Deputy Transport Minister Jeremy Cronin was widely applauded in Parliament last week when he responded to Congress of the People MP Juli Kilian’s statement that President Jacob Zuma’s State of the Nation address was all about the ANC’s divided path to Mangaung.
He said: “I suppose if your political experience is confined to a faction-riddled formation like Cope you might be forgiven for thinking that politics is all about faction fights. At least the honourable member knows the venue and the date for the ANC’s next elective conference, Mangaung, December 2012. I wonder if she has the foggiest idea of when Cope’s elective conference is ever going to happen?”
I refer to this exchange to make the point that as we panic about South Africa’s future, there is much about the country and its political dynamics that we take for granted.
There is a set of proposals on the table about which economic model to pursue that is being discussed by the ruling party, but many commentators, editors and economists are also grappling with it.
These proposals are out there for everyone to peruse and debate, although it is only the 3554 individuals assembled on June 26 at Gallagher Estate who will decide on our fate at the ANC’s policy conference.
Current interpretations differ widely and the final conclusion may not be what we anticipate or like, but we cannot claim we did not see it coming. And we already know that the majority opinion is against the much-feared bogeyman of nationalisation. Already it appears that the party is not inclined to take on this scary notion.
Also causing consternation is the vaguely articulated concept of reviewing the powers of the Constitutional Court. The idea induces panic precisely because we have no idea what it means, what motivates it and why it has been put on the table now. The Constitutional Court has executed its work well. It has outlined a human rights jurisprudence that best encapsulates and articulates the new society we are trying to build post-1994. Its judgments have been solid; hardly any have been controversial.
But some of those judgments have been politically unpalatable, leading ANC secretary general Gwede Mantashe to accuse the court’s judges of being involved in a political conspiracy — one we have yet to see at play. Mantashe said the Constitutional Court’s judges were preparing to “pounce” on Zuma.
But worst of all is Zuma himself, who has muddied the waters by trying to clarify why we need a review of the Constitutional Court. His “logic” has deepened confusion and made us wonder whether the concept had been properly considered.
Zuma feels that judges are not “special people” but fallible human beings, which we all know. “It is after experience that some of the decisions are not decisions that every other judge in the Constitutional Court agrees with,” he said.
He questioned the logic of allowing for minority judgments and said judges were influenced by the media: “How could you say that [a] judgment is absolutely correct when the judges themselves have different views about it?”
He said that if Parliament’s decisions could be challenged, there was nothing wrong with questioning the judiciary.
“There are dissenting judgments, which we read. You will find that the dissenting one has more logic than the one that enjoyed the majority. What do you do in that case? That’s what has made the issue to become the issue of concern.”
Privately, some ANC leaders are saying that the president blundered and ended up creating even more confusion. He should have spoken about the impact of judgments on society and, more importantly, about access to justice, they said.
By the latter they mean how difficult it is for an ordinary citizen, who is not wealthy, to take matters to the Constitutional Court, for example.
They point out that it is almost impossible to meddle with the powers of the court without having to make the fundamental shift of abandoning our Grondwet (Constitution) as a society.
And to do that the Constitution would have to be changed. At the moment the ANC does not even command a two-thirds majority in Parliament, let alone the 75% majority vote needed.
But we would be naive to rest on our laurels, because there remain other avenues to try to influence the direction of the court, such as “packing” it with pliable judges.
With the Judicial Service Commission dominated by politicians rather than legal minds and the president having the final say, it remains a reasonable proposition.
There are undoubtedly many in the ANC who want to shake up the judiciary just because they do not like certain judgments. Similarly, they dislike media that project themselves as a watchdog, subjecting every government move and idea to scrutiny.
Instead of accepting the natural tensions that arise as a result of the separation of powers, they seek to elevate their legislative powers above everything else, ostensibly because that would best represent “the will of the people”.
We therefore have to remain vigilant at all times in defence of this democracy, because many who fought and sacrificed for it are now seeking to subvert it.
I remain convinced, however, that there are many others who also made sacrifices for democracy who will not hand it over to ideologues and powermongers.