You may or may not like what Julius Malema and the EFF stand for but by heavens they’re exposing the 20-year long mockery the ANC has made of Parliament.
They’re doing it ruthlessly, too.
One of the great traditions of Westminster’s parliaments – from which we have inherited so much – is that once elected to the Speaker’s Chair, the particular MP divorces him- or herself from party loyalty and makes sure all the rules are observed impartially. The Speaker, in this sense, becomes a neutral referee: everyone, no matter how big or small, from the Prime Minister – President, in our case – to the humblest backbencher, gets fair treatment.*
The result of this is that when the Speaker cracks the whip, all players pay attention and do as they’re told.
But when a Speaker is partisan and gives undue preference or precedence to – in this case her – “home” party, the rest of the teams involved are entitled to cry foul. In this regard, the current Speaker, Baleka Mbete, has form. First, she is the current National Chairperson of the ANC. In Parliamentary terms that is unthinkable, and in itself should be enough to bar her from the Speaker’s chair – she’s a very active political player, something a Speaker ought never to be. In addition, her previous performance as Speaker, between 2004 and 2008, left no-one in any doubt: she bats for her own team.
It’s a hallmark of political organisations brought up in the Communist/Soviet tradition. All the rules are observed – but in letter only, not in spirit. The ANC has proved this in Parliament time and again through disrespect of the institution, abuse of process and – latterly – in the absolute contempt shown to Parliament by President Zuma. But Speaker Mbete stands as perhaps the most egregious example.
It’s been noted frequently by the likes of the DA and others. But by stating that the Parliamentary Disciplinary Committee hearing the complaint is simultaneously ANC judge, jury and executioner, and then walking out of the hearing, EFF leader Julius Malema has made the point more effectively than at any point over the last 20 years.
I would venture to suggest that had Frene Ginwala still been Speaker, for example, that this might not have happened. Ginwala wore her ANC colours proudly – perhaps too much so – but no-one in recent times understood better than Ginwala that if Parliament is to work, the Speaker has to be unbiased. Perhaps even the more recent Max Sisulu might have been able to play the rules with sufficient aplomb to gain the EFF’s respect? Good Speakers augment the institution of Parliament and great ones even add to its lustre.
But there is no doubt that Malema’s actions have badly exposed Mbete and the current ANC.
Whether the ANC cares or not is another matter. On current evidence, they don’t – which is presumably why Mbete was put back into the Speaker’s Chair.
But here’s the rub: if the ANC genuinely doesn’t care about Parliament, and the EFF has exposed this, what is left to replace it? If Parliament collapses because the majority party thinks it’s a sham and everyone else walks out, what then rushes in to fill the institutional and constitutional void?
It’s a very short leap from a genuine Parliament to a genuine Soviet-style Duma – that’s Russian for Parliament, by the way – or a Chinese Communist Party Central Committee. From a very long distance, they all look much the same, but up close they’re terrifyingly different.
Is that really what the ANC and its supporters want?
*I must in fairness add the comment, “Well, that’s the theory anyway.” Both UK Labour and Conservative parties in recent times have been accused of selecting Speakers who were bad, biased and ignorant. Perhaps the best example of the system working well, though, was the 1992 election of Labour MP Betty Boothroyd as Britain’s first female Speaker, while the Conservatives (under John Major) were in power. When Boothroyd retired in 2000, both sides praised her unbiased performance very long and very loud.