MPs should be back in saddle
Joint structures and discussion make for better law making and a smoother running of Parliament
I f teachers, regardless of Covid-19 comorbidity risk, now have returned to classrooms, lawmakers must return to Parliament after recess in early October. All health and safety protocols observed, of course, such as no more than 250 people from MPs, staff and visitors in the House at one time.
Already under Lockdown Level 3, legal advice was that Parliament could operate fully as it was a place of work; restriction of gatherings to 50 persons didn’t apply. That legal advice was not followed.
And while virtual platform committee meetings and sittings have kept the parliamentary engine ticking over, nothing can substitute directly facing a political opponent, or an official using red tape tick boxing to dodge accountability. Physical presence is priceless.
National Assembly Speaker Thandi Modise must return to Parliament. Because weird stuff has been happening in the parliamentary corridors, real and virtual.
In a highly unusual move, the Office of the Chief Whip: Hon Pemmy Majodina – “Hon” for Honourable replaced Comrade from late April 2020 – issued a statement on an ANC study group meeting with Defence Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula over her giving a lift to ANC leaders, including SecretaryGeneral Ace Magashule, using an SANDF plane to Zimbabwe.
After meeting the minister, the ANC study group publicly stated support for the ANC repaying costs of that trip
“We wish to abide by the democratic centralism of our beloved movement. On the same breath we wish to dismiss the call made by the DA that extra cost should be made to the ANC as if the jet was not on its way to Zimbabwe.”
And Defence also passed muster on the Covid-19 corruption front, with ANC MPs saying they “thus far did not find any glaring deficiencies within the Department of Defence for the period under way”.
After meeting Mapisa-Nqakula, the ANC study group called on the parliamentary defence committee chairperson (also a member of the study group) to call a meeting of the committee with the defence minister.
Now, study groups are regular political meetings to prep ANC MPs of a particular committee for an upcoming meeting.
Often ministers attend, and – as the State Capture years have shown – sometimes the ministerial intention is to direct MPs, although it doesn’t necessarily always pan out.
ANC study groups regularly issue on matters in the public discourse, and also on opposition political blunderings.
But these study groups are not political rallies to be touted in public. That’s not a parliamentary nicety, but a fundamental aspect of making Parliament work as a constitutionally established multi-party democratic institution.
Having already come out in support of the defence minister, the ANC in Parliament has taken a stance.
And having prejudged the matter, any parliamentary committee meeting becomes a farce of oversight and accountability.
The opposition would go to town about how the ANC had already decided.
It’ll backfire even worse for the ANC if Mapisa-Nqakula sought to shield herself from explanation by invoking the Public Protector probe.
Of course, the ANC’s view would prevail as its numerical dominance means it holds most of the committee seats.
And perhaps for those in the governing party for whom crude control of the levers of power is the raison d’être, that numbers game is enough.
But a multi-party democratic institution, which is what Parliament is – unlike the Union Buildings or Luthuli House – requires not only political savvy, but also understanding of parliamentary processes, traditions and practices.
An ANC chief whip who understands Parliament could wield tremendous influence, as some have, not by publicity stunt, but by obtaining the buy-in from other represented political parties.
That includes discussion and concurrence in joint structures such as the Chief Whips’ Forum, to smooth out the running of Parliament.
None of this takes away from political contestation, but it does make for better law making, for better debates and – overall – a better people’s Parliament.
That’s not idealist mumbo jumbo, but it talks directly to the values and aspirations set out in the Constitution. DM168