If Parliament were to shut down, would you notice?

So Parliament held its last session with pomp and ceremony to witness the changing of the judiciary guard. Judge Pius Langa must have been happy to see the back of the partisan-infested relationship between the executive and the judiciary which was marked in this session of Parliament with the appointment of his successor. A move preceded by loading the JSC with Zuma’s praisesingers such as Ngoako Ramatlhodi — still waiting in the wings to be NPA boss — as well as the new henchman, Jeff Radebe, appropriately described by Kader Asmal as “politically illiterate” for talking down on Parliament in the new chapter of the shameful arms deal that is ripping our body politic in half. I digress.

So is the fourth democratic Parliament going to be any different? Well, in order for it to be different it must strive to stand out on a number of fronts which, in my humble opinion, it has not performed fantastically. The quality of its existence is really the determining factor in whether South Africans can feel its impact in their day-to-day battle to make ends meet. So what did Parliament make itself popular for lately? Let’s scan a few headlines …

ANC Parliament staff ill-treated.

Opposition party members ill-treated over house allocation scandal.

Opposition parties ignored in the appointment of the interim SABC board.

Ministers fail to answer more than 60% of questions posed by the opposition.

Ministers fail to appear before Scopa — send junior officials to answer questions about corruption.

Scopa yet to act against 2 000 civil servants found to be paying themselves through bogus companies.

Attorney-general slams Parliament and provincial legislatures for breaking laws passed to control the use of the public purse.

Parliament mum on Nyami Booi’s guilty verdict for theft of travel vouchers. The man now chairs a parliamentary committee.

Parliament ignored on the Eskom, SABC and Transnet sagas. Chairperson of the portfolio committee of public enterprises is non the wiser.

Parliament intervened on interconnect fees, illegal mining…

Chair of portfolio committee on labour rails and rants against labour brokers.

All of these headlines tell us something about the quality of our Parliament characterised by the poor quality of inquiry, debate and non-existent oversight quality.

Poor quality of inquiry: One of the critical issues that the Constitution enjoins Parliament to do is inquire into all aspects of South African life. This assumes a certain level of distance between the executive and the legislature for this exercise to have some credibility. One of the obvious ways to do this is to ask simple questions and expect simple and truthful answers. To this day Parliament has failed to successfully probe any matter of overriding significance since its establishment. The arms-deal inquiry was thwarted when independent voices rose up. Even an inquiry into its own members ended with no consequences with Nyami Booi receiving a reward as chairperson of a portfolio committee. With a still fractured opposition this situation is likely to worsen. This explains the ruling party’s anxiety over the possible coalition of opposition forces.

Poor quality of oversight: The ministers’ nonchalant approach to Scopa points to the powerlessness of Parliament to hold the executive accountable in any significant manner. Frankly no one can fool me about how ministers really feel about backbenchers both their own and others. This disdain shone through in the way the minister of justice dealt with the oversight attempt in the “new arms deal” where South Africa is alleged to be going around the world selling arms to evil regimes This was daylight muzzling at its best. As if that was not enough a whole witch hunt of the MPs who had the temerity to raise the matter was pursued by the ruling party which clearly has plenty to hide on this matter. Similar disdain has seen more than half the questions either not answered or answered with arrogance. This behaviour was led by the president … when he fumbled through answers about his chief justice appointment gaffe.

Poor quality of outreach: There is little or no quality constituency work of significance as far as I am concerned. Some members of Parliament have not yet set up their constituency offices after eight months of prowling the corridors of Parliament. There is no creative formula to incorporate meaningful public participation in the way Parliament functions and members of Parliament carry themselves. Most constituency offices are a mere extension of the party structures and do nothing to extend Parliament’s reach to the people. Obviously a balance must be struck given the limited resources but at the moment we are in the red when it comes to using these tax-funded offices to close the gap between Parliament and the people.

Poor quality of debate: There is a fundamental flaw in the way Parliament debates. Opposition parties are given, in some debates, literally one minute to say their piece. An opposition leader may be given eight minutes to respond to an almost one-hour long ministerial speech based on six months of research by the relevant department — we can hardly call this debate. Snippets of these irrelevant exchanges reach the public through some media and the already vague details are soon forgotten. There is actually little or no debate of significance taking place there — add that to poor research support for many new MPs then you are faced with a disaster where MPs follow political common sense to keep talking. Where there has been debate, mostly in committees, it would have been based more on mudslinging than on robust exchange of well-researched viewpoints aimed at improving the quality of matters serving before the house. The example of a media blackout when crime stats were to be released to the committee tells you plenty about how the executive views these committees as theirs to command.

The unfortunate situation where political parties don’t always send their best to these hallowed chambers is what is going to sink our national discourse. You could fall asleep trying to listen to some of these leaders making a point. Some of them are diligent in the house but show how seriously they take their jobs when they haven’t got a piece of paper in front of them to make any kind of sensible follow-up notes for future reference. If they are not half asleep they are chatting to their bench mates.

So, lo — the quality of the men and women who are supposed to carry our aspirations. Believe me when say there are some bright sparks amongst them who wake up every day to do an honest day’s work but the proverbs have warned them “not to argue with a fool as people may not notice the difference”. And so it is the dilemma of those who are in Parliament to raise the debate in the face of those who collude to bring it down and those who are in Parliament to do oversight and are blocked by the noise of party-political pliability that shuns accountability. When all is said and done there needs to be a huge review at what Parliament is going to become. And whether the billion rand a year that keeps those benches warm is well spent. The current multi-pronged and lethargic trajectory will make it so irrelevant as an institution that if you shut it down straight after the State of the Nation Address, quite frankly no one will notice.