This is a paid article which your subscription is allowing you to read.

The additional compensation paid by the Democratic Alliance (DA) to a number of senior party office-bearers has caused a little uproar. The gist of it was that the DA had been caught red-handed, as it were, and that the extra compensation would allegedly reveal that the DA was after all just as morally questionable as the corrupt African National Congress.

This accusation is unjustified. There are very good reasons why additional compensation for deserving party office-bearers should be welcomed.

Taxpayers do not pay for the extra compensation of the DA office-bearers in question. The money comes from the DA's own coffers. It is understood that the DA's funds come primarily from several large benefactors who make the funds available for, among other things, paying DA staff and rewarding its talented office-bearers.

Who gets such benefits ultimately depends on the individual merits of the office-bearers concerned and their importance to the party. Certain people may be very deserving, others not. If it is something that is susceptible to abuse, this is also true of any organisation, but with good control this can be prevented.

This is considered to be a matter of constitutional principle. Admittedly, it is not regulated by any provision of the Constitution. However, it is related to a deeper principle of constitutionalism. The current Constitution is not, after all, a complete code of the constitutional idea. This truth has been demonstrated in previous columns with reference to several other constitutional notions.

Exercising Public Office

In the present case, the relevant constitutional concept is that of the exercising of public office. The gist of it is that office-bearers, although they may hold particular ideological positions and be affiliated with a specific political formation, must ultimately act in the best interest of the public as a whole; not merely in sectional, individual or private interests. If they fail to do so, they renege on the idea of public office, which is not so much unconstitutional as anticonstitutional.

This argument is obviously idealistic. That, however, does not detract from the cogency of the point because the constitutional idea – the idea of constitutionalism – is essentially idealistic – normative – by nature.

Public Office Versus State Office

According to a relatively common misconception, office-bearing is narrowed by associating it exclusively with the state structure, in other words, by rendering it a statist notion.

When public office-bearing comes into play what might come to mind firstly are the most senior office-holders of the state and in the state structure, including the president, ministers, premiers, mayors, members of legislatures, and many others, as well as senior (and other) functionaries in the civil service, police, army, and similar organs of the state.

However, it is completely inappropriate to associate public office exclusively with the state. The reality is that all organisations and institutions that engaged with public affairs, including civic and business institutions as well as political parties, should primarily be concerned with the public interest and that their leaders should therefore in principle be regarded as public office-bearers. Moreover, political parties, including opposition parties, compete for governmental authority.

These opposition figures should therefore be in a position to compete with a ruling party for government authority with at least a minimum degree of material support. This is one reason why it is now generally accepted – also in South Africa – better political parties should at least in part be financed by the state.

But what about the leading figures of opposition parties (besides the parties themselves)? They are usually not in the favourable position of the leaders of the ruling party. Leading figures in the ruling party are usually also public office-bearers who benefit from the fiscus generously remunerating them for positions they hold in the state structure. However, this also enables them to do work for the governing party and therefore compete effectively against opposition parties. This is even despite opposition figures often being better qualified office-bearers than serving state office-holders.

Such opposition figures should be in a position to give their undivided attention to serving the public interest, just like figures in government, who can do so thanks to their state salaries.

Opposition figures are of course not in such a position when they are financially dependent on themselves, and when they must earn a living in a business, a profession, or salaried position.

This is precisely the disadvantageous position that opposition figures often find themselves in. The appropriate solution is that they should receive remuneration commensurate with devoting their undivided attention to their public responsibilities.

Zille, Pappas, and Brink

It is against this background that the DA's scheme of extra remuneration must be assessed. Several senior DA figures have been named as beneficiaries. Three of them are particularly relevant to the argument that follows: Helen Zille, Chris Pappas, and Cilliers Brink.

Zille has a highly successful record as a public office-holder in the state sector, namely as Mayor of Cape Town and then Premier of the Western Cape.

Furthermore, Zille has served the DA in several capacities with distinction – until recently as national chairperson of the party, and before that as leader of the DA. In 2014, the DA achieved its peak in a national election under her leadership.

Many people, even far outside the DA, will argue with good reason that she is the most skilled politician and public office-bearer in the country.

Zille is currently the DA's mayoral candidate in Johannesburg. It is clearly to the advantage of the DA and of course of Zille herself to participate in the election without financial worries and without her needing to be distracted from her political work.

But more than that and – the essential point here – is that Zille as DA mayoral candidate for Johannesburg, although she is not an office-holder in the state structure, is undeniably a very important public office-bearer, serving the public interest. Part of that is that with her particular merits she offers an enriched democratic choice to voters in Johannesburg for the municipal election; and if successful of course the realistic prospect of improved municipal governance for the benefit of Johannesburg’s residents, and indeed all people in the country, given the city's critical economic importance far beyond its boundaries.

When the DA allocates remuneration for Zille from its own funds, it naturally wants to place her and the DA in the best possible position with regard to the election. But more importantly – and this is the crux of the constitutional point – Zille’s remuneration enables her to discharge her public office as a mayoral candidate with undivided attention to the benefit of the public of Johannesburg.

Viewed in this light, the DA's remuneration of Zille should not raise eyebrows. On the contrary, it benefits the principles of constitutionalism by promoting public office for the benefit of the public.

The same applies to Pappas and Brink. Currently Pappas is the mayor of uMngeni local municipality in KwaZulu-Natal. Pappas is an efficient administrator and has strong public appeal, thanks in part to his exceptional language skills. He is a talented professional who could very well earn a considerable salary in the private sector. Instead of losing him, it is wise for the DA to secure Pappas's services by way of additional remuneration.

The same consideration holds true for Cilliers Brink, the DA's highly capable mayoral candidate (and former mayor) for Tshwane. As a professional (a legal practitioner), he is also someone who would be attractive for a well-paid position in the private sector.

Why would the DA run the risk of losing Brink to the private sector? And why should the citizens of Pretoria and Tshwane forfeit Cilliers' public office-bearing because he is compelled to engage himself with non-political professional matters for the sake of private gain? The value of public office for the sake of the public as a whole requires that Brink’s services, like the other persons referred to here, be retained thanks to party remuneration.

In principle, there is nothing wrong with the DA (or any other political party) being able to (additionally) remunerate deserving persons for the considerations discussed here.

Capable public office-bearing is a scarce skill and a crucially important aspect of flourishing social life. It is, moreover, by no means confined to holding office in a state capacity. Donors and political parties that understand these constitutional aspects will attract the best office-bearing talent and make the strongest impact for the public benefit.