The article ”MPs seek new powers” (July 28) makes several criticisms of Parliament. Despite their potential constructive value, these points are thoroughly debased by a lack of both content and context, and a reliance on anonymous ”members of the African National Congress”.
Parliament welcomes an open and progressive reflection on the manner in which it conducts its business. Such reflection, however, has to have a balance. It has to be factual and presented in a proper context. Otherwise it becomes a lopsided argument that lends itself to manipulation.
Parliament has come a long way since 1994. During the first few years of its existence, the democratic legislature’s focus was mainly on passing laws to change the political landscape inherited from the country’s racist past. The focus has now changed. Oversight and greater public participation in the lawmaking processes have been elevated to key priorities. A task team is finalising its report on oversight.
Democracy brought with it new priorities and Parliament had to redefine its role. There has been a steep learning curve, but there have also been critical success stories.
Parliament’s subjection of the notice in regard to remuneration of magistrates to a review process last year was no accident. The refusal by Parliament to operate under the Public Finance Management Act, which is executive-driven, is a demonstration of independence of thought and practice.
There are many other instances where the executive has been robustly engaged on the content of Bills, hardly befitting the description of a ”lap-dog” legislature that is driven by the executive. There are times when MPs and ministers engage robustly, but this does not have to happen in a public theatre.
Since 1994, and without any meaningful frame of reference, Parliament has been creating a new standard for the conduct of its business. It is no mean task.
Sufficiently equipping the committees is a critical enabling priority. This includes building research, analytical, legal, communication and administrative support to keep the focus of the committees on the exercise of meaningful oversight.
Oversight is about ensuring that there is consistency between policy implementation, impact and the objectives of its enactment. Adversarial relations are not a precondition for good parliamentary practice.
Plenaries and debate, the mudslinging and stone throwing that is captured in the media every day, is not all that Parliament is about. This is merely the political element of its work.
Several other points in your article deserve a response.
It boggles the mind to suggest that the action of the president in the exercise of his mandated responsibility must be subjected to a Parliamentary debate and endorsement. The constitution of the Cabinet is the president’s prerogative. In addition, there is no formal request submitted to ”debate” the issue of Jacob Zuma.
To the extent that managers debate freely and even disagree, as individuals rather than categories, on transformation issues, should be indicative of the maturity and openness with which this process is conducted, a far cry from the alleged ”friction”. Debate is in fact encouraged in the transformation of Parliament.
The allegation of a difficult relationship between the Secretary and the Speaker is baseless and false. The new governance model for Parliament clearly delineates the roles of the two offices and this is fully understood and respected.
Of the three arms of government, the legislature is the least understood. Often, it is not accorded the stature that is so deserves. Whether this is predicated on narrow politicking or pure ignorance, the outcome is not ideal for our growing democracy.
Luzuko Jacobs is head of Parliamentary Public Affairs