McCauley made analytic errors
IT WAS INTERESTING to read the political foray made by Ray McCauley (“We need a little give and take”, The Star Opinion and Analysis, November 25). Sadly his analysis made some fundamental errors which need to be corrected.
First his view that we as the opposition do not understand “majority rule” is disingenuous. McCauley states that the majority party chooses the Speaker. This is incorrect.
The Speaker is elected by all Members of Parliament; this is why the framers of our constitution, in schedule 3, stipulated that a secret ballot was to be used to elect the Speaker.
This was precisely to provide the legislature with an opportunity to elect the best person for the job, regardless of political affiliation, and also allow MPs the opportunity to break party ranks if they so desired.
If the framers had intended “majority rule” to apply, as McCauley suggests, they would have dispensed with this provision and allowed the majority party in Parliament to simply put forward the Speaker or allowed a simple majority vote to take place.
These framers chose this system because the role of Speaker is supposed to be performed in a non-partisan manner.
The Speaker is meant to defend the rights of all parties in the House. The Speaker is also supposed to apply the rules fairly to all in the House.
The troubles in Parliament were precipitated by Jacob Zuma refusing to be held accountable in terms of the constitution and rules.
His evasive answering and then subsequent refusal to appear to answer oral questions as is required by the rules of Parliament have triggered this crisis. Instead of upholding the rules of the House, the Speaker has acquiesced to the directives of Luthuli House to protect Zuma, and in so doing has let her political boss off the hook.
In 2009 Ray McCauley told us all glowingly that Zuma “would go down in history as the president who has made a difference”; little did we know how disastrous that difference would be for our constitution and for our country.