Cape Town - Lost in the noise of a parliament all but crashing down around our ears, the finger-pointing and grandstanding has been a detail that offers a different perspective.
While the presiding officers – Speaker Baleka Mbete in particular – have been singled out for blame and accused of bias, history shows this is nothing new, so cannot, on its own, explain the apparent crisis.
There have been four Speakers in the democratic era, although this is Mbete’s second stint at the helm.
Frene Ginwala was in the hot seat for 10 years, from 1994 to 2004, followed by Mbete until September 2008 (after which she became deputy president), Gwen Mahlangu-Nkabinde for just under eight months, Max Sisulu from 2009 until May this year, and then Mbete again.
Each of them, with the exception of Mahlangu-Nkabinde, at some point faced allegations of bias and of protecting the executive from scrutiny, as Mbete does now. Ginwala is often held up as a Speaker who commanded the respect of all parties, and the first decade of the democratic parliament is seen as having been a “golden era”.
This is partly because the legislature was occupied in this period with dismantling apartheid and crafting a new, humane order. But Ginwala played her part. Consistent with the vision of a “People’s Parliament”, she threw open the doors and invited the public in.
Committee meetings, previously closed to the public, were opened, and suddenly the inner workings of parliament, and not just the theatre of debates and staged occasions, were visible.
“I want people to know that parliament is open to them – that it’s not a citadel on the hill for the gods to play around in,” she told him. But even she faced a serious challenge to her authority when she was accused of allowing the teeth of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) to be pulled, in its investigation of the arms deal.
United Democratic Movement leader Bantu Holomisa wrote an open letter in which he accused Ginwala of dereliction of duty, intentionally obstructing parliamentary processes, stalling a report by Scopa, and improper interference with the committee.
Ginwala took up the gauntlet, asking MPs to investigate these claims but, instead of the ad hoc committee probe called for by opposition parties, the ANC put the question to a debate.
In the minds of many observers, this was the moment parliament began to lose its authority to hold the executive to account.
Mbete had a comparatively untroubled first term as Speaker, although she was also accused of using her position to shield the executive. For example, when Mike Waters (DA) asked in a parliamentary question whether then-health minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang had, as had been reported, been convicted of theft in 1976, Mbete ruled it out of order.
Quaking with anger, Waters responded as he left the chamber after being told to do so by Mbete: “This is a farce, an absolute farce… you’re covering up for a thief, Madame Speaker.” The following day Mbete suspended him for five days. Mahlangu-Nkabinde’s reign is widely considered as a brief return to the heady days when even ANC MPs were prepared to challenge the executive. Tough questions were asked, and answers sought.
But this period also coincided with the interregnum between Jacob Zuma’s assumption of the ANC leadership and his becoming president of the country in May 2009.
There was talk of a new beginning and a more robust parliament. Sisulu, like Ginwala, enjoyed the respect of all parties for most of his tenure.
His impartiality was also called into question, however, when the DA sought to table a motion of no confidence in Zuma. Sisulu declared his hands tied, prompting a court challenge by the leader of the opposition, Lindiwe Mazibuko. Sisulu contended that the programming committee operated by consensus and it was not within his powers to schedule a motion if this had not been agreed to there.
The matter reached the Constitutional Court, where Sisulu’s position was vindicated, although parliament was instructed to amend the rules to allow for the scheduling of motions of no confidence on an urgent basis.
This history suggests an inevitable tension between the position of Speaker, who must be chosen from among MPs and who will therefore always be from a political party (almost always the majority party), with the requirement that they not only be impartial, but be perceived as such by most MPs.
It’s a difficult act to pull off, made even harder when allegations are swirling around senior members of government – for example, the president – and harder still when one opposition party consciously challenges the authority of the presiding officers to gain leverage.
“Controlling parliament requires a high level of skill and judgement, because… there are times when people get a bit rowdy and obstreperous, and raise phony points of order. I’ve done it myself,” said former ANC MP Ben Turok. This demanded wisdom and a cool head. “There’s nothing mechanical about the job, and discretion is key.”
Another essential quality is the ability to break tension just as it threatens to spill over into chaos. Ginwala and Sisulu each had the ability to crack a joke at the right moment.
There’d been occasions in the past few months when Mbete had been unable to pull this off and had lost control of the House. And the recent instance of calling in the police was exactly the wrong way to regain control.
For James Selfe, DA federal executive chairman and another MP to have served since 1994, the position requires “natural authority”. Ginwala and Sisulu had had this quality, he said, as well as the charm to “jolly people along”.
“Because of that, people listened to them and respected them, and did what they were asked to do. “I think Mbete doesn’t have that natural authority.”
Turok and Selfe agreed that the behaviour of the EFF had complicated matters: “I’m not sure whether the EFF wants to make parliament a lively place – which I would welcome – or to disrupt parliament, which is more serious,” said Turok. While it would be good to have a vocal – “even noisy” – opposition that called the ANC to account, disrupting parliament was “a serious business”.
Selfe said a lot of people had paid “a terrible price for getting a democratic parliament, and we’re not about to give it up… Come what may, we need to find a way in which we can have a robust debate… without being disrespectful or disruptive. We need to find that balance and we need to get an understanding about how that balance is going to be enforced – and then enforce it.”
Turok suggested that the only way out of the impasse was for leaders at the national level to meet informally to formulate agreed “modalities” for parliamentary conduct – for the sake of the country. “Otherwise I’m afraid we’re going to go banana republic, if we’re not already there in parliament.”
Independent Media Political Bureau