Chipkin drives legal overhaul to end political jobs for pals

South Africa has quietly passed one of the most far-reaching reforms of its democratic era, shifting power away from politicians and into the hands of administrators in a move that could reshape how the government functions for decades. 

Johannesburg political analyst Ivor Chipkin is one of the key figures behind advancing the reform that President Cyril Ramaphosa signed into law on 26 March and which was gazetted on 1 April. 

It is called the Public Service Amendment Act and removes key powers from ministers and other members of the political executive, limiting their control over appointments in government departments. For many analysts, it represents a decisive break from a system that enabled political interference, patronage, and, ultimately, state capture. 

Chipkin worked closely with government on this reform, guiding it through the legislative process. He engaged members of Parliament, trade unions, civil society, and other stakeholders to explain the Act’s purpose and gain support for it. 

Chipkin told the SA Jewish Report that “Essentially what the Act does is remove powers from the political executive with regard to core administrative issues. It takes away the authority of ministers over recruitment and operational decisions inside departments.” 

That change, he said, marks “a major retreat of politicians from interference in the day-to-day life of government departments”. 

The legislation was passed by Parliament and approved by the National Council of Provinces in November 2025, completing a process that gained momentum after the emergence of coalition politics following the 2024 elections. 

Despite its scope, the Act has attracted limited public attention. Chipkin attributes this to a broader lack of interest in how government administration works. “The mechanics of how government functions are often seen as tedious,” he said. “As a result, they don’t receive the attention they deserve.” 

Yet the implications are significant. By separating political authority from administrative control, the law aims to professionalise the public service and restore the constitutional principle that officials should serve the state, not a political party. 

The reform comes in the wake of widespread findings that state capture was enabled by a politicised public service. Yoliswa Makhasi, a research fellow at the New South Institute, said the system had been “weakened, politicised, and stripped of professional integrity”. 

“Appointments were politicised, prioritising loyalty over competence,” she said. “The constitutional separation between politics and administration was blurred due to political overreach.” She said the amended Act signalled “a commitment to a shift from a politicised administration to a professional, merit-based, accountable public service”. 

At its core, the legislation attempts to address a structural problem that has shaped South Africa’s governance since 1994: the close link between political power and access to state resources. 

In academic work co-authored by Chipkin, the political system is described as one in which access to the state has been mediated through the ruling party, which effectively acted as a gatekeeper to jobs, contracts, and influence. 

Chipkin argues that by limiting political control over appointments, the Act will “restrict quite dramatically one of the major avenues to state capture”. 

“It’s going to change the way in which people rise to positions of power and how they hold onto that power,” he said. 

The political dynamics behind the passage of the Act are also revealing. The African National Congress (ANC) supported the Bill throughout its journey in Parliament and provincial legislatures. The Democratic Alliance backed it nationally, although its Western Cape leadership opposed it, citing concerns about losing control over provincial administration. 

Chipkin said this tension reflects a broader dilemma that political parties face. “There is a temptation, especially for parties coming into power, to want control over the administration so they can implement their programmes,” he said. “But that is precisely the logic that led to the politicisation of the public service in the first place.” 

He added that the ANC’s support for the Bill may have been influenced by the realities of coalition politics. “I think they recognise that their time as a dominant party is ending,” he said. “This law, in the short term, protects their people from being replaced by new political actors.” 

The process was not without resistance. Chipkin said opposition came from unexpected quarters, including from within government itself, where there were attempts to halt or delay the legislation. He and his colleagues spent months gaining the support of lawmakers, civil society, and trade unions. 

One key breakthrough was securing the backing of trade union federation Cosatu, which represents many public servants. “We did a lot of work explaining that the Bill addresses structural issues that make life difficult for public servants,” he said. 

Outside government, responses to the Act have been cautiously optimistic. Terence Corrigan of the Institute of Race Relations said the law creates “the possibility of shifting the public service towards one operating according to a professional internal culture that values merit and ethical conduct”. 

However, he warned that change is not guaranteed. “After 30 years of deliberate politicisation, it’s an open question whether the change in the law will impact behaviour,” he said. “Unless there is a willingness to implement the letter and spirit of the law, it may not have much impact.” 

Ray Hartley, a political analyst and former editor of the Sunday Times, described the Act as “a long overdue change aimed at preventing political appointments to roles that require technical and administrative skills”. He said it should “strengthen the public service and guard against state capture and the deployment of incompetent cadres”. 

But he also highlighted risks. “There is the danger that politicians will still influence appointments indirectly,” he said. “There is also the danger that new ministers will inherit administrators who were politically appointed and be unable to remove them.” 

For Makhasi, the success of the reform depends on implementation. “It is crucial that regulations are issued and that the reforms are prioritised across the state,” she said. “If implementation is delayed, departments will continue with old practices, and the public may conclude that nothing has changed.” 

The broader question is whether the Act can restore public trust in government. Trust in state institutions is fragile after years of corruption scandals and governance failures. Analysts say that rebuilding confidence will require not only legal reform, but visible improvements in performance. 

Corrigan said trust would depend on outcomes. “Confidence is earned through performance,” he said. 

Chipkin agrees, but believes the legislation creates the conditions for change. By insulating the public service from political pressure, he argues, the law could enable a more stable and capable administration, better able to deliver services and resist corruption. “This is about changing the system itself,” he said. “It’s about creating a public service that works according to professional principles, not political loyalty.” 

For now, the legislation marks a turning point. Whether it delivers on its promise will depend on what happens next in government departments across the country.