So Many Questions
The slap on the wrist that Dina Pule received again raised the issue of ethics in the ANC. Chris Barron asked Ben Turok, ANC MP and chairman of parliament’s ethics committee . . .
How serious is the ANC about ethics?
Well, conference resolutions are quite firm and strong, and the last one was very firm.
Was the action strong enough?
No, I don’t think so.
How does Pule get to remain an MP?
I’d rather not talk about the individual.
Isn’t this the problem? When push comes to shove, no one wants to talk about it?
Yes, but there are reasons for that.
What?
One reason is that there is a long, strong tradition of ubuntu. For example, yesterday Dina Pule collapsed into tears.
I didn’t see her collapse into tears.
Well, I saw her bent over and a number of ANC MPs going to comfort her.
I saw them applauding her. Is that appropriate?
I didn’t see that and so I can’t comment. What I can comment on is this commiseration . . .
Solidarity?
No, as I was trying to say before you interrupted me, there is a long tradition of ubuntu.
Ubuntu, or “there but for the grace of God . . .”?
That would be your interpretation. My interpretation is that there is this huge tradition of fellow feeling for people in trouble.
Of being soft on corruption?
No, you’re giving it a spin which I’m not giving it. I’m saying that there is a tradition of ubuntu . . .
Isn’t it time to end it?
I think we must separate commiseration for people who fall on their own swords from . . .
She didn’t fall on her sword, did she?
She fell on her sword when she apologised.
She apologised after lying every step of the way, didn’t she?
In other cases, people have gone to the courts to overturn a decision of parliament, and she did not.
Should she still be in parliament?
What she did was very bad indeed and it seems to me the ANC should take quite a strong view.
And do what?
There is certainly a case for her being removed from parliament.
What message does it send if it doesn’t?
A very bad message. But the house and the speaker made it very clear that this kind of conduct is absolutely unacceptable.
And then she’s appointed to an important parliamentary committee?
That’s a routine appointment — just an administrative measure. Where there’s a gap they plug it by putting people in.
Is that how seriously we should take parliamentary committees?
No, no, the committees are important but . . .
The people appointed to them are not?
Strictly speaking everyone should be allocated to them according to their specialty, but in reality it does not happen.
Your role is to maintain public trust in the integrity of parliament. Has this been done?
What can parliament do? Under the rules we can’t expel her.
Why haven’t they been changed?
Because we’re still a partypolitical system. The speaker and chief whip will say: “Your member has done X or Y and you’d better do something about it.”
The ANC has done nothing. Does this mean it is not serious about corruption?
Not serious enough. It is up to Luthuli House now.
Do you have any faith in it?
On some occasions they’ve done the correct thing. On others they have not.
Such as with Tony Yengeni?
This man has a proclivity to get into difficulties.
Again it comes down to the question: How serious is the ANC about ethics?
I can’t defend that. But if you had heard the speech that President Jacob Zuma made at the opening of the conference in Mangaung, the way he set out the problems of corruption, it was very strong.
Isn’t he facing more than 700 charges of corruption?
You hardly expect me to comment on that.
Is the culture likely to change with this individual in charge?
You hardly expect me to comment on that, come on. Problems of corruption are deeper than one individual.
Surely the individual at the top is the one we’re entitled to look up to for setting the right tone?
Absolutely.
Does Zuma set the right tone?
I’m not going to comment on that.