Zwelinzima Vavi is right: Cosatu’s increasingly vocal opposition to the Protection of Information Bill was enormously important in helping the ANC to see reason on this anti-democratic piece of legislation.
It certainly wasn’t the only factor; indeed, the broad coalition against the Bill is in many ways a template for a new kind of activism that mobilises across South African society — in seminar rooms, on the streets, in the press and in Parliament — but we originally called for Cosatu to spend real political capital on this debate because the union federation is uniquely positioned to do so.
Thanks, comrades.
Victory, however, is far from certain. The concessions made by the parliamentary ANC are of vital importance. Limiting the reach of the Bill to government departments directly concerned with security, setting up credible review mechanisms and abolishing mandatory minimum sentences — these are moves that for the first time since the Bill’s introduction take the conversation in the right direction. But the concessions are far from sufficient.
The possession or publication of leaked secrets remains a criminal offence; the most trivial risk to national security can still be used as a blunt instrument to justify classification; the intelligence services, so much in need of activist and media scrutiny, still get unwarranted and unconstitutional protection; and the courts are still asked to violate the open-justice principle by automatically holding all hearings involving secret documents in camera.
In short, this is not the time to be claiming credit or slapping backs. It is a time to welcome the ANC’s new openness to debate and swiftly move on to dealing with the elephantine issues that remain.
Some argue that the door is now open for “compromise”. Let us be very clear: there can be no compromise on the Bill of Rights. It is perfectly possible to craft legislation that will provide an instrument appropriate to protect highly sensitive state information without gutting freedom of information, freedom of expression and the principles of open democracy.
The choice is not between a WikiLeaks world without secrets and the compliant silence still envisaged by the Bill. On the contrary, it is between a democratic state acting rationally to manage risk within the framework of the Constitution and a pseudo democracy imposing on its subjects the paranoid rule of the military censor “for their own good”.
There isn’t really a halfway house between these two positions; they reflect incommensurable value systems and any attempt to marry them is doomed to end up before the 11 judges on Constitution Hill in Braamfontein.
The ANC knows this; after all, ANC leaders shaped the democratic deal we signed off on in 1996. That, no doubt, is why the presidency has now agreed to regularise the extension of Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo’s term of office by an Act of Parliament. That should help secure the separation-of-powers principle and prevent serious embarrassment for the court.
Unfortunately, chief state law adviser and Secrecy Bill apologist Enver Daniels seems incapable of understanding this position and advising his client accordingly. As for the spooks, they can’t be expected to understand. They aren’t programmed that way.
Time then to stop the self-congratulatory backslapping. There is a mountain still to climb.
Time to reform, Lagarde
She is the first woman to head the International Monetary Fund, a welcome bit of progress, but Christine Lagarde must be the last to get the job simply because she is Europe’s pick. The most immediate call on her skills will be Europe’s sovereign debt crisis. That, however, is a relatively narrow challenge. The real job is deep institutional reform.
Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan welcomed Lagarde’s appointment with a to-do list that is hard to improve on:
- Transfer quota shares in favour of emerging and developing countries;
- Make a commitment that the next IMF managing director will not necessarily be a European citizen;
- Small countries should have an appropriate voice. Since the global crisis, they have faced particular challenges that require greater IMF attention;
- Strengthen the international monetary and financial committee;
- Ensure greater diversity in the IMF staff in terms of nationality, gender and academic and professional background;
- Improve the surveillance of systemically important advanced economies;
- Deepen the understanding of national experience on the management of capital flows and rapidly develop guidelines without being prescriptive; and
- Modernise lines of thought, adapting them to the reality of global and domestic economies and overcome the prevalence of perspectives of economic policy of advanced economies.
“I trust,” Gordhan said, “she will maintain the commitment to future governance reforms, including increasing the number of executive board chairs. This would enhance the representation of emerging markets and developing countries and improve the legitimacy of this important institution.”
Legitimacy, really, is what it is all about. The IMF can refuse reform and watch as the tide of global economic restructuring washes away its foundations, or it can forge a compact of renewal with the emerging world. The clamour is in Athens, but Lagarde and her rich-country shareholders must hear the louder roar from the South and the East.
President Jacob Zuma has nominated Constitutional Court judge Mogoeng Mogoeng as the new Chief Justice. For more news on the controversy surrounding the appointment click here.
