Parliament must see robust debate

By Mcebisi Ndletyana

Screaming matches on this platform are far better than angry mobs confronting each other in the streets, writes Mcebisi Ndletyana.

Johannesburg - “The security cluster cannot watch while the authority of Parliament is compromised in a manner that was witnessed last Thursday,” remonstrated the Minister of Defence, Nosiviwe Maphisa-Nqakula.

She then went on to reassure the public that: “It is the responsibility of the JCPS cluster to ensure that state institutions are not threatened and are safe and secured as required by the constitution.”

The ministers responsible for the safety of the country, which include the army, police and intelligence, have obviously cast the recent parliamentary brouhaha as a security threat. Consequently, they’re contemplating a security-oriented solution and, given the ministries involved, those security measures can take a number of forms, including illiberal measures.

While understandably infuriated by unusual behaviour in Parliament, it still behoves us to probe whether the promised strong-arm tactics will address the source of the problem: What does the ease with which ministers propose a clamp-down on the institution that embodies freedom say about the state of the republic, and what implications will the pending illiberal measures have on our freedoms?

Proffering security measures to counter what happened in Parliament misdiagnoses the problem. In fact, it does not even attempt to come to grips with the underlying cause but merely addresses the symptom.

The disorderly behaviour is a manifestation of a crisis of legitimacy.

Members of the Economic Freedom Fighters doubt the zeal of Parliament to adhere to its own rules and treat everyone without discrimination.

Compliance with rules and fair treatment constitute the basis of parliamentary legitimacy.

Once Parliament deviates from what it’s supposed to be, then it assumes a different meaning, especially in the eyes of those disadvantaged by the digression from norms.

And there’s no disputing that the dominant party in Parliament has largely invoked the majoritarian principle. This has meant that, rather than seek consensus, it has insisted on getting its way despite concerns or anxiety expressed by the opposition.

The icy relationship between former president Thabo Mbeki and Tony Leon, the ex-leader of the official opposition, was partly a result of the uneven handedness of parliamentary conduct.

Disrupting Parliament was just beneath the liberals, who preferred to maintain a demeanour of respectability, however disagreeable the circumstances.

What is certain though is that the more egregious majoritarianism got, the less respect Parliament enjoyed among opposition MPs.

The disbandment of the Scorpions and the recent white-washing of the investigation into the Gupta abuse of a military base, are among the highlights of parliamentary lows.

Opposition MPs feel disempowered by Parliament. That is why they resort to litigation.

The spike in the volume of litigations instigated by the opposition is directly related to their emasculation in Parliament. This is what drove the ANC to denounce the judiciary as anti-revolutionary for insisting on what Parliament was failing to do – adherence to rules and fairness.

The EFF are obviously no liberals. Rather than wallow in self-righteous indignation or resort to courts, they’ve responded in the best way they know how – defiance. That is how they’ve always dealt with an intransigent authority.

Parliamentary disorder, therefore, was fuelled by parliamentary protection of executive excesses and deliberate disempowerment of the opposition. This is the source of the problem.

Draconian measures are not the solution, but are likely to disfigure the character of Parliament and may even be used to stifle debate, if not intimidate contrarian politicians. Parliament will then cease being the hallmark of our freedom, but be the source of illiberalism.

Even more worrisome is the speed with which the security ministers have moved to threaten a clampdown in Parliament.

There’s hardly any talk about revising the rules to accommodate more opposition voices and enforce executive accountability.

This is revealing of a security-oriented presidency.

Securocrats are no great fans of democracy, but are experts in curtailing liberties. Limiting freedom is meant to conceal secrets.

This behaviour is informed by the same mindset that brought us the State Information Bill.

Tightening up security and creating more secrecy is a threat to democracy. It makes abuse of power easier. Better a bit of disorder in a democracy than living under a police state. Disorder can be discouraged by expanding frontiers of free speech and accountability but a police-state breeds abuse of power with calamitous consequences.

In fact, a clampdown in Parliament will promote chaos.

Remember parliamentary democracy emerged as an institutional arrangement to pre-empt violent conflict. It institutionalised conflict, forcing adversaries to follow rules and use arguments to pursue their interests and settle disagreements.

If robust criticism is silenced and Parliament further weakened, then adversaries are forced to mobilise outside Parliament.

And, it wouldn’t be wise to underestimate the EFF’s ability for mass mobilisation. They’re supported by 1.3 million South Africans, and most of them are very unhappy.

Unhappy people have a way of lashing out and because they’re so many, the damage to property will most likely be noticeable. There may even be recurrent violent confrontations with our trigger-happy police and supporters of the ruling party who are fond of demonstrating siphethe! (we’re in charge).

Screaming matches in Parliament are far better than angry mobs confronting each other on the streets.

Neither will suspending the EFF from Parliament pave the way for exonerating Zuma from reimbursing the state.

Many people may disapprove of the EFF’s disorderly behaviour, but sympathise with their stance.

By demanding that the president “pay back the money”, they’re standing up for the probity we all require of politicians. After all, it is our money the president has spent lavishly on his compound to provide comfort for his family and livestock.

A suspension will not shun the EFF out of the public eye, but will attract them even more support.

They will be seen as victims of official shenanigans to cover up.

Parliament is notorious for impropriety. This security cluster, for instance, which now parades as advocates of integrity, was part of official attempts to conceal the Nkandla imbroglio during Thuli Madonsela’s investigation.

It successfully white-washed the Guptagate investigation.

So, the public knows what the security cluster is capable of.

They’re not what they purport to be. That is why Parliament and politicians enjoy the lowest levels of public trust among the population at a measly 37 percent and 22 percent respectively. Suspending the EFF will earn Parliament even more notoriety.

Conversely, expanding frontiers of free speech and enforcing executive accountability opens up the possibility to regain credibility. Why should MPs change parliamentary rules, you may ask. The answer is simple: It’s transformation, stupid!

In other words, even relocating Parliament to Pretoria will not help. That’s what Gwede Mantashe proposed to ensure the ANC-controlled provincial government sends in police to storm Parliament when opposition MPs demand answers.

But this is based on erroneous assumptions. Gauteng is no longer safe for the ANC.

At this rate, with all these shenanigans going on, the ANC is heading for a thorough defeat in this province. Zille is coming for Gauteng, Mqwathi! What will you do then – relocate Parliament to Cala?

The solution to this downward spiral is simply to uphold the integrity of our institutions.

I don’t mean taking us on a charade, as Baleka Mbete is doing now in Parliament.

It’s easy: “Pay back the money!”

• Ndletyana is Head of the Political Economy Faculty at Mistra.

** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Newspapers.

The article first appeared on 31 August 2014 in the Sunday Independent.