President’s Jacob Zuma’s Q&A session in Parliament shows that South Africa is well on the way to developing a democratic culture, writes Eusebius McKaiser.
Johannesburg - There is so much to lament about the fifth democratic Parliament that it is easy to overlook that which is worth smiling about, if not to giggle about – he he he. Take today, for example, when president Zuma returned to Parliament to answer six written questions. Yet again many thousands of South Africans were following proceedings on social media, reports on the radio or watching one of several television channels that were broadcasting proceedings live.
In fact, levels of public interest are now sufficiently high, probably, such that publications which merely tell us the facts of what was said by who, the next day, will quickly be out of business. We know the facts as they happen. We now tune into Parliament with the reporters who have been seconded there. In that kind of context, it is the search for meaning, or backstories to surprising or interesting events, like jamminggate, that become more important reading, listening or viewing the morning after ‘parliament live’.
Participatory democracy and deliberation
It is easy to be glib, and dangerously so, about the ideals of democracy that we strive towards constitutionally. But the legitimacy of our democracy depends on many factors, and two of those include the highest possible level of participation in political processes and deliberation among citizens, and between citizens and political office holders.
These ideals of a participatory and deliberative democracy become increasingly meaningful when citizens tune into our parliamentary chambers, participate in the political processes, learn more about what the government is doing or not doing, and so can then make informed decisions about their political preferences - who to keep in government; who to kick out. This, for me, is an exciting, constructive outcome already of the unprecedented public interest in our fifth Parliament.
Of course we would all rather have a much better functioning state with a self-evidently brilliant CEO of SA Inc whose leadership skill is proven by better data on levels of equality, poverty alleviation, employment, and other crucial determinants of social justice. But, I’m afraid, as tedious as process-focused discussions are, over the long term it is a set of well-established institutions, democratic culture and respect for constitutional processes that will help us through stormy developmental weather.
And that is why, despite having lots to say about the substantive issues that were raises in today’s debate, I do think it is crucial we do not, in the first instance, take for granted that the entrenchment of a democratic culture, one still sorely lacking, begins with democratic habits being formed, like the president being grilled like he was today, without the use of police force to jam the accountability mechanism.
We can sleep somewhat peacefully, armed with the knowledge that we are rehearsing this thing called ‘democratic culture’, bucking the post-colonial trend in the region that suggests, erroneously, that democratic roots cannot be anchored in African soil.
But what, then, of the performance of the president on Wednesday in respect of the substantive issues that he was asked to account on?
Traditional leaders and nationalisation
At the risk of being contrarian, I thought the most interesting exchanges happened right at the end. The made-for-TV part at the beginning is worth, for once, relegating to the final stretch of analysis.
The IFP is desperately keen to test Zuma’s commitment to traditional leaders, and his appetite for increasing the powers of these leaders. There is ambiguity around the boundaries of some areas under traditional leaders’ control but which falls inside municipal boundaries to which these leaders are subservient.
President Zuma, ironically, was part of a government committee years ago that recommended that the executive perhaps consider amending the Constitution to deal with any confusion on the matter, but to do it it in such a way that effectively traditional leaders’ constitutional hold over these areas would be superior to those of municipal authorities. This has not happened and seems it will not happen.
The significance of this exchange was nicely captured in characteristically dramatic language by the leader of the IFP, Dr Mangosuthu Buthulezi, who put it to Zuma that he, Zuma, may as well tear up the current Constitution and write one that completely leaves out traditional leaders because secretly Zuma is a republican and opposed to monarchies.
This was clever stuff. It requires of Zuma to reveal just how much of a traditionalist he really is. And, for an ailing brand like the IFP’s, it is a chance to potentially have traditional leaders fall in love with them again if Zuma could be successfully painted as being anti-traditional leaders.
This was a crucial moment that in many ways goes to the heart of an unresolved constitutional question that many, including sociologist Dr Lungisile Ntsebeza and socio-legal expert Dr Sindiso Mnisi Weeks, have posed sharply: Can the foundational values of our Constitution be squared with the powers and role of traditional leaders or are we trying to square a circle? Today Zuma tried to square the circle, essentially, by mumbling a response that effectively just stipulated that a ‘republic’ system of governance, and democracy as we know it, are not mutually exclusive with the recognition of, and a role for, traditional leaders.
The answer will do for now, not least because it is an honest reporting on what our founding fathers and mothers were trying to do, in terms of their intentions. And in an afternoon that had lots of drama, this issue will not be dominating the airwaves in the days and weeks ahead. But, on the substance of the debate, the president actually gave a poor response. The response did not acknowledge the legal and political tensions that remain unresolved about the discrepancy between the rules that apply to those of us not who are not subjects of traditional leaders and authorities, and millions of South Africans who are.
It is too easy to say that these systems are not mutually exclusive. This debate is ripe for proper, fuller, public participation. It is especially the voices and views of those who are subject to the powers of traditional leaders who need to be heard.
The other exchange that fascinated was the attempt to skewer the president ideologically on the part of EFF MP Mbuyiseni Ndlovu. He pulled out all the stops in his final question with bombastic academic lingo about ‘de-monopolising’ Eskom – causing the president to tie his own tongue when he tried to say the word later – and the importance, as we celebrate the Freedom Charter 50 years after it was adopted, of choosing economic policies that include the nationalisation of banks and other strategic sectors of the economy.
But Ndlozi overreached here a little bit. The truth is that although this was the EFF now trying to distinguish itself from a political economy viewpoint, from the ANC, the case for nationalisation remains feeble. And there really was no risk in the president saying so.
Very confidently, and compellingly, the president reminded the EFF that even the radical young Mandela would later, as leader of democratic South Africa, choose a mixed economy model over either nationalisation strategies or socialism. He also cited the fact that one could play example table-tennis when it comes to economic history in countries that chose nationalisation or socialism.
If a mixed economy is run properly, it does not have to be regressive, exclusionary and unjust. The problem for Zuma, of course, is that our economy is exactly that. Millions of black South Africans in particular are excluded. Our economy is unjust. But where the president won the exchange is by not fearing that anyone watching his response will be disappointed that he is not committing himself to nationalisation or socialism. I’m afraid the EFF has work to do to convince many more of us that their alternative ‘radical’ economic policies are feasible, even if we all jointly agree the economy, right now, is frankly immoral in how unequal the opportunities and spoils are distributed.
So what then about #PayBackTheMoney?!
Let’s, finally, go back to the beginning. For almost 70 minutes the opposition MPs were engaging the Speaker of Parliament, Ms Baleka Mbete, on whether the president should be answering questions that are left over from the last time he came to the house to answer – or not answer – oral questions. In the end, they basically just filibustered themselves into not getting on with the president actually answering questions.
It was truly more entertaining than Late Nite News could ever hope to be. Real politicians successfully staging political satire. The problem for the opposition MPs was that they were divided: initially the EFF wanted the president to answer ngoku; but Mmusi Maimane and the rest of the DA tried to be the proverbial voices of reason, happy for the president to not answer right now, but to get a commitment that a date will be agreed to on Thursday. This was a needlessly complex attempt at a third way: how not to let Zuma off the hook but to look more reasonable than the EFF.
The problem is that the president was mum for over an hour! So it was comical to watch the DA negotiating this matter in dialogue with the speaker while the man they actually wanted to engage was right there. Why not let him just speak and get on with really brilliant follow-up questions to the written ones? Why, also, waste a written question, as the DA did, by asking in writing when the president will next appear to answer oral questions? It was an endless series of questions about questions about questions….and all the while the president just sat there, happy to defer accountability to the partial speaker of Parliament.
The EFF, in its turn, simply did not have energy to be disruptive (which is not a bad thing; they have exhausted, for now, the politics of spectacle). So they eventually joined the DA in simply wanting a commitment that a date will be agreed to on Thursday. So over an hour of throat-clearing and the question, ‘When will you #paybackthemoney?’ was not posed to the president. When he did eventually, during the debate on the written questions, address this matter, he simply reiterated his view that the Public Protector does not make legally binding findings. At any rate, he added, the Public Protector said that an amount had to be determined first, which the EFF was being presumptuous about. I could have told you so, Malema and Mmaimane. It is time to allow us, as voters, to decide what we want to do with the knowledge of the president’s evasiveness and disrespect for a chapter nine institution. Tactically, nothing more will be revealed from forcing this question.
Last, it has to be asked how much more partisan Mbete must be before she is sacked or forced to resign? At one stage President Zuma disrespected her authority when she asked him to momentarily stop his speaking so she could deal with an EFF MP who was rising on a point of order. Zuma spoke over the EFF MP and, more importantly, he ignored her request which she made several times. Her response? She shut up, and simply allowed him to get away with it. Later on she had audacity to condescend to MPs by suggesting that the president was simply in ‘full flight’ rather than disrespecting her, and that at any rate we are ‘not all equal’ in the house.
This was hypocritical and inconsistent when we look at the actions she takes when opposition MPs do not respect her. It is a sign, not only that she is partisan, but that she thinks the executive branch of government does Parliament a favour by appearing before it. The Orwellian suggestion that we are not all equal betrays, yet again, a mind that either does not grasp constitutional democracy or an opponent of democracy who has been seconded to protect Zuma. Whatever the explanation, her career is long dead, and her political ghost should be exorcised from parliament.
* Eusebius McKaiser is the best-selling author of A Bantu In My Bathroom and Could I Vote DA? A Voter’s Dilemma.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.