5. Conclusions

stipulates that cabinet members are collectively and individually accountable to parliament for the exercise of their powers and the performance of their public functions, and that they must provide parliament with full and regular reports concerning matters under their control. There is also a similar level of accountability demanded from Members of the Executive Council (MECs) to provincial legislatures. Further, the Municipal Structures Act 117 of 1998 states that mayors are accountable to municipal councils.187 These important pieces of legislation show the government’s apparent seriousness in holding government officials to account. However, this seriousness has deteriorated over the years, with government officials increasingly avoiding accountability for all manner of things including fake education certificates, lavish spending of taxpayer’s money, and corrupt tender schemes. It is to this end that the discussion on the role of the Public Protector within the South African political arena becomes important.

(g) Findings It is clear from the brief overview provided that South Africa has extensively integrated the principles of good governance into its legal system. Not only is just administration a fundamental right but its infringement also allows for legal consequences to flow therefrom. However, this does not mean that the principles of good governance are protected and promoted to their full potential. South Africa clearly faces many of the same problems that other developing countries in Africa face and it is imperative that these problems are overcome in order for democracy and the rule of law to thrive. Thus, although South Africa has laid a sound legal foundation for the promotion of good governance, lessons can still be learned from other developed nations and regions on how to translate these legal norms into practical application.

5. Conclusions

At the end of each section we have already made some conclusions about each of the countries, Australia, Canada, and South Africa. The general line is that the principles of good governance have not yet been developed as written principles; this has the consequence that there is not deep substantial discussion about the contents of each of the six principles of good governance which have been distinguished in this book.

There is a second more general observation possible from which we can see that the concept of good governance has been accepted in the three countries and that is important because that is the motor for the further development of each of the six principles of good governance. Most explicit is in the Constitution of Canada where the concept of good government has been codified, but this formulation is strongly focused on the government as an institution and not so explicit about the activities of the governmental institutions. In all the three countries the focus is still strongly on the rule of law principles like the principle of human rights and the principle of properness which is strongly related to the principle of natural justice. In each of the countries there is more and more attention paid to the principles which are more related to forms of direct democracy like the principles of transparency and participation. The newer institutional related principles of accountability and effectiveness have not grabbed the

187 Ibid, 842.

attention of lawyers, nevertheless we see in the social science a strong focus on these principles. Probably there is not yet enough interaction between these two dimensions of the government, but the good governance concept also makes it necessary that such an interdisciplinary approach is needed and will make the implementation of the good governance principles also more complete.