The ANC KwaZulu-Natal’s announcement that it wants disciplinary action against its Member of Parliament, Dr Makhosini Khoza, came on the back of her most recent public utterances on a SAVE SA platform held at Rhema Bible Church. The saga around Khoza has been dragging on for a while; it started with her public views on matters that pivot her as different to the ANC and its parliamentary caucus.
Khoza thrust herself into our social consciousness recently during the public SABC hearings.
It was there that most South Africans came to know the face and mind of Khoza, the firebrand ANC MP who was able to hog media attention in a typical drama setting.
Her first views on the subject of a vote of no-confidence - whilst discomforting - were tolerated by the ANC, yet she kept finding space in the media by playing the card of victimhood.
This laid the foundation for her public persona and stance against the ANC.
It is perhaps not unfair to conclude the SABC hearing, with its perplexed and in some instances jaundiced choices, defined Khoza’s mind and became the fertile soil for her now clear wanton stance.
In subsequent claims, Khoza insisted her life was in danger and she had laid charges after receiving death threats.
Naturally, death threats need to be condemned in the strongest terms because these don’t belong in a society that claims democracy as its guiding principle.
It cannot, however, be that if you disagree with Khoza’s stance you automatically are assumed to be part of those who wish for her demise.
Then came her media interview during the National Policy Conference. While the NPC deliberations took place, Khoza gave an interview which again dealt with the subject of her request for a secret ballot on August 8.
The Luthuli House leadership, hard at work to bring unity, did not take kindly to her actions and we heard Minister Fikile Mbalula coin the term “political suicide bombers” in Parliament.
Her response was to play victim, in claims of being threatened with death and having no recourse.
This action on her part was necessarily selfish and showed disregard for the NPC. It was an individual seeking to be more important than her organisation. There is clearly no sign of selflessness in this behaviour.
Mbalula’s statement and caution had as bedrock the decision of the NEC not to have its members vote with the opposition, as that would be a vote against the ANC.
Khoza was quick off the mark to challenge the ANC leadership to fire her.
ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe was crystal clear that ANC MPs will not vote with opposition parties on this vote of no-confidence.
He used an analogy that soldiers could not submit themselves to the direction of the enemy’s general in war. Then came the Mandela Day interview.
She took centre stage in a SAVE SA event. This was her moment. She was adamant the president should step down.
In typical Khoza media-drama fashion, she would read her request in full view from a laptop, with all the intonations of someone who considers herself esteemed and significant in the South African political landscape.
She shared the platform with Pravin Gordhan and Sipho Pityana.
The KwaZulu-Natal ANC, as articulated in its press statement, considered this action the crossing of the line on the part of Khoza.
Hence, its unequivocal statement that she would be disciplined. We now await the unfolding of the mechanics for this discipline that may end in her being recalled from Parliament.
MPs from an ANC setting come from a national to national list and provincial to national list. Khoza is therefore seconded from the provincial list and the province therefore must take the lead to institute disciplinary action against her.
This moment presents an opportunity to reflect on a few things:
ANC members - like any organisation - join the ANC as individuals and therefore do so voluntarily. Should there arise a moment of such great conflict, as in the case of Khoza, members know what to do.
It is important to note that while MPs have been removed before, it is the first time that one is having disciplinary action instituted for open and public defiance of the party.
The idea of MPs being loyal first to South African society is a noble one - however, blackmail taunts of “voting with conscience” is perhaps not as noble.
It is equally not practical, since MPs do not arrive in their positions outside of a party definition.
The practical reality is that parties make up caucus groups in Parliament, provincial governments or municipal councils.
These caucus groups follow a party line and stance on most, if not all, aspects.
Members therefore owe an allegiance to their respective parties if reality dictates.
The power to use a public or secret ballot as ruled by the Constitutional Court resides with the Speaker and she alone must decide on that.
Thus far, nine parties have approached the Speaker to request a secret ballot. The ANC and main opposition DA have confirmed they will abide by the choice and mode the Speaker opts for.
In regards to Makhosini Khoza, it would appear she finds herself in direct conflict with the party that afforded her a seat in Parliament.
It furthermore would appear she is at loggerheads with the party line on the subject at hand. She equally has chosen to trust the public space of media to vent her disagreement with her party.
In the bigger scheme of things, Khoza appears to be having a crisis of confidence in the party she voluntarily joined. She furthermore has been openly defiant of the leadership that has laid down the rules for engagement of the subject at hand.
On the other hand, the ANC’s choice to take a stand against having its members vote in agreement with the opposition is one that inculcates its own internal challenges of unity while considering the ramifications of supporting the opposition.
The ANC sees that as a betrayal of its voters, while Khoza - and maybe others - see it as as betrayal of the claimed South African public.
This relationship between Khoza and the party of her choice is almost beyond repair and therefore something has to give.
It is then correct for the ANC to take action against a wayward and defiant Khoza, unless she chooses to resign. It is also important for the ANC to engage the matter despite its earlier stance of not seeking to make Khoza a martyr of convenience; the ANC is compelled to act to ensure other members do not follow her example.
My unsolicited advice to Khoza is that if there is a crisis of conviction, if there is a deficit of trust in the very party she joined voluntarily, then maybe its time to reconsider whether she really belongs in this party.
You simply cannot expect to be treated as special and afforded the space to be this defiant in public. No party would tolerate it anywhere in any democracy.
After all, why does she need a secret ballot? She has shared the courage of her convictions publicly. Why would she betray herself and not vote the way she feels in an open ballot?
My unsolicited advice to the ANC is to act faster and do not allow behaviour like this, which has dragged on for months, to become the norm.
Be clear in your communication and take all members who defy you to task regardless of status. Do the same with Gordhan, Derek Hanekom or anyone else. Do do not be intimidated their NEC positions or seniority.
There are those who claim Khoza’s stance is not necessarily an individual one but rather a sponsored one. Notty Ngcobo writes on Khoza, “some of us are again asking the same question of Makhosi Khoza.
“Harry Gwala expelled her from ANC structures in the early 1990’s. She left Pietermaritzburg for similar behaviour and more. The question is: Who in the ANC higher structures returned her to to the ANC fold?”
No party should tolerate the unbecoming and defiant behaviour of a Khoza, neither should she be allowed to get away with this.
* Bishop Clyde Ramalaine is a columnist and political analyst.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.