Chairperson, hon members, indeed, the government is seized with the matter of processing the establishment of a single Public Service; that's a work in progress. With regard to the second part of the question, in all countries parties go to elections, and the party that leads government has a right to deploy in strategic senior managerial positions those who are committed and understand the manifesto of that particular party. In countries such as the United States there is, in fact, a book the size of a telephone directory that identifies the posts that change with the change of governing party. Everyone understands that at that level, particularly at the senior strategic level, if the party that appointed them to those posts loses elections, they move out. It is understood; it's established.
In the United Kingdom, the public service bureaucrats prepare two booklets. If there are three parties, as was the case recently, they would prepare three booklets based on the manifestos of the parties contesting elections. They then lock up those books. Whichever party comes in, they pull out those books and say that that's the programme to be implemented.
Therefore this is not unique to South Africa. What we should perhaps be taking into account is the level because our senior management positions are at the level of directors-general, known as permanent secretaries in other countries. They are called permanent secretaries, and we call them directors-general. Our directors-general come in on contracts for a period of no less than five years. Some are able to stay on for 10 years and so on.
I think this is a very critical question, particularly with regard to the stability of the Public Service. There is a level at which we should always ensure that there is stability and a sense of permanence. However, there is an upper senior level which is really where the political appointees are located. At that level, there should be no debate about the right of any governing party to make appointments.
The assumption that people who are associated or related with one party or the other are inherently inefficient, inexperienced and of low skills is a wrong assumption. For instance, if we are - like we are in South Africa - a nation of activists, there would be no level at which you would not find people who have one preference or the other in terms of their political affiliation. The point, however, is that if they are public servants, they should act professionally. That is the point that we should all agree on as an important element in the consideration of appointments of public servants. Thank you.