Parliament is too big for its building and most political parties believe that the number of MPs should eventually be reduced, writes Marion Edmunds
SIZE does count — especially when it comes to organs of government. Many people believe that the national Parliament could function more effectively if the National Assembly and the Senate were smaller than they are now.
The size debate is acknowledged, by the Constitutional Assembly administration, as a “bone of contention” between political parties. They are expected to thrash out the issue in the Constitutional Assembly over the next few months in order to write the most appropriate size into the final constitution.
South Africa has a large central Parliament by international standards, with 400 MPs and 90 senators serving approximately 40 million people nationally. This contrasts with France which has 776 elected representatives serving a population of 57 million. The United Kingdom has 651 MPs in the House of Commons and a population of approximately 55 million.
The German Bundesrat has approximately 660 elected representatives serving a population of about 81 million and closer to home, Botswana has 39 Parliamentarians serving 1,3 million people. It is likely that the post-GNU Parliament will be shrunk down to a more manageable size.
” We do have to look at ways to cut it down,” said African National Congress MP Willie Hofmeyr this week. “We could possibly have 300 MPs in the National Assembly, instead of the current 400, and fewer senators in the Senate whose salaries would be paid by the provincial governments.”
Hofmeyr said Parliament’s resources were overstretched because the administration could not cope with the work generated by 490 Parliamentarians and their research
Parliamentary officials have confirmed that they are overburdened with work. For example, the head of Parliament’s Committee Section, Willie Fourie, said in his section alone, 40 more committee clerks were to be appointed next month, to cope with the work-load. There is also a dire shortage of office space and parking places in the parliamentary complex.
Hofmeyr said Parliament was quite big in relation to the size of the population, but that the size had led to a greater stability in government. This, he argued, was because the large numbers of parliamentarians made it possible for minority parties to be represented substantially in Parliament. This meant that Parliament was more inclusive, he said.
The size of Parliament could mean the political life or death of the smallest parties, come the next election. It is interesting that the Pan Africanist Congress, with only five MPs in the National Assembly and no senators, wants to keep the National Assembly at its current size. According to submissions to the CA, it is the only party that does. The Inkatha Freedom Party would like to keep the current numbers for a decade and then reduce the size of the National Assembly to 170 members. The National Party and the Democratic Party propose a 300-member National Assembly.
The DP’s James Selfe said the size of Parliament was probably appropriate for now, given the need to be inclusive. However, he said in the future, when South Africa had a better idea of where it was going, it might be possible to reduce the number of elected representatives involved in government.
The Freedom Front has not put a figure to a future National Assembly but says the size should depend on the powers of the provinces. But it would be satisfied with a National Assembly of about 350 MPs.
Members of the public, it appears, prefer a smaller one. Of 14 submissions to the CA, only two people wanted to keep 400 MP’s in the National Assembly.
Most wanted between 200 and 300 MPs in the National Assembly and also wanted to see the Senate cut down in size. Individuals writing to the CA on this subject suggested that a large Parliament was “wasting resources” or that it was an excuse for more politicians to board the gravy train.