (Robertson 1995:24).

Discourse theory and communitarianism

The more overt manifestations of communitarianism in South Africa are rooted in the liberation struggle. The driving force behind the liberation struggle may be found in the demand of citizens -- or at least some individuals or groups who know how to manipulate the masses -- for accountable government.

Brynard (1995:511) maintains that one consequence of modern society is that citizen-state interaction will escalate and become increasingly crucial. In the light of the latter, Clapper (1995:102--105) argued for both elitism and demo„tism in citizen participation vis-à-vis government. These assertions are in direct opposition to any suggestions of a denial of demotic participa„tion. Such a denial is evident in Fox and Miller's discourse theory. Their application of it seems to champion only elitist participation in policy networks. Devout communitarians find it difficult to unconditionally accept that the requirements of democracy are met if there are opportunities to participate, irrespective of whether people make use of such opportunities (cf Fox & Miller 1995:38 and Clapper 1995:104, 105). Fox and Miller's use of discourse theory seems like a justification for technocrats to legitimately bypass the masses.

The fact is that every citizen to some degree inevitably participates in government issues that influence his or her life by virtue of paying or refusing to pay taxes and rates, among other aspects. Hence it is necessary for government to aid the potential participant in being informed about where and how he or she should participate. In South Africa this need is evidenced by government's inability to provide certain primary services due to the refusal of some communities to pay for these services. In carrying out its democratic responsibility of building the capacity of the citizenry, teaching them where, when and how to participate, government can develop that all-important res publica.

It is true that at the moment mass democracy exists only as a poten„tial. More than merely preserving it (Fox & Miller 1995:39), however, government should devotedly and fondly engage in developing this potential, bearing in mind that the postmodern quest is for authenticity. This is particularly true in South Africa where the success of the Reconstruction and Development Program depends to a large measure on an informed and efficacious public (ANC 1994:120,�121). Therefore, while Fox and Miller are correct in arguing that `fools should not be suffered' (1995:40), they evidently fail to recognise that government's responsibility is to transform fools into efficacious discoursers.

The body or bodies that accede to the responsibility of government under postmodern conditions should therefore passionately pursue democracy as their primary goal, although never expecting to arrive at their destination. There are, however, enough serendipities that lie in the wake of this quixotic quest.

Conclusion

A sobering realisation that the postmodern debate introduces to public administration and management is that the future is not what it used to be. Hence it requires very different responses and actions from the ones extant in South African public administration and management theory and practice. Neither Weberian orthodoxy nor any `one best method' rings true in a pluralistic world where almost infinite pockets of reality legitimately vie for attention. South African civic and institutional transformation, to a large extent, is the ideal situation in which to seek novel solutions accommodative of the country's heterogeneity (as evidenced in its different peoples, worldviews and cultures) and disparities (as evidenced in education and socio-economic status). Postmodernism provides the language, tools, and tolerance necessary to intrepidly launch such a search.

While there are criticisms that may be levelled against postmodernism and postmodernists, it holds the promise of providing the kind of accommodation necessary for authentic responsiveness to real, not imagined public needs. The criticisms that may be directed against postmodernism may be one of the strengths of this condition, as such criticisms are grounds for the eternal vigilance under which postmodernists thrive in order to avoid becoming fundamentalist and unresponsive to increasing and mutating needs.

The essential eternal vigilance of postmodernism portends favourably for the advancement of public administration epistemology and praxis as it avoids paradigm fixation, and demands continual revision of existing paradigms.

While there is evidence of flaws, Fox and Miller's efforts toward developing a model that promotes democratic public administration under postmodern conditions are laudable, and to be welcomed. Their plea for authenticity in a world where symbolic government and blindly following masses seem to be at the order of the day is just what is needed in times when many signs seem to be prognosticating the dawn of a twenty-first century reminiscent of an Orwellian 1984.

Essentially, then, introducing postmodernist debate into public administration and management theory and practice represents the view that the discipline is growing, and that portends positively for the future of its theory and its practice. This has the potential of driving away any despair that might arise in the face of the state of the discipline currently. In the light of the potential that postmodernism has to offer, Woody Allen might have said: `rumours of the death of Public Administration are gross exaggerations'.

LIST OF SOURCES

ANC 1994.

The Reconstruction and Development Programme -- a policy framework. Johannesburg: Umanyano Publications.

Benhabib, S 1992.

Models of public space: Hanna Arendt, the liberal tradition, and JÏrgen Habermas. In Calhoun, C (ed.) Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Brynard, D J 1995.

The citizen and the state: implications of the interim constitution of South Africa. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 7(4):511--516.

Brynard, P & Erasmus, K 1995.

Public management and administra„tion case-study resource book. Hatfield, Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Clapper, V A 1993.

Role and influence of citizen participation in public administration with specific reference to the Eersterust Local Government. Unpublished MAdmin dissertation. Pretoria: Unisa.

Clapper, V A 1995.

Citizen participation: demotic or elitist?, Politeia: 14(1):102--105.

Degenaar, J 1995.

Myth and the collision of cultures. Myth and Symbol, 2:39--61.

Fox, C J & Miller, H T 1995.

Postmodern public administration: toward discourse. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.

Leishman, F, Cope, S & Starie, M 1995.

Reforming the police in Britain: new public management, policy networks and a tough `old bill'. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 8(4):26--37.

Mbigi, L 1994.

The spirit of African management. In Christie, P, Lessem, R & Mbigi, L (eds.) African management: philosophies, concepts and applications. Johannesburg: Knowledge Resources.

Miller, H T 1994.

Post-Progressive Public Administration: lessons from policy networks. Public Administration Review, July/August. 54(4):378--385.

Parker, M 1992.

Post-modern organizations or postmodern organization theory? Organization Studies, 13(1):1--17.

Robertson M 1995.

Wish list won't solve our problems, in The Sunday Times, 26 November:24.

Sardar, Z 1993.

Do not adjust your mind: post-modernism, reality and the Other. Futures, October:877--893.

Schütte, L B, Schwella, E, & Fitzgerald P (eds), 1995.

Changing public and developing management: South African cases. Kenwyn: Juta.

Sono, T 1995.

Dilemmas of African intellectuals in South Africa -- political and cultural constraints. Pretoria: Unisa Press.

South Africa 1993.

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, (Act 200 of 1993).

Villa, D R 1992.

Postmodernism and the public sphere. American Political Science Review, September 86(3):712--721.

Wallerstein, I 1991.

Unthinking social science -- the limits of nineteenth century paradigms. Cornwall, Great Britain: TJ Press.

V A Clapper
Dept of Public Administration
University of South Africa
PO Box 392
UNISA
0003
South Africa