Our continuing series of extracts from Parliamentary Whip, the publication of Idasa’s Parliamentary Information and Monitoring Service (Pims), the most comprehensive Parliament-watching team
Christelle Terreblanche and Richard Calland
THE African National Congress last week rejected reports that Parliament was in crisis while, off the record, MPs and chairpersons of committees continued to relate frustrations over hiccups they have experienced this session.
The most intense frustrations of committee chairs are directed towards the Speaker, Frene Ginwala, but they also point fingers at whips and the executive.
The ANC has acknowledged that the process of getting legislation to Parliament has been too slow, but there is disagreement on the causes. Said one committee chairperson: “The vision of the ANC was to create an institution that is transparent, responsive and efficient. That implies a well-functioning committee system that can oversee the departments and, more importantly, push through the transformation processes.”
Yet some committee chairs are so upset about what they call the “bypassing of consultation” that they have alerted other ANC structures like the National Working Committee and National Executive Committee (NEC) about their concerns. They say the ruling party will have to make certain political decisions and step in.
In a range of interviews, everyone was eager to pass the buck. MPs accuse whips, whips blame the executive, the executive raises questions about the legislature and chairs of committees point fingers at the Speaker.
Chairpersons say important decisions and allocation of funds have, in some cases, been delayed for almost a year. They said that instead of making them part of her team, Ginwala “made enemies out of us”.
Some chairpersons feel that the two to three million rand allocated for the committees is far too little. They say most of them have no secretarial, research or other support, and that 16 portfolio committees share only 10 committee clerks.
Those committees which have non-government organisation support staff are unable to renew their contracts because a new rule stipulates that the Speaker must first approve this. They also allege that funds are not released for them to travel to poverty-stricken, distant areas and that, consequently, it is often only lobby groups representing affluent sections of the community that are heard.
A number of MPs, mostly from minority parties, jump to the Speaker’s defence. They welcome her commitment to affirmative action towards women and her determination to give minority parties a voice. MPs also applaud Ginwala’s efforts to make Parliament a more people-friendly and accessible environment.
The fiercest criticism against her, however, is that many of the current problems were pointed out to her months ago and her response to proposals and criticism has been “negative” and “autocratic”. A few went so far as to say that the Speaker is assuming more power than is appropriate for the position and that she seems to be threatened by the committees’ expanding power.
Whips were astounded by criticisms levelled against them. They generally feel that the problem lies with departments and that Cabinet should take ultimate responsibility for getting the legislation through in time.
The team of management consultants hired by Parliament to help it solve its organisational and management problems are wrestling with a range of issues.
At the heart of the matter is the question of whether the present secretariat of Parliament should have a management function and, if so, the extent of that function. Some members of the consultancy team are arguing strongly for a new tier of management to be added to the current hierachy.
One source from within the team said that “there is an amazing lack of understanding about what democratic management means. The fact of the matter is that the parliamentary secretariat has never had to manage before in the sense of making real decisions. In the old days, they simply did what they were told. Robin Douglas (as secretary to Parliament, its most senior employee) is trying very hard, but he is floundering”.
Douglas himself accepts that he and his colleagues in the secretariat have no experience or expertise in management. “The problem with a more proactive management style,” says one of the most senior members of the secretariat, “is that it takes us into the realm of political decision-making. We are in an impossible position: if we are passive we are blamed for being obstructionist; if we take decisions or make recommendations, one or other party blames us either for being ‘old guard’ or for being sycophantic to the majority party.”
The leaders of the house, Trade and Industry Minister Trevor Manuel and Environment Minister Dawie de Villiers, will play a more hands-on role from now on to co-ordinate the management of Parliament. Manuel acknowledged that the departments’ limited capacities are partly to blame for the bottleneck in Parliament.
“Bill writing is therefore taking longer than usual. And some uncertainty remains while the constitutional process is not concluded. Original powers of provinces are not well defined yet. So we are hesitant to have legislation certified when there is a chance of it getting stuck in the Constitutional Court. There are complex checks and balances at play.