Read more
Have motions of no confidence become political weapons?
Ousted Johannesburg Mayor. Picture: Mpho Phalatse/Twitter
The uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party has rejected a proposal by the Democratic Alliance (DA) to amend the Constitution of South Africa, making it difficult to bring numerous motions of no confidence against the executive in all three spheres of government.
The DA believes that over the years, motions of no confidence have been used for political point scoring, destabilising the work of governance and threatening the consistency of service delivery.
The City of Johannesburg has been a victim of such motions of no confidence abuses. While not all mayors in this City were removed through motions of confidence, the city has elected more than eight mayors since 2016.
How many motions of no confidence are enough?
On Wednesday, MK party spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela said that the amendment would make it difficult to hold the executive accountable.
This proposal constitutes a direct challenge to parliamentary oversight and represents a desperate attempt to shield the executive from scrutiny and accountability.
“It is a reactionary and democratic manoeuvre disguised as reform. Under the guise of creating stability, the amendment would tie parliament’s hands for 12 months at a time, even in the face of ethical collapse, public outrage, or constitutional violations.
“This effectively grants political immunity to underperforming or compromised leaders,” he said.
DA not prepared to withdraw
Ndhlela said there are existing parliamentary rules that already allow the speaker of the National Assembly or presiding officers to reject frivolous or repetitive motions.
He said there is “no justification for tampering with the constitution” to solve “a problem that doesn’t exist”.
“The MK party rejects this amendment in its entirety. It is redundant, regressive, dishonest, unnecessary and dangerous.
“Parliament’s power to hold the executive accountable must be expanded, not neutered. We call on the DA to withdraw this embarrassing and authoritarian stunt before further damaging what remains of its credibility,” he said.
Speaking to The Citizen, DA spokesperson Willie Aucamp said the party is proposing two bills related to this matter.
“We cannot allow the kind of instability that we have seen in municipalities,” he said.
Aucamp said the party will not withdraw the proposed bills.
ALSO READ: Zuma point man touted to replace Shivambu as MK party SG
Analyst weighs in
Meanwhile, Theo Neethling, a political analyst from the University of the Free State (UFS), told The Citizen that limiting motions of no confidence in legislatures would reduce political grandstanding and make the submission of a motion of no confidence more meaningful.
“Personally, I would support restrictions on these motions only once every 12 months to the date of the last motion. The reason is that this could help reduce political grandstanding and reduce institutional instability,” he said.
However, Neethling said he was not sure if other parties would support the DA’s proposal.
Former Minister of Co-operative Governance Thembi Nkadimeng had proposed a set of reforms aimed at stabilising coalition government while she was in office.
This included introducing a cooling-off period after a motion of no confidence vote in councils.
NOW READ: Did Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla’s faction dribble Shivambu out of power?
