The spoils of democracy
On Tuesday, 7 October 2014, Julius Malema and other EFF MPs walked out of their disciplinary hearing at the Powers and Privileges Committee convened by the National Assembly (NA). The Committee was to investigate a charge of EFF members disrupting the 21 August 2014, when President Jacob Zuma answered questions in the NA; to the point where the Speaker had to suspend proceedings of the House.
Malema made a statement, saying that, "Whatever the outcome of this process, the EFF will not be participating". He said it was an unconstitutional exercise, bound to be biased against the EFF because the committee was dominated by ANC MPs (see here).
Since their swearing in after the elections, the EFF has tried their best to ensure Parliament becomes ungovernable. Malema stated publicly that they will not subject themselves to Parliament's "unjust laws". But they also styled themselves as the protectors of the Constitution and implementors of the very same Rules they called unjust. At every sitting of the NA, EFF members can be seen leafing through and quoting Rules of the NA.
Which is quite confusing, that now they claim something that isn't. Perhaps I should take this opportunity to teach them about our democracy. This will also speak to the EFF's continued protest that ANC MPs simply "echo the words of their bosses at Luthuli House" (ANC head quarters), as they did recently in the Ad Hoc Committee on the President's reply to the Investigations into Upgrades to his private residence (let's call it the Nkandla Committee).
Our current election system is called a proportional representation system, where people vote for a political party of their choice (only in local government elections do we vote for an individual, although, in most cases, such individuals stand under the banner of their respective political parties). In the last general elections, the ANC won 62.15% of the vote, making it the governing party in the Executive and the majority party in Parliament, giving it 249 of the 400 seats in the NA. The EFF received 6.35% of the vote, giving it 25 seats in the NA.
The ANC looks at 2 lists (national to national, and province to national) submitted to the IEC before the elections, and use a formula for deploying members to the NA. It should be remembered here that no one individual who occupy a seat in the NA, won such a seat in an open election, but is rather an MP deployed by the ANC to occupy such seat on its behalf.
The general agreement between the ANC and such MPs is that they (MPs) would represent the ANC and implement its policies in the NA. Therefore, individual positions and views need to be expressed in a closed session (like in the ordinary general meetings of the ANC Caucus), but that MPs as a unit, would express the views of the party.
Rule 10.1 of the ANC Constitution states that "The National Conference (of the ANC) is the supreme ruling and controlling body of the ANC". But since Conference take place every 5 years, therefore, Rule 12.1 declares that "The National Executive Committee (NEC) is the highest organ of the ANC between National Conferences and has the authority to lead the organisation..."
Since the Caucus of the ANC in Parliament is not a constitutional structure, the Polokwane Conference (2007) resolved that the Chief Whip of the ANC in Parliament should be an elected NEC member. This is to ensure that the NEC retains control over this key structure at all times. But from time to time, National Office Bearers would address Caucus on certain issues regarding implementation of ANC policy in the work of Parliament. Certain NEC members are also MPs, and therefore members of the ANC Caucus, even Ministers and deputies.
Therefore, when ANC MPs express a view in the House, or in Committees, its almost never their private opinion, but the view of the ANC they are articulating. It cannot be anything else, as they are only representing the ANC in the institution.
The EFF would do well in educating themselves on the principle of democracy. Having won 62% of the vote in the last general elections, the ANC obtained 249 seats in the NA. According to the Rules of the NA, and expressed to all parties as part of their induction packages, Parliament stated quite clearly on the composition of committees: "there is a portfolio committee for each corresponding government department.
The composition of the committees reflects, as far as is practicable, the numerical strengths of the parties represented in the Assembly" (see here). This, Hon Malema et al, means that the ANC would ALWAYS have a majority on all portfolio committees, select committees, standing committees, ad hoc committees and special committees - ALWAYS, as long as it is the majority party.
This is what some call the spoils of democracy. You win majority support, you get majority representation. The Constitution of the RSA (Act 108 of 1996, as amended), the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act (Act 4 of 2004, as amended), the Joint Rules of Parliament and the NA Rules make provision for majority rule and representation formulae. There is nothing sinister at all in the fact that most members on the Powers & Privileges Committee are ANC MPs - its simply because the ANC is the majority party in Parliament.
What would be unconstitutional, would be if the ANC MPs are not the majority on a Committee.
If you want to cry wolf, at least ensure you do have something resembling a wolf. Crying wolf over the presence of a buzzing mosquito, just make you a paranoid!
Moegamat Shareef Blankenberg
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
