IT seems that on the question of transparency some MPs want to have their cake and eat it. They claim to be transparent, but want to dictate the terms.
The National Party and IFP are opposing a full financial disclosure code for parliamentarians. The ANC and other parties have given notice they intend fighting the issue in the ethics sub-committee. But their “holier-than-thou” attitude rings hollow if one considers the reaction of parliamentarians across the political spectrum to a survey attempted by the Institute for Democracy in South Africa (Idasa).
The institute recently circulated a questionnaire among parliamentarians entitled Asking Questions on Behalf of the Public. Wide-ranging in its scope, it covers such matters as education, life in parliament, as well as criminal records and outside financial interests.
Less than a quarter of MPs and senators have responded. Others have justified their refusal on grounds of high principle. Why the hostility? Why the contempt for the public’s right to ask? Is there something to hide?
The survey seeks to play its part in the transformation of Parliament. Its goal is to bring the elected closer to the electorate. So what is the problem?
The National Party clammed up early on when its whips decided they would “not encourage” their members to participate. Perhaps this was not so surprising. The decision of some leading members of the ANC to boycott the survey is more disturbing.
In an open letter, 16 ANC MPs and senators set out their reasons. Two of the more senior signatories — Carl Niehaus and Blade Nzimande — joined Phillip Dexter and Cyril Ramaphosa in phoning into a national radio programme that was debating the issue.
Yes, they said, individual citizens are entitled to ask such questions. Yes, Idasa is a respectable organisation. But, no, we’re not going to answer questions when they are put together by groups of citizens on behalf of other citizens.
Why not?
Because a “watchdog … can only be a statutory body”. Hence, according to them, Parliament can only be monitored if Parliament itself chooses to create such an animal. But what if it does not? This would deny Idasa’s Parliamentary Information and Monitoring Service (PIMS) — which compiled the survey — and other non-governmental organisations a potentially vital role in the new democratic order as a further check on the possible abuse of executive power.
Secondly, it was argued, there would have been full backing and the parties would have been able to say “this issue is veering off the line and this issue is what we would like to disclose” (Ramaphosa). This misses the point. The issue is not about which questions the politicians want to answer, but which questions the public want answered.
Those MPs who respect the public’s curiosity will, we trust, be rewarded by the oxygen of publicity. Public opinion must decide the fate of those who do not.