Sona high jinks at odds with our chosen system
Echoes of Charles I in confrontation at Westminster
ALTHOUGH our constitution makes a fundamental break with the concept and practice of parliamentary sovereignty, which is one of the definitive features of the esteemed Westminster paradigm, the designation “parliament” has been retained for the legislature of our constitutional democracy, involving a rigid constitution and an enforceable Bill of Rights.
Parliament at Westminster is the progenitor of all parliaments. Its ancient lineage involved a heroic struggle against monarchical despotism which, as a result, produced a bastion of liberty not only for the British people, but for all nations applying a system of parliamentary government. In this regard Parliament encompasses a priceless heritage that is a universal legacy.
Our constitution retains a parliamentary system of government, rather than a presidential one, as prevails in the US. Parliament is as a result not merely a law-maker, it has in addition the function to represent and speak on behalf of the electorate as well as to exercise control over the executive through a system of responsible government, which is the definitive feature of a parliamentary system of government.
In a liberal democracy, such as prevails in South Africa, Parliament cannot fall under the monopoly of one party, or of the executive authority of the day. The governing party, like all other parties, is subject to the rules and norms of parliamentary conduct, as interpreted and applied by the Speaker of Parliament. This office is one of singular distinction. Its celebrated history is characterised by fearless independence, particularly in relation to interference from the executive or the Crown.
Such interference is epitomised by the imperious conduct of King Charles I, who in 1642 together with band of armed troops stormed into the House of Commons of the English Parliament and demanded information concerning certain alleged conspirators. Speaker Lenthall’s courageous reply reflected the independence of his office: “May it please your majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here.” As the king departed from the House, members shouted: “Privilege! Privilege!”
This English precedent is relevant for South Africa today, in the light of the pandemonium that occurred during the State of the Nation Address (Sona) on Thursday night last week. The deployment of army troops in the operational plan devised and used at Sona last week has elicited profound concern about the militarisation of Parliament (“Cops clam up on Sona operational plan”, The Saturday Star, February 11). This state of affairs has resulted in a statement by the DA that “it intended to approach the courts for a review application to prevent the militarisation of Parliament” (“DA promises court action” (The Mercury, February 10).
By making use of troops in the precincts of Parliament, two fundamental issues are at stake. Firstly, this conduct would appear to be a violation of the principles of separation of powers; and secondly a breach of parliamentary privilege, both of which are part of our present constitutional dispensation, involving a system where Parliament is no longer sovereign. The courts, but in particular the Constitutional Court, will have to make a clear ruling on these kindred issues.
The pandemonium that prevailed last week in Parliament, and in particular the conduct of the EFF during Sona, negated all the virtues that a system of parliamentary democracy actually stands for and indicates that something is seriously amiss in our body politic. What is however categorically clear is that the people of South Africa are deeply alarmed and intensely dismayed at what has occurred. It is totally unacceptable that reasoned debate should be replaced by irrational and outrageous conduct in an historic institution that is the highest debating forum in the land. The inordinate difficulty with the spectacle tactics employed by the members of the EFF is, inter alia, that they prevent other political parties and their members from holding the executive accountable by conventional methods of debate and discourse.
A singular responsibility rests on the Speaker and other presiding officers to maintain order and decorum in the Chamber. The chief function of the Speaker, who occupies a most distinguished office, is to preserve the privileges and dignity of Parliament in chairing political debate and discourse in the Chamber. This must be done with impartiality and courage. For this to occur, the Speaker must be politically independent. Unfortunately, Baleka Mbete, as Speaker, is manifestly compromised in that she is also the chairwoman of the ANC. Also, in the manner in which she conducts herself as Speaker, she displays a superficial understanding of the requirements of an historic and distinguished office, which has its genesis in the Mother of Parliaments at Westminster. As we have adopted a parliamentary system of government, its ethos and operation is relevant for the working of our system of parliamentary democracy. The office of Speaker has an ancient lineage that is characterised by both dignity and fearless independence. It is in regard to the latter that Mbete and other presiding officers have failed so abysmally, by their blatant partiality to the ANC, involving, inter alia, an inability to protect the institution from the spurious points of order and the abuse of freedom of expression.
Parliament, as a venerable institution, is extremely valuable, but, regrettably at present finds itself in a state of chronic crisis that threatens its democratic operation and existence. The puerile antics and obstreperous conduct of members of the EFF with their fascist behaviour, their subsequent violent removal by the parliamentary protection service, together with the militarisation of Parliament by the executive, are threatening its dignity and continued operation as a democratic forum for intelligent and informed debate. This is indeed a serious threat to democracy itself. It is submitted that all the roleplayers need to put their heads together in order to prevent Parliament’s disintegration and restore its role as an indispensable element in our liberal democracy, as an esteemed forum for rational political discourse and in so doing to hold the executive accountable.
George Devenish is an emeritus professor at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, and one of the scholars who assisted in drafting the interim constitution in 1993.