Sona chaos a protest against South Africa’s public discourse

Perhaps the unavoidable political question is how far does the agitation against De Klerk go in practically addressing the real problems we face as a country?


A few years ago, a young girl, completely out of the blue, asked whether the criterion for being a member of parliament (MP) was that a person needs to be a rogue. The unsettling question led to a discussion about the fault lines of South African politics. The precipitant of the question was an unsavoury spectacle in parliament similar to what happened in the National Assembly during last week’s State of the Nation address (Sona) and the debate that followed this week. One uses the word “debate” guardedly because the young girl, now at the end of her schooling, would…

Subscribe to continue reading this article
and support trusted South African journalism

Access PREMIUM news, competitions
and exclusive benefits

SUBSCRIBE
Already a member? SIGN IN HERE

A few years ago, a young girl, completely out of the blue, asked whether the criterion for being a member of parliament (MP) was that a person needs to be a rogue.

The unsettling question led to a discussion about the fault lines of South African politics.

The precipitant of the question was an unsavoury spectacle in parliament similar to what happened in the National Assembly during last week’s State of the Nation address (Sona) and the debate that followed this week.

One uses the word “debate” guardedly because the young girl, now at the end of her schooling, would probably disagree that much of what happened this week qualifies as a respectable, considered and rational exchange of opposing views by fellow nationals, in whose interests it is to find answers to common national challenges because regardless of their party-political affiliations, South Africans sink or swim together.

Even the least attentive political observer would concede that the 2014 entry into parliament of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) brought a measure of robustness to an institution whose formality and fetish for ceremony can widen the distance between public representatives and the population they are meant to serve.

And there can surely be debate about the political signification of the EFF’s red overalls and designer shoes, as there can be about the fashion parade by other MPs in a country where materialism is not an insignificant part of the problem of politics.

But the EFF increasingly exudes disrespect for parliament as one of the fundamental institutions of our democracy.

It baffles the mind why the party believes – and acts so – that its war with Public Enterprises Minister Pravin Gordhan is of such primary importance as to warrant the collapse of parliament and on the much-anticipated occasion of the Sona.

Why does the party think that it, and it alone, has a right to deny an entire population – troubled by all manner of urgent problems such as unemployment and a job-shedding economy among other pressing concerns – the opportunity to listen to what the government intends to do about the plethora of our national problems?

After all, it is not at all apparent that Gordhan is the human-eating ogre that the EFF makes him out to be, which does not mean that he is an angel either.

As for apartheid’s last president, FW de Klerk, what did the EFF think?

The creature from the Old Testament is not about to change his spots. To expect otherwise exudes a woeful appreciation of the vested nature of racism as a political and economic weapon.

For many years, De Klerk’s contribution in public discourse, like that of the late Ian Smith of Zimbabwe, has been of nothing but nuisance value. But he has been repeatedly invited to Sonas, not because he is a torch-bearer of a democratic nonracial South Africa, but because those who invite him are.

South Africa is a diverse country in every conceivable respect, including its politics. So, the decision to invite a De Klerk is imposed upon the government by the nature and character of the society it presides over.

De Klerk represents a social base which is in every bit South African as any other, including the social base from which the current crop of leaders who constitute the government are drawn.

Perhaps the unavoidable political question is how far does the – not entirely illegitimate – agitation against De Klerk go in practically addressing the real problems we face as a country?

In a sense, the question is broader than last week’s and this week’s output by the EFF – the party’s manifestation of its contempt for the nation.

It is a protest against South African public discourse, which is prone to sideshows, sensation and drama, while the issues that matter most receive scant attention.

So, if we are not talking ourselves to paralysis about some medical sick note, the attention-seeking social media footprint of one celebrity or another, we are stirring ourselves into a stew about an apartheid denialist nostalgically yearning for the good old days in his twilight years.

And what if the likes of De Klerk regularly say what they say precisely to whip us into a frenzy and thus divert us from the real challenge at hand?

To illustrate the point, why is the country not discussing the fact that despite their professed commitment to the success of the country, South African companies are slowly but surely disinvesting, a vote of no confidence unparalleled, even during the sanctions period?

As for the governing ANC, if there is a lesson from the Sona debate, it is that it needs to ruminate over the quality of its output and everything implicit in the unsolicited advice.

Filibustering has its role – as a tactic – in parliamentary politics. It is not a strategy. National Council of Provinces chair Amos Masondo, who presided over the debate on Tuesday was at pains to explain this and more.

Appealing for calm in the riotous Assembly, Masondo, in his usual calm and thoughtful manner said: “Clearly there is a problem in the House. One of the problems that leads to this big problem is the fact that members stand up and the impute on the integrity of other members.

“This kind of thing should not be happening in this joint sitting. Because if you do such a thing, others will stand up and do the same. And the result will be chaos and a general sense of disintegration and overall undermining of the house.

“So I’m pleading with all of us to … conduct ourselves in a manner that seeks to ensure that we are able to carry out the responsibilities and the mandate that has been given to us as public representatives. The second problem that I want to draw members’ attention to … relates to the use of offensive language.”

But alas, the elderly tribune was not being listened to, even by members of his own party.

Can we blame young children when they think that one must be a rogue in order to become an MP, when none other than MPs cheapen it?  

Mukoni Ratshitanga. Picture: Neil McCartney

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mukoni Ratshitanga is a consultant, social and political commentator.

mukoni@interlinked.co.za

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.

Access premium news and stories

Access to the top content, vouchers and other member only benefits