Madam Deputy Speaker, Acting President, Mr Speaker, hon members, in his famous statement from the dock during the Rivonia trial, Comrade Nelson Mandela said, amongst other things, and I quote:
The Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, and the Bill of Rights are documents which are held in veneration by democrats throughout the world.
I have great respect for British political institutions, and for the country's system of justice. I regard the British Parliament as the most democratic institution in the world, and the independence and impartiality of its judiciary never fail to arouse my admiration.
The American Congress, that country's doctrine of separation of powers, as well as the independence of its judiciary, arouses in me similar sentiments.
I have been influenced in my thinking by both West and East. All this has led me to feel that in my search for a political formula, I should be absolutely impartial and objective. I should tie myself to no particular system of society other than of socialism. I must leave myself free to borrow the best from the West and from the East.
These words expressed not only a personal view, but also reflected a political tradition and a value system that his movement, the ANC, had embraced and adhered to for many decades. Mandela was explaining his own actions to the people of South Africa and the world, unafraid of the consequences of stating the purposes for which he and his co-accused had decided to take up arms to overthrow the apartheid regime. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether or not we have lived up to that aspiration.
Though Parliament is an institution that evolved specifically in a European political environment, it has numerous precedents in the history of virtually all societies. In precolonial African societies, there was the inkundla or lekgotla, a public political forum in which all adult males had the right to participate. It also served as a law court, again open to all adult males. Though gendered, the ideal here obviously was popular participation in government.
The milestones of British political institutions that Mandela recounted on that occasion were the outcome of often extremely bitter political struggles. Their importance can perhaps be better understood by a visit to the site of the British Parliament, Westminster. Permit me, therefore, to paint a brief verbal picture of what a visitor would see on such an excursion.
There are two statues in the grounds of the British Parliament: one is of Richard the Lionheart, who led the unsuccessful Third Crusade; the other is of Oliver Cromwell, a man who was dubbed "God's Englishman" by the late Master of Balliol College, Oxford, Christopher Hill. Across the street on Parliament Square are a number of other statues honouring personalities whom the British public consider great world statesmen. It is a matter of pride to us as South Africans that one of the most recent additions to these is a statue of our own Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela.
In a small park abutting Parliament stands a statue of the suffragette, Emmeline Pankhurst, who was amongst the most important leaders of the struggle to attain the franchise for women during the first two decades of the 20th century.
I mention these matters because these statues tell their own story and carry an important message. Cromwell and his colleagues institutionalised the supremacy of Parliament through struggle; to be precise, an armed struggle that entailed the dethroning of the king of England and his execution. Their actions signalled an end to the divine right of kings to do wrong and imprinted on the political institutions of their country the principle of government by the consent of the governed.
This principle was reinterpreted as "government of the people, by the people, for the people" by Abraham Lincoln in his famous Gettysburg Address.
Pankhurst too is a heroine of very militant struggles, led in the main by highly educated middle-class women. The struggle for women's suffrage entailed both civil disobedience and dramatic acts of sabotage, which included the setting ablaze of haystacks, the slashing of famous paintings in the National Arts Gallery, marches and other public manifestations.
So when we congratulate ourselves as South Africans on having attained third position amongst parliaments with a high percentage of women in the world, this is a vindication of those courageous women and their struggles. The point I'm making is that the history of this institution has important lessons for us all. The right of the ordinary citizen - man and woman - to participate directly in government through freely elected political representatives had to be fought for, very often arms in hand. Freedom, democracy, the rights of the citizen and the civil liberties we today take for granted, in virtually every country of the world were purchased at a very high price, often paid for in the blood of martyrs and of tyrants.
For the next two centuries parliaments were, however, only accessible to those who had the leisure time to attend their sessions regularly. That effectively excluded the majority of people who had to work daily to make a living. Hence, during the mid-19th century the Petitioner of Rights Mandela refers to, presented to Parliament by the Chartist Movement, demanded that salaries be paid to all parliamentarians, thus making it possible for those without an independent income also to gain access to the parliaments. The struggle to translate the principle of government by the consent of the governed into reality has consequently entailed extending the franchise to ordinary working people, to women and to the youth by lowering the voting age.
By the end of the 19th century the right to participate in government, expressed in the franchise, had become the emblem of citizenship. And, by equal measure, exclusion from the franchise designated that one was not a citizen. Citizenship, embodied in the franchise, inscribed the principle of equality before the law in all state institutions. Thus was the divine right of kings displaced by the birthright of every citizen, irrespective of parentage, race, class, faith or gender, to share equally with others in the rights and prerogatives of citizenship.
The central notions undergirding Parliament and parliamentary institutions are that the best way to ensure that the governed have a voice in who governs them is the right to elect and to be elected to public office and the right of citizens to recall such public representatives through regular elections; that it is possible for citizens who disagree with each other to disagree without being disagreeable; that differences of opinion, even radical differences, need not undermine a shared commitment to national goals; that even citizens who hold diametrically opposite views should be able to find each other through reasoned and rational debate, or arrive at mutually acceptable compromises.
Dialogue is the essence of parliamentary democracy, as is vigorous debate. Parliaments consequently are terrains where differing and conflicting ideas are tested and contested. From its birth the ANC has engaged in this battle of ideas, convinced that the achievement of its objectives is dependent on its capacity to persuade the South African electorate that these aims are not only desirable, but also sound and attainable. We consequently find it odd that much of the public discourse, even academic discourse, revolves around the fear of a powerful governing party that commands an overwhelming majority among the electorate. [Applause.] As the late Prof Archie Mafeje has written:
The truth of the matter is that in all democracies, as is known in Europe and elsewhere, different political parties seek dominance and the winner takes all. If the ANC wins the popular vote by a wide margin, why should that be held against them for idealistic reasons?
[Applause.]
The fear that South Africa may be drifting towards a one-party state would be justified if the ANC was stifling democratic competition. The chairperson of the Independent Electoral Commission reports that this is far from being the case. If the dominance is seen as a threat to democracy, then the blame should be put on the myriad small parties that have not been able to organise themselves and challenge the ANC from a common platform.
[Applause.]
Perhaps the hon Shilowa and Mike Ellis might consider that and talk about it after the session. [Interjections.] What Prof Mafeje is suggesting here is that this complaint is akin to the schoolboy's excuse that the dog ate his homework. [Laughter.] Based on its founding principles and decades of political practice, the ANC welcomes the political contestation amongst different political parties. We value this as an integral dimension of democracy and have never shied away from or feared the vigorous cut and thrust thereof. But we will give as good as we get and, if, in the end, we are able to convince the overwhelming majority of voters of our viewpoint, as we have done since 1994, an obligation rests on the other parties in this House to go back to the drawing board to devise political platforms that can command the requisite support to unseat the ANC. [Applause.] This is why, unlike others, the ANC does not engage in ad hominem negative campaigning that seeks to caricature its political opponents, but prefers to focus squarely on its political platform. Let me let the opposition in on a secret: It actually works! [Applause.]
While on the subject let me deal with yet another myth that has taken root in our society. We often hear the mantra: "A strong opposition is essential for the health of democracy". While we welcome debate, and value the opportunity to test our views against those of political parties who see the world differently from ourselves, historical experience does not actually bear out this myth. Let me demonstrate: After the Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler's Nazi party became an extremely strong opposition to the liberal-social democratic governing coalitions in Weimar, Germany. That was not good for democracy. In our own country, in the 20th century, D F Malan's National Party was a powerful opposition to Smuts' United Party government. That too was not good for democracy.
In contrast, for close to two decades the late Helen Suzman was a solitary voice in the defunct apartheid parliament. One could not imagine a weaker opposition. Yet, that weak opposition contributed far more to democracy than the powerful Nazis and the strong National Party during Smuts' time. [Applause.] [Interjections.]
The political competition and contestation so necessary for a healthy democracy is enriched or diminished by the content of such competition, not by the competition itself.
The political contestation among divergent and diverse viewpoints is a practice we welcome. Unlike the past, no prescriptive laws suppressing the activities of any individual, political formation or opinion have been gazetted since 1994, even when we find those views highly offensive. In fact, in democratic South Africa the contestation unfolds in the committee rooms of Parliament, in this august Chamber, in the media, in our schools, in our colleges, in our universities, in the churches, in the taverns, in night clubs, in dancehalls - in fact, everywhere South Africans gather. As a people, let us continue to engage each other in a spirit of open, robust but rational debate wherever it takes place. And, as I have said, the ANC will not be found wanting in such engagement.
Parliament is one of the most important forums for public debate which is why we in the ANC vigorously support this institution so that it remains an extremely effective forum in which South African patriots, of divergent and differing viewpoints, can collectively craft our country's future in ongoing and lively debate.
We support the Budget. We've heard, and I sympathise with, the viewpoint of many of the smaller parties - that they hardly get a look-in because of the time allocations. One has great sympathy for that complaint precisely because one values the contribution that smaller parties can make to the debate in this House.
But, on the other hand, there is a need for introspection by some of the smaller parties. When Parliament takes a decision to go out into the community on outreach programmes, they are always found wanting. So, perhaps, let them look at themselves sometimes before they come and complain too much. I think the matter of the time allocations can be looked at again, and I welcome also the hon Mike Ellis's suggestion that perhaps we should go back to interpellations. We should maybe reinvigorate Question Time. It's a very important dimension of the democratic dialogue that takes place in Parliament.
I would urge and support such a move, but, at the same time, the opposition needs to be introspective itself and ask itself what role exactly it is playing here in this Parliament. We welcome critical voices; we welcome those who are questioning; we welcome those who demand that the executive be scrutinised, but let us remember what I said about the difference between Malan's National Party and a solitary Helen Suzman. The quality of Helen Suzman's opposition is what made the difference, not the fact that she was oppositional. Thank you. [Applause.]