Advancing Ethics-Led Administrative Discretion in Public Administration: A South African Perspective

Abstract

The chapter explores how South African Batho Pele ethics-led frame of discretion can enable future public administrators in an administrative state to better understand administrative discretion and effectively manage it. It is based on secondary data from the available literature against the South African post-1994 efforts to tame its inherited ethically barren apartheid administrative discretion in the practice of public administration towards building a capable, ethical, and developmental state. The findings show that the ethically barren apartheid administrative discretion posed a challenge to the new ethically attuned democratic South Africa’s practice of public administration. They further highlight that indeed the lack of ethics consciousness in discretion in the practice of public administration presents a challenge for public administrators in an administrative state. The challenge is how could public administrators use their discretion ethically in the practice of public administration? For public administrators in an administrative state, the tension between moving in a spirited way in decision-making and remaining sensible is a real problem of how to exercise one’s discretion in the practice of public administration in an ethically conscious way.

1. Introduction

In the twentieth century, the practice of public administration experienced an increase in the exercise of administrative discretion by public administrators amidst the rise of the administrative state which continues to attract mixed judicial attitudes [1]. It is now inevitable to imagine a functioning administrative state without the solid backing of the exercise of administrative discretion by public administrators. Despite sustained hostility and scepticism around it, the truth is that administrative discretion is an inescapable feature of the practice of public administration in an administrative state [1]. This disposition has sparked concerns about its growing scope of influence in the practice of public administration to the extent that the general administrative principles in law that seek to tame it continue to be formulated as its politics of judicial review rumbles across the administrative state internationally [1]. Here, it is taken for granted that the global discourse on the problem of administrative discretion (lack of ethics thereof) to public administration is well covered in the literature. As such, no attempt is made to expand on it to draw international comparisons given time and space constraints. That said, however, an overview of the general challenge of discretion in the practice of public administration in an administrative state is provided in 1.1, and a mini case study of the challenge of discretion to South African public administration is presented in 1.2 to anchor the discussion. The intention here is to highlight the challenge of discretion to the practice of public administration if it remains unrestrained without ethics-led checks and balances to restore much needed ethics consciousness in its exercise.

1.1 Challenge of discretion in an administrative state

Despite sustained efforts to tame it, administrative discretion remains a stubborn challenge to the contemporary practice of public administration, and it is likely to remain so in the future public administration as a lasting concern. The challenge of administrative discretion (lack of ethics thereof) in the practice of public administration in an administrative state is most recently well documented in Ref. [2]. Here, Tandon [2] lays naked the administrative discretion abuses in contemporary Indian public administration, which are not necessarily unique to it but fundamentally cut across all public administrations in the administrative states around the globe. These abuses include but are not limited to “acting on a mala fide basis, disregarding relevant considerations and pursuing irrelevant ones and misapprehending the power granted by the statutes” [2]. These discretion abuses demonstrate wanton disregard for ethics in administrative discretion in the practice of public administration in an administrative state [3].

The resulting consequences of administrative discretion abuses are many and varied across administrative states [1, 3]. For ref. ([3], p. 5), they include but are not limited to “a lack of accountability, manipulation, unpredictability, intrusiveness, and poor decision making”. Their occurrence “can lead to issues of favoritism, discrimination, or arbitrary decision-making” [4]. These issues can negatively impact the judicious exercise of administrative discretion in the practice of public administration in varied ways across administrative jurisdictions [2, 3, 4]. First, they can undermine administrative morality in the delivery of public services [4]. Second, they can reduce the efficacy of public administration [5]. Third, they can undermine public trust in the public administration. Fourth, they can impair the administrative performance of bureaucracies [6]. Fifth, they can lead to the tendency for public officials to make decisions with their intuition, or whims and caprices [7]. Sixth, they can lead to biased usage of discretionary powers delegated to administrative functionaries [2].

Thus, from Refs. [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] cited recent literature sources above, it is evident that administrative discretion does pose a challenge to public administration in an administrative state. As such, it is taken for granted that this is the case although no empirical studies or real-life cases that demonstrate it have been undertaken due to time and space constraints. That being the case, however, the cited sources do highlight the potential challenge of the problem of ethics in administrative discretion that is further stressed in the below South African mini-case study.

1.2 Challenge of discretion in the South African administrative state

The history of South African public administration is self-contradictory by nature. It transitioned in a striking manner from the ethically barren apartheid-based administration to the more ethically attuned democratic administration. This double-barrelled history of South African public administration is eloquently highlighted by Cameron ([8], pp. 135–157) in his introductory remarks for his case study book chapter “Public service reform in South Africa: from apartheid to a new public management”. Essentially, this case study book chapter by Cameron [8] provides a reader with insights into the evolving landscape of administrative discretion and ethical governance relevant to South African public administration that need not be repeated in this chapter. However, for the sake of couching the Batho Pele discussion in this chapter, it would be beneficial to the reader to briefly highlight in 1.2.1 the characteristics of the ethically barren paradigm of the apartheid administration which created notoriously contradictory administration practices in the history of South African public administration. This is important in bringing to light an aspect of ethically attuned public administration in South Africa post-apartheid that gave birth to Batho Pele ethics-conscious frame of discretion in the practice of public administration.

1.2.1 Apartheid-based administration

The ethically barren paradigm of South African public administration has its seeds planted by the racist apartheid administrative state in 1948. With the apartheid administrative state, the racist apartheid-era bureaucracy surfaced and became entrenched with unfettered discretion ceded to it. It emerged with greater discretionary powers that had particular implications for the character of public service. The apartheid-era bureaucrats “wielded considerable powers within state bureaucracies controlling the implementation - and often the substance - of a myriad of rules and regulations that traversed every sphere of life in the country” ([9], pp. 118–119). Essentially, the apartheid state gave the apartheid-era bureaucrats a fail-safe way to exercise ethically barren discretion at their behest. For instance, police officers were conferred broad discretion by the then-Internal Security Act of 1982 to hold persons (mostly Black South Africans) who they viewed to be a threat to public order under apartheid administrative state and subject them to indefinite detentions. This indiscriminate subjective morality in the exercise of discretion by the apartheid-era bureaucrats permeated every sphere of the practice of public administration, ushering “the labyrinth of laws, policies, and bureaucratic discretion that subjected South Africa’s majority black population to daily degradation” ([10], p. 485).

In the apartheid administration, the bureaucrats exercised extensive discretion in making, interpreting and enforcing the rules and regulations associated with the apartheid administrative state ([10], pp. 481–491). Hence, the apartheid-based administration was not immune from discretion abuses and the resulting consequences stated in 1.1. Perhaps, one of its defining ethical malfeasances was the deliberate and sustained creation of the crisis of delivery of public services to South Africans based on race and colour ([11], pp. 48–56). The apartheid-based administration undermined the quality delivery of public services to Black South Africans [11] as it unapologetically “provided public services predominantly to small white constituency” ([8], p. 135) at the expense of the Black majority of South Africa’s population. In reality, it is the ethically barren discretion practices in public administration of the South African apartheid administrative state that planted its germs of destruction that eventually led to its demise [8, 9, 10]. Simply put, a lack of ethics consciousness in discretion practices in public administration inevitably engineered the ultimate death of the apartheid administrative state in 1994, bringing to end the apartheid-based administration.

1.2.2 Democratic-based administration

Upon the dawn of ethically attuned democratic dispensation in 1994, South African public administration found itself in public service delivery disarray with fragmented state administrations susceptible to racially inspired administrative discretion abuses in the practice of public administration. The need for overhaul and improvement of post-apartheid South African public administration “to achieve public service delivery for the public good” ([11], p. 49) became apparent and urgent. In terms of improving the delivery of public services to South Africans “the size of the task facing the new [post-apartheid South African public administration] was daunting” ([11], p. 49).

The legacy of ethically barren administrative discretion in the practice of public administration presented a challenge for public administrators in the more ethically attuned democratic administration post-1994 South Africa. The challenge then was and still is: how could public administrators constitutionally use their ethical discretion to address the immense aspirations for greater access to basic public services? For post-apartheid South African administrative state, the challenge of integrating ethics into administrative discretion to ameliorate the ravages of apartheid delivery of public services is real for public administrators, yet it is remarkably the least researched phenomenon. For South African public administrators, the tension between moving in a spirited way in decision-making and remaining sensible is a real challenge of how to exercise one’s discretion in the practice of public administration against the backdrop of the history of apartheid shrouded in dearth of ethics consciousness in discretion.

That said, however, the challenge of how to exercise one’s discretion does not face only South African public administrators. It is a general challenge that confronts public administrators in the practice of public administration across administrative jurisdictions [1, 2, 6, 7]. Signs are that it is likely to remain a contested issue in the increasingly “robotised” practice of public administration in an expansive automated administrative state with unparalleled use of artificial intelligence resulting in smart public administrations [12, 13, 14, 15]. So, taking ethical administrative discretion seriously in the practice of public administration is a here-and-now urgent call by the chapter. It is the contention of this chapter that public administrators across administrative states must be obliged to demonstrate the exercise of thoughtful ethical discretion in the practice of public administration.

Specifically, the chapter submits that the exercise of ethical administrative discretion in the practice of public administration should be understood as obligating public administrators to undertake careful ethical reflection prior to the exercise of discretion ([16], pp. 21–64). It is also a reminder to public administrators that their “professional responsibility carries with it a duty to exercise discretion through consideration of the relevant ethical issues” ([16], p. 24). Hence, it “takes seriously the principle of ethical discretion, respecting the role of individual ethical decision making, but requiring that such decision making be carried out through a justifiable process of ethical deliberation” ([16], p. 24). It thus promises a thought-provoking exploration into the crucial intersection of ethics and administrative discretion within the South African public administration landscape, arguing that the emphasis on ethics-led decision-making in public administration is both timely and essential in fostering transparency and accountability in government practices.

1.3 Snapshot of the chapter structure

This chapter explores how the South African Batho Pele can be a viable administrative tool for the exercise of ethical discretion in the practice of future public administration in an administrative state. It adopts a qualitative approach of analysing and synthesising secondary data from the relevant available literature sources in terms of a desktop study methodology. In doing so, it considers how Batho Pele can enable public administrators to better understand their exercise of ethical administrative discretion and effectively manage the challenges it poses to them in the practice of public administration. It is divided into five (5) sections of which Section 1 introduces the chapter. Section 2 generally discusses the contentious nature of administrative discretion in the practice of public administration in an administrative state. Section 3 provides an overview of South African Batho Pele as an attractive framework for ethics-led administrative discretion in the practice of public administration in an administrative state. Section 4 makes a case for South African Batho Pele as a viable ethics conscious agency for advancing future ethics-led administrative discretion in the practice of public administration in an administrative state. Section 5 concludes the chapter.

2. Contentious nature of discretion in public administration

In no small measure, the exercise of administrative discretion in the practice of public administration in a modern administrative state is a contentious subject. To illustrate its contentious nature, Schmidt and Scott [5] claim that the expansive exercise of administrative discretion in the practice of public administration in modern administrative state has created a growing anxiety about its scope and limits at the present and, probably, for the future. For Ref. [5], the anxiety about administrative discretion in the practice of public administration in modern administrative state derives from the fact that “discretion gives decision makers choices as to how resources are allocated, or how other aspects of state largesse or coercion are deployed” ([5], p. 454). Here, the scope and limits of discretion are more often not well-defined and articulated, resulting in undesirable instances in which “discretionary power [of state functionaries] challenges aspects of the rule of law” ([5], p. 454). This challenge manifests itself in many and varied ways, the most apparent being “transferring decisions from legislators to departments, agencies, and street-level bureaucrats and risking the uniform application of key fairness and equality norms” ([5], p. 454).

2.1 Anxieties created by discretion

For ref. ([5], p. 454) are convinced that, in the modern practice of public administration, “the expansion of state administrations [has] generated a degree of anxiety about the growth of administrative discretion”. Here, Schmidt and Scott ([5], p. 454) are adamant that “the presence of administrative discretion both de iure and de facto [in the practice of public administration] is a source of anxiety” in the contemporary administrative state. Schmidt and Scott [5] suggest that this is the case for two (2) primary reasons. First, Schmidt and Scott ([5], p. 454) argue that “the roles of a wider range of actors exercising powers with a wider range of instruments” continue to grow unabated in modern practice of public administration. Second, Schmidt and Scott ([5], p. 454) deposit that there are “also new forms of discretion, for example over automated decision-making processes, over the formulation and dissemination of league tables or the use of behavioural measures” that are increasingly becoming central in the practice of public administration. Thus, these developments have overtime increasingly led to the changing modes of how administrative discretion is deployed in the practice of public administration [5], often resulting in administrative anxieties.

2.2 Changing modes of deployment of discretion

For ref. ([5], p. 454), the above-stated developments in the practice of public administration in 2.1 are significantly “changing modes of deployment of discretion” in the modern administrative state. Schmidt and Scott ([5], p. 454) argue that these developments have given rise to what they dubbed “two potentially contradictory trends” in the deployment of discretion. These trends are “an increase in determining and structuring administrative decision, leading to a more transparent use of discretion; and the increased use of automated decision-making processes which have the potential of producing a less transparent black box scenario” ([5], p. 454). Indeed there is a concern that “if public [administrators] are replaced by robots and on-the-spot decisions are rendered by artificial intelligence and machine-based technologies, discretion, compassion, and moral judgement might be lost, even though public services could be delivered more punctually and cost-effectively by machines without a conscience” ([17]. p. 18). It is perhaps these emerging developments with the anxieties they create in the practice of public administration that prompted varying views about the essence and nature of administrative discretion in the administrative state.

2.3 View of discretion as a “pet turned into a monster”

Here, an interesting yet controversial description of the essence of administrative discretion is provided by Yeboah-Assiamah et al. [7]. Yeboah-Assiamah et al. ([7], pp. 1–12) sarcastically dubbed administrative discretion as a “pet turned into a monster”. For Yeboah-Assiamah et al. ([7], p. 1), discretion as Pet encapsulates an acknowledgment and recognition that “the nature of services public officials provide[s] calls for human judgement that cannot be programmed and for which machines cannot substitute [for required] freedom of action to adequately respond to somewhat novel, unexpected, and unique situations”. That said, however, their view is also that discretion turns Monster when “public power holders [tend] to use discretion in bad faith [to extend that they are not able] to convincingly justify or account for the use of discretion” ([7], p. 1). Here, Yeboah-Assiamah et al. ([7], p. 1) suggest that the monster nature of discretion manifests itself in the “Excessive (mis) appropriation and usage of discretion [that] reduces the spirit and letter of administrative practices”.

2.4 “Pet turned into a monster”-dilemmatic disposition of discretion

Given [7] disposition of administrative discretion as a pet turned into a monster, one is not surprised by Cox’s famous commentary in the early 2000s that “seemingly no aspect of public administration engenders more controversy than the idea of discretion” ([18], p. 20). In agreement, West ([19], p. 340) notes that administrative discretion poses a dilemma in the practice of public administration as “it conflicts with our fundamental beliefs about institutional limitations and responsibilities”. West ([19], p. 341) further states that “Our misgivings about delegated authority have been reinforced by a good deal of social science and legal literature which identifies discretion as a cause of malaise in the policy-making process”. West ([19], p. 342) concludes that “The great dilemma posed by discretion is that it is both necessary and problematic”. West ([19], p. 342) adds that “It is necessary if government is to respond effectively to the needs of modern society; [and] it is problematic in terms of widely shared values and beliefs concerning institutional roles and competence” ([18], p. 342). That being the case, however, West ([19], p. 341) interestingly notes that “Yet, despite profound reservations about discretion, the delegation of authority to [public administrators] has continued apace”. In fact, the expansion of administrative [discretion] has accelerated in recent years, indicating “the inevitability of discretion in decision-making in the administrative state” ([20], pp. 99–134). This has led to questions about the appropriate exercise of administrative discretion in the practice of public administration—how it ought to be exercised appropriately.

2.5 How ought discretion be exercised?

According to Daly ([20], pp. 99–134), “the inevitability of discretion and judgement in decision-making in the administrative state” is apparent in the practice of public administration. For Daly ([20], p. 110), “Even if we were to allow, for the sake of argument, that statutory provisions are always clear, discretion and judgement could not be eliminated from administrative decision-making”. In this regard, Daly ([20], p. 120) poses an interesting and pertinent question “Given the inevitability of administrative discretion and judgement, how ought it be exercised?” In response, Daly ([20], p. 123) eloquently and convincingly explains, “how [public] officials should not exercise the discretion and judgement they inevitably exercise”. Daly ([20], pp. 99–134) strongly points out that “it would be unrealistic and inappropriate [to remove] discretion and judgement in decision-making in the administrative state”. First, “It would be unrealistic to expect [public] officials to think like lawyers because, most of the time, they are not trained lawyers” ([20], p. 120). Second, “It would also be inappropriate to expect [public] officials to master the details of legal interpretation” ([20], p. 122). This raises the question of how administrative discretion should be exercised in the practice of public administration.

2.6 How should discretion be exercised by public officials?

Now, Daly ([20], p. 123) has given response on “how public officials should not exercise the discretion and judgement they inevitably exercise”, West ([19], p. 123) turned to the question of “how they should do so”. Here, Daly ([20], p. 123) recommends that public officials should employ what he fondly dubs “an informal, good faith approach [in] the exercise [of] discretion and judgement they inevitably exercise”. First, Daly ([20], p. 123) states that “[public] officials should approach legal instruments such as statutes and constitutional texts in an informal manner, developing an understanding of the instruments which coheres with the officials’ understandings of the objectives of the regulatory schemes they are charged with administering”. Second, Daly ([20], p. 123) adds that “in applying legal instruments, [public] officials should make a good faith effort to remain within the boundaries of the legal framework they are operating in [as] part of the decision frame they use in their daily activities”. It is in this regard that Daly ([20], p. 99) concludes that “The emphasis in public administration should be on informal legal interpretation conducted in good faith: administrative discretion and judgement should presumptively be exercised in a large and liberal way not characterised by pedantry and pettifoggery”. Here, it can be speculated that, perhaps, it is ([20], pp. 99–134) conviction on how discretion should be exercised by public administrators that prompted the founders of an ethically attuned democratic South Africa to create an ethical discretion framework of Batho Pele for the practice of public administration in the republic.

2.7 Founding spirit of ethically attuned Batho Pele discretion

It is the understanding of the inevitability of discretion and judgement in the practice of public administration that prompted the birth of Batho Pele as an ethical discretion framework for service delivery in post-apartheid South Africa in 1997 [21, 22, 23, 24]. In essence, with the birth of Batho Pele as an ethical discretion framework for service delivery, the architects of the post-apartheid administrative state in South Africa seemingly acknowledged that every act of a public administrator involves what Gulick in ([25], pp. 117–118) called a “seamless web of discretion and action”. As such, administrative discretion is a necessary evil that always “entails the usage of a public officer’s judgement or intuition to make decisions, especially, where the rules, regulations, and procedures appear grey, or such usage becomes imperative due to a context-dependent situation” ([7], p. 1). The next section of this chapter that follows is intended to provide an overview of South African Batho Pele as a plausible ethics-led framework for administrative discretion in the practice of public administration in the more ethically attuned post-democratic dispensation in South Africa.

3. An overview of Batho Pele as a framework for discretion

As alluded to in 1.2, the Republic of South Africa (RSA) has a chequered history in which abuse of discretion in the administrative state during apartheid along racial divide was the norm rather than the exception. With the lessons from the demise of the apartheid administration, post-1994 RSA found itself facing the huge task of consolidating its newly attained democratic dispensation. Perhaps, one of the greatest challenges to the newly founded democratic administrative state was the difficulty in taming its inherited apartheid, ethically barren administrative discretion in the practice of public administration. Here, Batho Pele provided what Mojapelo et al. ([26], p. 357) call a “window of opportunity” in taming the then ethically unconscious administrative discretion inherited from the apartheid era. Thus, Batho Pele presented an opening to cultivate the much-needed administrative morality in the practice of public administration in the new republic’s ethically attuned democratic dispensation.

3.1 From apartheid to Batho Pele

From Apartheid to Batho Pele ([24], pp. 142–161), a breakaway with the past in the exercise of discretion was attained, giving way to the new dawn on how administrative discretion should be exercised. This transition in the state administration seemingly acknowledged that public administrators will always inevitably exercise discretion in the administrative process in the new South Africa. With this new lens, Batho Pele decision framework as a guide to public administrators to ethically exercise their discretion was embraced with much anticipation for excellence in the delivery of public services in the post-1994 RSA.

3.2 Impetus for Batho Pele

As such, in the context of post-apartheid RSA, Batho Pele ethical frame of administrative discretion was born from a need for commitment to service excellence in the practice of public administration with a particular focus on the delivery of public services to citizens ([27], pp. 8–11). It is not an additional task but integrated in the manner with which public administrators approach their daily tasks in a professional and organised way, which ensures excellent service delivery to citizens each time. It is in this regard that Batho Pele is perceived to be about real public professionals exercising ethical discretion while doing real jobs in addressing real issues that affect real people. In doing so, their primary administrative task is to live up to the “Service to the People” motto of Batho Pele ([28], pp. 66–90) adopted by the ethically attuned post-1994 RSA administrative state.

3.3 Understanding Batho Pele

According to Mojapelo et al. ([26], p. 2), “[t]he term ‘Batho Pele’ means ‘People First’ in Sesotho, one of the 12 official languages of South Africa”. So, Batho Pele as a Sesotho phrase loosely translates to “Putting People First”, implying a people-focused exercise of discretion in the administrative process by public administrators. Here, in their interpretation, Mulaudzi and Liebenberg ([24], p. 142) state that “[t]he term Batho Pele strongly implies quality service delivery to human communities as well as accountability and transparency with a ‘human touch’”. Here, Mulaudzi and Liebenberg ([24], p. 142) understanding of the term in the administrative process in which public administrators inevitably exercise discretion is that “[s]ervice provision should be informed by the needs and aspirations of the local communities, extracted from the community through participation”. For Mulaudzi and Liebenberg ([24], p. 143), “[t]he term Batho Pele at heart implies caring for communities in delivering services that benefit the quality of life for communities and individuals alike”. This means that “apart from the ‘human touch’, Batho Pele implies accountable and transparent governance aimed at the citizenry on all levels [of] government” ([24], p. 143), calling for the new ethic of “thuma Mina” public service accountability for taking public service to the people ([29], pp. 83–106).

3.4 Spirit of ethics-led Batho Pele

Fundamentally, in the South African context, Batho Pele is an ethics-led frame of administrative discretion in practice of public administration adopted “to get public servants to be service-orientated, to strive for excellence in service delivery, and to commit to continuous service delivery improvement” ([28], pp. 66–90). In this regard, Batho Pele outlines guiding ethical principles meant to guide the behaviour and conduct of public servants in the exercise of administrative discretion as they serve South African citizens. It is a way of delivering services by putting citizens at the centre of administrative discretion in public service planning and operations ([30], pp. 581–593). It is a major departure from the apartheid dispensation, which excluded the majority of South Africans from the government machinery to one that seeks to include all citizens, ensuring that the principle of “Leaving No One Behind” in governance and delivery of public service becomes a reality in the practice of public administration ([31], pp. 277–291). The following section of the chapter presents the South African Batho Pele as a viable agency for advancing ethical administrative discretion in the practice of future public administration.

4. Batho Pele as a viable ethics-led agency for advancing discretion

In the South African context of the practice of public administration, there is no doubt that Batho Pele has become an ethical frame for making decisions about delivering public services ([32], pp. 421–436). It is, according to Mulaudzi and Liebenberg ([24], p. 150), an “intended approach” in decision-making for public administrators in the exercise of their discretion and judgement in the practice of public administration. In this regard, Motalane ([23], p. 157) state that “Batho Pele [is] aimed at putting [people] at the centre of public service”. Thus, according to Motalane ([23], pp. 153–163), Batho Pele is indeed a decision frame for the exercise of ethical discretion and judgement in “improving service delivery in the South African [administrative state]”.

4.1 Batho Pele as ethical discretion frame

Batho Pele has a strong ethical discretion-based decision-making orientation in the administrative process of service delivery “emanating from the Ubuntu principle that means putting other people ahead of one’s needs” ([33], p. 119). Its ethical discretion-based decision-making orientation is founded on what is commonly known as the “Batho Pele principles” ([34], pp. 95–125); ([35], pp. 430–440). The Batho Pele principles (putting people first principles) are organised around manifest realities that “discretion is an invaluable characteristic of administrative [process]” ([36], p. 221). Accordingly, the principles brazenly acknowledge that “discretion [is] not only as an inevitable but also a potentially highly beneficial feature of [administrative process], properly understood” ([36], p. 221). Most profoundly, the principles support the shift towards the kind of culture of ethics-led discretion in service delivery that puts people first in the practice of public administration. As such, they are innovative decision-making approaches in the practice of public administration. Here, the principles provide an ethical administrative decision-making mechanism for public administrators to work consciously in the exercise of their discretion in providing service delivery and to get them to commit to and prioritise serving people. Also, the principles serve as an acceptable and expected frame of ethical conduct for public administrators regarding service delivery in the practice of public administration.

4.2 Batho Pele principles clarion call for ethics in discretion

Within the broader scope and context of Batho Pele principles since their inception in 1997, there is a clarion call for public administrators to always examine their conscience in the exercise of discretion in service delivery decision-making. Examining one’s conscience in the exercise of discretion in the service delivery administrative process provides an opportunity for public administrators to always recognise that they “should be flexible, innovative and proactive” ([35], p. 439). In this regard, the Batho Pele principles’ promise in the spirit of service delivery can be summarised by this administrative process slogan of “We belong, We care, We serve” [37]. The Batho Pele principles thus call “all public [administrators to] put people first [in the practice of public administration] and adhere to the overarching framework of ‘We Care, We Serve, We Belong’” [37]. Thus, Batho Pele principles are widely recognised as an ethics-led “mechanism to aid the improvement of service delivery in South Africa” ([38], pp. 207–222).

4.3 Ethics-led aims of Batho Pele principles

Batho Pele principles aim to inculcate the ethical culture of responsiveness, efficiency and effectiveness in delivering services in the practice of public administration [33, 37]. Essentially, the “We belong, We care, We serve” belief set that anchors Batho Pele principles captures the revitalised Batho Pele ethics-led culture in the practice of public administration. This belief set is a value system of ethical discretion decision-making in the administrative process, which serves as a desirable ideal for the practice of public administration to influence and shape the conduct of public administrators. In the main, the “We belong, We care, We serve” belief set is intended to endorse the Batho Pele principles as depicted in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1.

Batho Pele principles. Source: Umvoti Municipality, 2021 cited in Joel ([38], p. 210).

Here, Joel ([38], pp. 210–212) provides an excellent explanation of what the Batho Pele principles are about, what their aims are and what they involve. However, in the broader sense without necessarily repeating the admirable work of Joel ([38], pp. 207–222) in this regard, the Batho Pele principles could be summarised as: involving putting people first in the provision of services, setting service standards, ensuring courtesy, remedying mistakes and failures, getting the best possible value for money as well as encouraging innovation rewarding excellence ([38], p. 210). Put differently, the Batho Pele principles aim “to get public servants to be service orientated, to strive for excellence in service delivery, commit themselves to continuous service delivery improvement, allow citizens to hold them accountable for the type of services they deliver and to adopt a citizen orientated approach to service delivery” ([39], p. 254).

4.4 Batho Pele principles and ethical culture of accountability

Thus, at the heart of Batho Pele principles is a deliberate and determined effort to instil an ethical culture of accountability by public administrators in the exercise of their discretion in the practice of public administration. In effect, these principles challenge public administrators to find new, innovative methods of exercising their discretion in the practice of public administration as they deliver services to people. In agreement, Pietersen ([39], p. 254) sees the Batho Pele principles depicted in Figure 2 as decision-making ethical ideals in the exercise of discretion in the administrative process that uniquely bring about what she terms the “Customer First Revolution”. This approach to service delivery in the exercise of discretion is customer-focused and is inspired by the Batho Pele principles, which “emphasize that the first and foremost duty of public service is to serve its customers” ([39], p. 254). Here, the Batho Pele principles are thus seen as a promising way of taming administrative discretion by public administrators in the practice of public administration at least in the case of South Africa.

Figure 2.

Batho Pele principles. Source: ([39], p. 255).

4.5 Batho Pele principles and effective “stakeholding” discretion

When adopting Batho Pele principles for effective public service delivery ([35], pp. 430–440), public administrators need to understand that these principles are the cornerstone of the effective “stakeholding” for the exercise of ethical discretion in the practice of public administration ([21], pp. 109–121); ([34], pp. 95–125). Here, de Wee and Asmah-Andoh [34] believe that, if properly structured, Batho Pele principles as a code of ethics for the exercise of discretion can be a useful tool in the practice of public administration. In this regard, de Wee and Asmah-Andoh ([34], p. 109) have developed what they have dubbed “Structural logic of the Batho Pele principles as a practical map” to give effect to their practical application. This illustrative practical map of Batho Pele principles as developed by de Wee and Asmah-Andoh ([34], p. 109) is depicted in Figure 3 below. According to de Wee and Asmah-Andoh ([34], p. 109), “the figure is not readable because it is meant to be illustrative; however a readable version [of it] can be obtained using [this] link https://kumu.io/Guswn/batho-pele-principles”.

Figure 3.

Practical map of Batho Pele principles. Source: ([34], p. 109).

For de Wee and Asmah-Andoh [34], properly structured and mapped Batho Pele principles can become a useful system of ethical discretion in the practice of public administration. de Wee and Asmah-Andoh ([34], p. 109) believe that Batho Pele principles can become “the guiding principles [in the exercise of ethical discretion] to improve public services”. de Wee and Asmah-Andoh ([34], p. 109) are convinced that in the practice of public administration, “[e]thical behaviour should become a habit and effective codes [like Batho Pele principles should] allow both bureaucrats and elected officials to test their actions against expected standards” ([34], p. 109). Here, de Wee and Asmah-Andoh ([34], p. 109) reckon that, as the public service code of ethical discretion, “structured” Batho Pele principles can become a cure to ills associated with “an increase in unethical behaviour of public officials” ([34], p. 109). They can also arrest “unethical behaviour in the public service [which] is [often] characterised by a lack of responsiveness” ([34], p. 110), making Batho Pele principles a viable ethical discretion structure from which public administrators responsively make decisions in the practice of future public administration.

4.6 Verdict on Batho Pele principles as a guide for future discretion

Although no real-life instances or case studies that demonstrate application (or lack thereof) of the Batho Pele principles in administrative discretion have been empirically undertaken due to time and space constraints, de Wee and Asmah-Andoh ([34], p. 110) state that, nonetheless, “[i]t is sufficient to assume that the unethical behaviour and the high levels of corruption in [today’s administrative state involving] the actions of the [public] officials are reflections of the chaotic state of the system of ethics [that govern discretion in the practice of public administration]”. For de Wee and Asmah-Andoh [34], properly structured Batho Pele principles as a guide to ethical decision-making could help to tame administrative discretion in the practice of current and future public administration [1, 40, 41, 42, 43]. Thus, de Wee and Asmah-Andoh [34] believe that the “properly structured” Batho Pele principles could provide an attractive roadmap to a brighter future of the exercise of ethical discretion in the practice of public administration. Indeed, de Wee and Asmah-Andoh [34] are convinced that the ethical force of the future practice of public administration could find its elusive footing and rigour in “structured” Batho Pele principles, thus enabling public administrators “to act expertly, scientifically, or disinterestedly, much [more] expeditiously” ([40], p. 168) in their “exercise of casuistical, prudential judgement in discretion” ([36], p. 222). As Daly ([20], p. 99) emphatically puts it, future “administrative discretion and judgement should presumptively be exercised in a large and liberal way, not characterized by pedantry and pettifoggery”. This should be the case as “the ability to adapt rules [by public administrators], and thereby to exercise discretion, is an entrenched feature of bureaucracies” ([41], p. 269). This is so despite the fact that, with artificial intelligence, “most discretion is [increasingly becoming] indeed ‘digital discretion’” ([43], p. 327). Thus, whether automated or not, discretion should truly be a Batho Pele ethical practice, and exploring it through such a lens seems worthwhile ([44], pp. 393–407). The next and last section concludes the chapter by suggesting that Batho Pele principles can indeed provide a plausible frame for ethical administrative discretion in the practice of future public administration ([45], pp. 102–104) if its possibility of doing so is taken seriously.

5. Conclusions

The goal of this chapter has been to highlight the inevitability of discretion in the practice of public administration by reference to its influential history, its contentious and controversial nature as a concept, the growing anxiety and denials about its scope and limits, the challenges and problems it manifests, the scepticism and reservations about it and its accelerated expansion in the administrative state despite natural antipathy to it from staunch adherents to the administrative philosophy of always playing by the book in the practice of public administration.

Using the South African experience, the chapter has highlighted the intricacies of discretion in the practice of public administration from Apartheid to Batho Pele eras relating to public service delivery. In this regard, the chapter has been written in a reformist spirit. It has taken the view that discretion is a necessary evil in the practice of public administration, and much greater study of it is needed for the brighter future of public administration as it adapts to a dynamic world of the automated administrative state increasingly characterised by the robotised practice of public administration.

Against this background, the chapter has attempted to address the perennial question that confronts the South African public administrators in the practice of public administration: how to exercise one’s discretion in the practice of public administration? The tension between moving in a spirited way in administrative decision-making and remaining sensible is real for public administrators in the dynamic world of the administrative state in which the character of discretion within public administrations is impacted by the exploding use of artificial intelligence.

In answering the question, the chapter has explored the plausibility of South African Batho Pele ethics-led principles becoming an effective administrative discretion tool in the practice of public administration. It views Batho Pele principles as a code of ethics for decision-making that can make the exercise of bureaucratic discretion in the modern administrative state more ethically conscious. It is optimistic that ethics-led Batho Pele principles can become a plausible model for revisiting discretion in the practice of future public administration with the view to reconceive it in the modern robotic era of increasingly multifaceted smart public administration.

This chapter offers a roadmap for future research for an ethics-led model of administrative discretion in the automated future practice of public administration. Hence, it closes with a contention that if taken seriously, as the ethics-led organising principles of discretion in the practice of future public administration, Batho Pele can indeed assist to develop a much-needed ethic of Thuma Mina (Send Me) public service accountability for taking public service to the people—Batho Pele. It can also help to develop ethically conscious and humane Batho Pele administrative discretion as a defining and lasting feature of the future public administration with less of hearing: “computer says no”, which is becoming a familiar mantra in smart public administration of the modern administrative state. It can also help to understand the evolving character of discretion and use it to negotiate ethical decisions in practice for future public administration.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to acknowledge his appreciation to the Academic Editor for his kind patience and generous suggestions for improving this chapter and to the amazing Publishing Process Manager for her relentless efforts to push me against all odds to complete the chapter manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.