**2. The matrix of power: continuities and/or discontinuities from the old regimes of order and of truth**

One of the enduring legacies of the racist apartheid system in South Africa, from which the university sector is a constituent part, is the question of the so-called historically black universities (HBU) or historically disadvantaged institutions (HDI) (these two terms are used interchangeably in this paper). This notion of blackness or disadvantage reflects how the present is constituted from power relations and materialist conditions as conditioned from the past regimes of order and of truth. Also, the transformation project in South Africa is documented in literature, such a university education category is part of a history, which was based on the racist apartheid system, whereby access to university education was regulated according to race and class. Such structural arrangements would promote systems that dispense power and privilege for some and not the Other. Such a history had such enduring effects even post democracy. For example, although the transformation of higher education and training in South Africa (HETSA) was envisaged into an integrated system and its enactment further well planned [1]. However, such plans seem to unfold in very peculiar circumstances for HBUs or HDIs. Convincing arguments are made that such proposals are still greatly conditioned in ways that effectively maintain a three-band structure, with the first- and highest-level band of universities predominantly representing the previously white and historically advantaged institutions [2]. Such a picture is also evidenced according to their apparent good performance profiles [3]. The last and lowest band is reflecting the relatively poor performance profiles coupled with enduring crisis, which are quite disruptive of the academic program almost annually.

That it is from this third lower band that most historically black universities tend to be represented, therefore, indicates what can be argued as the continuities from the old regimes of power and of truth. It, thus, illustrates the challenges of the transformation project in general and the governance challenges, which remain so crystallized despite almost three decades into constitutional democracy. In this sense, the transformation project, as the mechanism for change, is conditioned in the context of the old regimes of power, which continue to privilege certain forms of university education in socially exclusive ways for the Other. Therefore, the assumed trajectories about HETSA transformation remains the critical question about the present CGR systems and practices as continuities or discontinuities, the possible advances or stagnation from the old regimes of order and of truth. While the KIV Codes/Report was designed to deal with the previous regimes of order post democracy, such a project would become challenging as the dimensions about the regimes of truth in politics of being and knowledge.

#### **2.1 King IV code of corporate governance and reporting**

The conditions about the establishment of the King IV Report are well documented in literature (i.e., "For example, see [4–7]".). Such developments in the body of knowledge are responsive to how corporate governance is regulated in South Africa per the legislative framework [8]. The essence about KIV Report, as emerging from the previous versions of K1 to KIII, elaborated on outcomes of the service, the quality of the service as a fiduciary duty. In this way, the focus on quality in terms of the KIV version would no longer be about outputs, which was the purpose of KIII in relation to the three aspects of the inputs-process-outputs model. This point is important to distinguish, as general literature tends to conflate outputs with outcomes as the performance measures in the efficiency-effectiveness interplays,

that is, in doing right the right things. In terms of the mainstream literature about transformation of university education, such developments could be located within the bigger debates about institutional autonomy and public accountability. Post the Millennium Development Goals, such developments as the King IV Report could also be understood in relation to what would be the new phase of the United Nations Sustainable Developmental Goals 2030 (SDG 2030), including the need for explicit monitoring, evaluation, and reporting functions as part of institutional governance (i.e., "For example, see [9]".) Consequently, the King IV Report would provide a paradigm shift in how organizations can be better governed and led.

Therefore, while CGRs are significant in the running of university education, a consideration needs to be made about what the actual character is about the current CGR practices and thus subjecting the systems thereof and their assumed trajectories as to explanatory critiques. As I explain in the rest of this Chapter, the implicit assumptions about CGR as a structural system, while not questionable at the point of a cultural system, they become problematic at the level of human systems. That is, while it would be beyond critique to think about the CGR systems as beliefs, values and propositions about the idea of a university, the challenge begins when such beliefs are enacted by means of agency. This could therefore be understood as a unique challenge for the selected HDIs in the context of South Africa, where what seemed to have been espoused as values of use did not necessarily translate into values of use. In order to illustrate this point, in the following subsections, I describe the CGR cases according to the main elements of the KIV Codes, which are as follows:


The following cases reflect what could be understood as the disjuncture between the roles, duties and responsibilities and the ideal outcomes of corporate governance. In the selected cases of four HDIs (I used coding for each case of a university) in South Africa during the period from 2018 to 2020, there was compelling evidence about the extent to which members of university education leadership, management and governance could not adhere to the principles of ethical culture, good performance as sustainable value chain, effective control, and trust, good reputation and legitimacy.

#### *2.1.1 KIV code practice: Steers and sets strategic direction*

The following case is about HET-C sat against Principles 1 to 3 about the CGR role where ethical culture is espoused as the outcome:

*"(Mr X) also questioned the manner in which his suspension was handled. He said he was given an hour to respond to the notice of suspension and the chancellor sent two security guards to his home to deliver the suspension letter as the country is on lockdown."*

The same reporting alluded to *"horrifying acts of corruption and fraud in the procurement of security services."*

*Corporate Governance and Reporting in Contexts of Social Justice and Equity, Deconstructing... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101188*

*2.1.2 KIV code practice: Strategy, performance and reporting*

Good performance as sustainable value creation, which is anchored on Principles 4 to 5 could be considered antithetical to strategy, performance, and reporting, according to the following evidence about HET-A:

*"The breakdown of governance, along with maladministration and pervasive corruption".*

*"There is a pervasive and shameless sense from certain organised formations – including unions, students and service providers – that they have a right to milk the institution dry with impunity. In the process, we have found, the mission of the university gets lost".*

#### *2.1.3 KIV code practice: Overseeing and monitoring*

Two HET-D cases reported the disjuncture of overseeing and monitoring, as leadership practices by the governing body, and the effective controls according to Principles 6 to 15.

**"***During the site visits to the campus, splinter groups of students had chased other students away from the meeting, with the help of police and the Vice-Chancellor. The HET-D atmosphere was very polarized, which impeded the quality of the report's observations and recommendations."*

*"The R11 million which had gone missing within the University system…….the perceived maladministration and mismanagement has increased the mistrust and negative image of the University."*

#### *2.1.4 KIV code practice: Stakeholder relationships ensure accountability and disclosure*

Principles 16 and 17 promote trust, good reputation and legitimacy as corporate governance and leadership outcomes. However, the following cases about HET-B created a typical case of espoused values and the values of use.

**"***The general disregard of a fundamental principle of governance……they said the role of a council member, whether internal or external, was to contribute to collective decision-making for the benefit of the university. "It was the disregard of this principle, whether deliberately or in ignorance, individually or in groups, that led to the necessity for ministerial intervention."*

*"Disturbing signs of a widespread belief that the university is a kind of a cash cow which everyone is entitled to milk for personal benefit."*

#### **2.2 Theorizations of corporate governance and leadership practices in higher education institutions as surface ontology**

Prior to the advent of the KIV Code [4], integrated reporting had been the focus of the private sector, (i.e., "For example, see [9, 10]".). Significantly, the King IV Code would be 'more easily applicable to all organizations: public and private, large and small, for-profit and not-for-profit' ([10]: 6). The significance of these codes begun to receive prominence at the international level. Literature (i.e., "For example, see [11, 12]".) refers to the uptake in the Italian and Australian cases

respectively. In the South African context, similar developments had been recorded about the history and benefits of the King IV Report [13], where arguments are made for the principle, whereby the boards should appreciate that strategy, risk, performance and sustainability are inseparable.

However, about these compelling cases, as outlined above, the National Ministry of Higher Education and Training [14] indicated the following situation about CGR in RSA:


d.In four (4) universities, investigations were conducted more than once.

Therefore, the practices, as alluded to the four selected universities and over 2018 to 2020 in South Africa, point to the challenges about corporate governance and reporting as continuities, instead of the discontinuities, from the old regimes of order and of truth, given the history of South Africa and its racist Apartheid system. As I argue in the rest of the chapter, such cases are masked in de-ontological positions and self-referential explanations thereof. What ought to be advances in CGR practices, and therefore in how such practices can be theorized, is when what seemed to be the actual values than the espoused would be a question about the complex university education context in South Africa and the expressively veracious consideration about the cases of HDIs. It seems that this category of the university sector is "hankering to be different or new" post constitutional democracy. Such efforts remain like "tinkering on the edges about the idea of a university as the public good, and thus rendering CGR practices as continuities from the old regimes of order and of truth.

There seemed to be compelling cases about the actual choices and projects by the incumbents (Council members), which then perpetuate the social ills of disadvantage, exclusion and marginalization about the Other (the community which should benefit from these universities, yet they cannot be due to the seemingly forms of kleptocracy in the high offices of the university). The unfortunate picture here is that all this seemed to take place despite what had been extensively written about CGR from the mainstream theories. Therefore, with the latter point as granted, such would be the case of when CGR, as a social phenomenon, needs a powerful theory because the present, while normal, seems to have normalized as part of heavily reliance on what appears as common sense knowledge. Such forms of knowledge preoccupy themselves with what works and what does not about CGR practices, while the actual scholarship of engagement about CGR should be about the conditions that constrain or enable the practices.

The state of CGR for the cases of HET by 2019 indicated evidence of the reproductive instead of the transformative mechanisms [15] as implicit about the nature of corporate governance in the selected cases. They constituted a network of outcomes, which are the antitheses of what corporate governance ought to be but are reproductive of the state of social injustice and inequities that the beneficiaries of university of higher education seem to continue to be subjected to. To arrive at such observations, one had to make inferences about the mechanisms that seemed to generate such a situation in contexts of assumed corporate governance as the ideal of King IV versus the actual as evidenced by the findings.
