THE Deputy Speaker of Parliament Nomaindia Mfeketo is not fit for purpose. She does not know the formal rules that govern parliamentary debate. Nor does she understand the point of these rules. Given that it is her job description to be an expert on these crucial determinants of an effective Parliament, quite frankly she should either get something of a skills-upgrade or be “redeployed” in the interests of democracy. Her shocking handling of rather pedestrian criticism levelled against President Jacob Zuma by Congress of the People (COPE) MP Mluleki George is the basis of my own criticism against her.
Here are the essential facts in case you missed the incident . So, George had the audacity of saying in Parliament during the debate on Zuma’s state of the nation speech that he felt that our national leader was leading us down a path of lawlessness. Mfeketo’s response was to ask George to withdraw the statement. He refused and was ordered to leave the chamber. The rest of the COPE bunch left with him, followed by Democratic Alliance (DA) MPs.
Mfeketo justified her decision on the basis that George’s comment was offensive and did not show adequate respect for the office of the president. She claimed that this was in line with rule 66 of the National Assembly rules, which prohibit the competency of some office bearers to be reflected upon.
What utter rubbish, and on so many different levels. First, Mfeketo does not know the very rules she is meant to be enforcing. Rule 66 explicitly refers to the judiciary. It is designed to ensure the integrity of judges remain intact by not allowing political bullies to undermine separation of powers with spurious attacks on the judges.
Indeed, where such judges are deemed to be incompetent, their removal should properly be sought through carefully designed procedures such as the introduction of a substantive motion to that effect.
Furthermore, r ule 66 explicitly allows the government to have its competency reflected upon. One hardly needs to read the fine print to know beforehand that it must be a lie to imagine that MPs cannot express views on government leaders’ competency. If they cannot do so, then the very point of parliamentary oversight is thrown out the window.
Other rules were ignored also. Rule 69(1), for example, entitles a member to explain themselves when they think that “a material part of (their) speech had been misquoted or misunderstood”. The intolerance shown by Mfeketo in respect of George’s request to explain himself smacked of disregard for this entitlement.
Rule 72, furthermore, compels Mfeketo to listen and consider a point of order before responding to it. She violated this rule by not allowing a DA member to express himself when he stood up to offer a point of order.
Clearly Mfeketo has no appetite for complying with the rule book. This is dramatically ironic, given that she was pretending, albeit on the basis of a rule that does not exist, to censure an MP for not following parliamentary rules. Her very own behaviour was a clearer case in point.
Second, and more importantly, it is ridiculous to claim that the content of the statement that was made by George was “offensive” or an affront to the Presidency in his person or to his office in general. It was not. If I was George, I would be rather annoyed that I should make the headlines for such an unremarkable statement. I would prefer 15 minutes of fame for saying something that is way sexier.
This underscores the pettiness and perniciousness of Mfeketo’s ruling. If it is deemed “offensive” to dare to criticise the president as leading us down a path of “lawlessness”, then what kind of criticism against the president would be acceptable to her? Would it be okay to say he is a poor speaker, or is that “offensive” too? Should we stick to criticising his dance moves (other than, of course, being “offensive” by claiming that he fell when he recently danced at his latest wedding)? Mfeketo is setting the bar for robust debate at a meaninglessly low level.
Third, Mfeketo clearly does not understand the justification behind Parliament’s rules. These rules are designed to maximise government accountability. This is why we have related rules such as the one governing parliamentary privilege. So not only was George’s comment within the bounds of free speech provisions that would hold outside Parliament, it also fell within the further and wider ring of protection specially afforded to MPs for good reason.
The last thing we want is a society in which criticising the president lands you in trouble. Thoughtless censuring of criticism will get us there and will indeed lead us down a path to lawlessness. Thanks, Nomaindia Mfeketo, for your contribution in undermining the role of Parliament. You are a useful cadre but a useless deputy speaker. Our teenage democracy deserves better.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Gordhan fills some of JZ's political potholes
One had to feel sorry for Minister Pravin Gordhan after President Jacob Zuma’s performance last Thursday. Given that the state of the nation speech was a double disaster, having been both lacklustre rhetorically and short on detail, it was naturally going to be up to the Minister of Finance to fill some of the political potholes left by the speech.
One pseudo-justification for the president’s focus on broad thematic brushstrokes rather than granular policy detail is the promise that detail would follow in the weeks ahead. The budget speech is the first major speech since. This raises the obvious question of whether the budget speech adequately spelt out the kind of detail that was sorely lacking in the president’s speech? Do we now have less reason to worry about whether there are comprehensive plans and numbers behind government’s policy focus areas?
On balance the speech met most expectations. Perhaps its greatest virtue was a sensible balance between numbers and principled themes spanning the entire speech. For example, the emphasis on a moral contract with taxpayers to underscore the tax collectors’ commitment to deal with tax evaders spoke to a character who is as much concerned with questions of fairness and justice as he is with cold numbers. Or, to take a different example, the emphasis on social capital at the beginning, and the realisation that “our most precious national asset” is social capital, oozed conviction. It is amazing that by contrast, when the president attempted to throw sound bites our way, few were prepared to swallow it. But Minister Gordhan spoke with a sincerity and authority that convinced.
This matters because the determinant of whether or not we reach the developmental goals the state has set itself is not just how much money we throw at the problems. Success is in no small part also going to be a function of the collective energy and national self-confidence we have as a workforce and as a nation. It is therefore with some relief that the tone from both the media and, crucially, opposition political parties changed drastically over the past twenty four hours. A whiff of a spirit of co-operation was in the air. That is a good thing.
These successes are not just because Minister Gordhan is a private individual with no publically known moral stains to distract us from solely focusing on the content of his work. It is also because the minister showed incredible political astuteness. On the one hand, he appeased labour by sharing its analysis that a labour absorbing growth strategy is crucial while on the other agreeing with business that “doubling the size of the economy within a generation” is a critical outcome to aim at. This gives all stakeholders a sense of having been heard.
On the numbers and policy side, the rhetorical stuff was matched with equal brilliance. It is comforting to know that by and large taxes will not have to be increased as a trade off for spending to remain the same or for spending to increase in some areas. We are still reaping the rewards of the historic budget surplus of recent years. The current budget project a deficit of 7,3% going forward. This compares favourably with other economies including ones within the global north. More worryingly, perhaps, is that a hidden cost of our decision to not cut spending nor raise taxes is that public debt will creep up to around 40% of GDP by 2013. This is undesirable for the obvious reason that when the global economy is truly on the up again it will be the economies with smaller amounts of public debt to settle who will see the tangible benefits of economic growth most palpably. Furthermore, revenues unlocked through economic growth cannot be put to optimal social use when a high debt burden requires servicing. We would do well therefore to not get overly excited about having the space to go into debt - for now.
Still, in the short-term at least, most South Africans can look forward to continuing to live withing a caring state but one whose fundamentals remain friendly to investors. Of course, operational efficiencies within the state, and effective strategic partnerships with the private sector, will determine whether or not these by-and-large decent plans actually translate into the governing party's lofty ideal of a 'better life for all.'
One pseudo-justification for the president’s focus on broad thematic brushstrokes rather than granular policy detail is the promise that detail would follow in the weeks ahead. The budget speech is the first major speech since. This raises the obvious question of whether the budget speech adequately spelt out the kind of detail that was sorely lacking in the president’s speech? Do we now have less reason to worry about whether there are comprehensive plans and numbers behind government’s policy focus areas?
On balance the speech met most expectations. Perhaps its greatest virtue was a sensible balance between numbers and principled themes spanning the entire speech. For example, the emphasis on a moral contract with taxpayers to underscore the tax collectors’ commitment to deal with tax evaders spoke to a character who is as much concerned with questions of fairness and justice as he is with cold numbers. Or, to take a different example, the emphasis on social capital at the beginning, and the realisation that “our most precious national asset” is social capital, oozed conviction. It is amazing that by contrast, when the president attempted to throw sound bites our way, few were prepared to swallow it. But Minister Gordhan spoke with a sincerity and authority that convinced.
This matters because the determinant of whether or not we reach the developmental goals the state has set itself is not just how much money we throw at the problems. Success is in no small part also going to be a function of the collective energy and national self-confidence we have as a workforce and as a nation. It is therefore with some relief that the tone from both the media and, crucially, opposition political parties changed drastically over the past twenty four hours. A whiff of a spirit of co-operation was in the air. That is a good thing.
These successes are not just because Minister Gordhan is a private individual with no publically known moral stains to distract us from solely focusing on the content of his work. It is also because the minister showed incredible political astuteness. On the one hand, he appeased labour by sharing its analysis that a labour absorbing growth strategy is crucial while on the other agreeing with business that “doubling the size of the economy within a generation” is a critical outcome to aim at. This gives all stakeholders a sense of having been heard.
On the numbers and policy side, the rhetorical stuff was matched with equal brilliance. It is comforting to know that by and large taxes will not have to be increased as a trade off for spending to remain the same or for spending to increase in some areas. We are still reaping the rewards of the historic budget surplus of recent years. The current budget project a deficit of 7,3% going forward. This compares favourably with other economies including ones within the global north. More worryingly, perhaps, is that a hidden cost of our decision to not cut spending nor raise taxes is that public debt will creep up to around 40% of GDP by 2013. This is undesirable for the obvious reason that when the global economy is truly on the up again it will be the economies with smaller amounts of public debt to settle who will see the tangible benefits of economic growth most palpably. Furthermore, revenues unlocked through economic growth cannot be put to optimal social use when a high debt burden requires servicing. We would do well therefore to not get overly excited about having the space to go into debt - for now.
Still, in the short-term at least, most South Africans can look forward to continuing to live withing a caring state but one whose fundamentals remain friendly to investors. Of course, operational efficiencies within the state, and effective strategic partnerships with the private sector, will determine whether or not these by-and-large decent plans actually translate into the governing party's lofty ideal of a 'better life for all.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
