One of the major reasons the government is not functioning as it should is that it lacks a political culture that promotes service excellence. As such, the public does not feel any sense of connection with the government. Those who can afford it prefer to use private service providers, even in those areas where the government has a comparative advantage. They would rather pay a premium for quality services than suffer bureaucratic bullying and low-quality services.

Unfortunately, most citizens don’t have this choice. They either use poor-quality public services or perish. A segment of the middle classes can exist within a substate populated by private service providers, including private schooling and security companies and relying on their private cars to get to work.

People in this segment shun government services where they can because the services are below the acceptable norm to guarantee human dignity. It is not that politicians and senior bureaucrats don’t understand the notion of dignity, it’s just that they do not really believe it is possible to secure it through public institutions. They, too, are part of the privileged segment that uses the private healthcare system and private schools.

Public service inefficiencies have also given rise to a layer of profitable private service providers, which act as middlemen to optimise public service delivery for those who can pay a premium. These middlemen do not create innovative products or add value to broader society. They exist to offer an individualised service and have become part of the value chain of government services such as renewing vehicle registrations, obtaining birth certificates, applying for a passport and registering a company.

This does not make for a healthy society since it is the government that should establish a framework of basic norms of acceptable services. Instead, private agencies create basic norms in critical services such as healthcare and education.

No doubt, there are many examples of hardworking, self-sacrificing, and committed public servants who try to find innovative ways of serving the public. Their efforts are overshadowed by the general state of dysfunction that marks critical areas in public services. We will only know we are doing better when there is a shift away from private service providers to public services. As long as private agencies and middlemen proliferate, it will be a sign of a lack of vitality in our public services.

A few factors explain the poor form of our government bureaucracy. The first has to do with a lack of norms that are internalised by public servants, especially in the top echelons. Such norms should facilitate a healthy interface between the public and the government. It is only when leaders commit to promoting norms of public service excellence at the top and across the government that real change will be evident.

Further, the government will inevitably compete with the private sector to attract scarce talent. Often the government loses the battle for talent. Even those who work in the government out of choice and a commitment to the greater good find themselves demoralised by the absence of leadership and the prevailing culture of incompetence fostered by cadre deployment at the top.

Another factor that stifles innovative thinking in the government is the existence of a hierarchical rank system. One ludicrous example of this culture is evident among senior government officials who are addressed in meetings as directors-general or deputy directors-general rather than by their proper names. This fosters respect for rank and mediocrity rather than excellence. This is allowed because it helps those at the top to mask their incompetence.

In its National Development Plan, the National Planning Commission has made a few sensible recommendations that the African National Congress should take seriously at its conference in Mangaung in December. These include insulating the public service from political patronage, professionalising it and improving government co-ordination.

Changing the political culture should be primary. Political leadership should understand the value of public service as an important institution that can enhance human dignity and connect citizens with their government in a healthy way, rather than having such a relationship be mediated by fear and resentment.

If things go on as they are, we may have a situation in which some members of the public never encounter a government official or government building in their entire lives.

This article appeared in the Business Day of 28 September 2012