DA budget boycott ‘indictment of white monopoly capital’
The official opposition has shown its true colours by walking out of parliament when funds to alleviate the plight of the poor are allocated,
TO end the parliamentary year, the DA invited journalists to its annual chest-beating moment where the official opposition recounts fanciful tales of its performance in the house.
To narrate the fairytale, the DA chose chief whip John Steenhuisen, who spouted a list of “remarkable” achievements in holding the executive to account.
One of those was the walkout staged by DA MPs in the National Assembly, which delayed the passing of the division of revenue bill by two weeks.
The passing of this bill, which paves the way for the allocation of the budget to all levels of government to ensure that services to the public are not interrupted, is a critical task for any legislature.
The national budget is the oxygen that infuses life into the service delivery system of any country, ensuring that the necessities of life are not compromised.
For millions, including children, people with disabilities and elderly people dependent on the state’s social security system, parliament’s inability to pass the budget means starvation.
Because of the dire implications for essential services such as healthcare, conventions in parliaments all over the world prohibit political gamesmanship when it comes to the legislative processing of the national budget.
Even the most of belligerent and populist parliamentary opposition parties know where to draw the line when it affects the lives of the citizens, particularly the poor and the vulnerable.
The DA’s sabotage of the parliamentary budget process came at a time when all South Africans, including business, labour and civil society, stood behind the National Treasury’s budget interventions to stave off threats of a sovereign ratings downgrade.
Interruptions and uncertainty in the passage of the budget would have inevitably resulted in credit downgrades from ratings agencies, imperilling the country’s potential to attract investment, create economic growth, create jobs and fight against inequality and poverty.
The downgrade would have hit the pockets of South Africans the hardest through interest rate hikes on things such as personal loans and mortgage bonds.
The DA has argued that passing the budget is the responsibility of the governing party — not the opposition.
However, South Africa’s multiparty system, which is consistent with the principles of participatory democracy, encourages the active involvement of all parties in the decision-making processes of parliament.
All MPs, whose salaries are funded by the public purse, are obligated to be present in the house when decisions are voted on.
Deliberately staying away or walking out to manipulate the vote or prevent parliament from making a decision, particularly on such an important matter, amounts to dereliction of duty.
The DA’s argument that the budget process is none of its business is troubling, given that the party is governing a province and a number of municipalities that depend on allocations from the budget to render services to millions of citizens.
US Congressman David Young once argued that the passing of budgets is a critical part of the job of an elected representative. “If you don’t do your job, you shouldn’t get paid,” he said.
Having foiled the DA and EFF attempt to stop the bill in its tracks, the ANC initiated a disciplinary process against several of its MPs who were not present in the house.
A few months ago, the ANC caucus lekgotla resolved that any of its MPs repeatedly absent from parliament without permission or in violation of its code of conduct be recommended for immediate recall.
The public deserves representatives who take their parliamentary tasks seriously and demonstrate commitment to serve — not MPs who participate in walkouts or delinquency.
That the DA endorses delinquency is a serious indictment of the official opposition and its understanding of its
❛ A litany of eccentric tactics has put the DA on a collision course with the interests of ordinary citizens
parliamentary role.
In deserting its parliamentary responsibilities, the DA dared the ANC’s majority to single-handedly pass the budget — yet the same party accuses the ANC of “tyranny of the majority” whenever the results of a parliamentary vote go against it.
Given the DA’s populist myopia, preoccupation with cheap publicity and role as a mouthpiece for imperialism and white monopoly capital, it is little wonder that the party is unable to put its finger on the pulse of the nation.
A litany of eccentric tactics has on many occasions put it on a collision course with the interests and aspirations of ordinary citizens.
This includes its trashing of the revolutionary memory of Fidel Castro, its legal bid to prevent South Africa’s withdrawal from the International Criminal Court and rejection of land expropriation legislation.
This points to a party that is totally out of sync with the sentiments of the majority of South Africans.
The recent sabotage of the budget is little more than the culmination of a destructive and saddening year for the official opposition. Not even a prolific tale-teller and an accomplished purveyor of self-glorifying propaganda like Steenhuisen could sanitise this.