News24

Cronin vs Leon

2009-08-13 10:15

Die Burger is currently running a series called Big Ideas (“Groot Idees”) in which keen minds debate the important issues of our time. Jeremy Cronin, the deputy minister of transport, and Tony Leon, former DA-leader, tackles the burning issue of whether the ANC government should firstly be accountable to Luthuli House or to Parliament.
 
Jeremy Cronin’s opener:
 
The executive’s first accountability is to the citizens of SA. In a modern democracy, there is not just one single plug-in point between citizens and the executive. Besides parliament, there are other institutions and practices, ranging from NEDLAC, the Human Rights Commission, political parties, the media and izimbizo – that are all playing (or should be playing) a role in ensuring greater executive accountability.
 
In this array of institutions, parliament must certainly rank high. But our parliament has not risen to its potential. Many argue it’s the consequence of the ruling party’s overwhelming majority. Comfortable in its majority, an executive might not take parliament seriously enough. In addition, our PR system runs the danger of making elected representatives more answerable to party leaders than constituencies. I don’t deny these factors have sometimes been a challenge. But I believe a majority of my ANC parliamentary caucus colleagues have always been committed to engaging robustly with their comrades in the executive.
 
There are additional issues that weaken parliament. Long ago Max Weber observed that in modern states the bureaucracy’s specialisation and possession of detailed information always leaves transient elected representatives at a serious disadvantage. We need to redress this imbalance as much as possible. The more adequate resourcing of parliament’s research capacity is critical.
 
Until recently, parliament didn’t have the power to amend budgets. But there’s nothing like the possibility of being able to amend a budget item to capture the attention of a government department. Even big business has often treated parliament with disdain, knowing the real decisions were made elsewhere. We now have legislation empowering parliament to amend budgets.
 
Actually amending a budget is possibly less interesting than the power to do so, which should increase the inclination of the executive to brief parliament in public hearings well in advance on major projects. In seeking timely support, the executive will be affording the public, in turn, an opportunity to help shape such projects.
 
Which brings me to a more substantive issue. So far I’ve couched this discussion in narrow, 19th century liberal terms – how to check and balance executive power. That remains important. But we need to move beyond this narrow conception, liable to reduce citizens and parliament to little more than watch-dogs. Executive accountability needs to be nestled within a more comprehensive set of participatory interfaces – school governing bodies or a national planning advisory council, for instance. Citizens (and parliament) need to be more than critical watch-dogs, they need to assume an active, co-governance role in transforming our society.  
 
One of the dismal features of the late-20th century was a technocratic de-politicisation of politics. We were told the global market had solved humanity’s problems. The role of government was simply to make an occasional technical correction.
 
Our 1990s rainbow reconciliation sometimes encouraged a similar attitude – let’s bury ideological differences. I hope this Big Ideas series has illustrated that ideological debate, and therefore party political contest, is important. Tony Leon and I agree on many things. We disagree on many others. The disagreements are as important as the agreements for democracy.
 
And this is where answerability to “Luthuli House” comes in. I have been elected on the basis of an ANC manifesto informed by policy assumptions - that is, by a particular political orientation to our reality. As deputy minister I’m accountable to parliament and all South Africans regardless of political affiliation, yes. But the ANC also has every right to hold me accountable to its policy vision on behalf of the millions of voters who endorsed that vision. Both things are possible and necessary.
 
Leon responds:
 
Jeremy locates his answer as "both/and" rather than "either/or" in response to the question of accountability being to Parliament or Luthuli House. Unfortunately, the overall record of government over the past fifteen years has seen a whittling away of Parliament's importance and centrality.

He is also rather disparaging of the concept of checks and balnces, dismissing them as a 19th Century construct. Yet it was Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen in "Development as Freedom" who pointed to the centrality of parlaimentary democracy.

He asked why China, under Commnist authoritarian rule had in the 20th Century seen countless famines under which millions starved to death; whereas in India, mass hunger had never resulted in national famines. His answer was the presence of parliamentary democracy and a free press in the latter, and its absence in the former. As South Africa grapples with a host of challenges, we must reinvigorate the role of Parlaiment as a central pillar in governmental accountability.
 
Tony Leon’s opener:
 
South Africa’s constitution answers the question of the location of government’s and the cabinet’s accountability without ambiguity and evasion.

Section 92 (2) of the Constitution states that “Members of the Cabinet are accountable collectively and individually to Parliament for the exercise of their powers and the performance of their functions.” Section 92 (3) further provides that members of the Cabinet must provide Parliament with full and regular reports concerning matters under their control.
 
It is too early in the life of the new Parliament to determine whether or not these constitutional provisions will be obeyed, or whether, in the manner of the past two parliaments these fine imperatives will be honoured in the breach.

The signals so far are mixed: on the one hand, President Zuma has indicated that he will seek a closer engagement with both parliament and the opposition. On the other hand, some early warning lights have started to flash. For example, the ANC has used its majority to oust an opposition representative in the NCOP from serving on the Judicial Services Commission which is tasked with the crucial matter of judicial selection. It is also clear that the President did not take the constitutional duty of consulting the opposition leadership seriously when he announced the nomination of the new Chief Justice.

I have the vantage point of having served in the dying days of the Tricameral Parliament before being elected, with Jeremy, in 1994 to the democratic parliament, elected and re-elected by the overwhelming majority of South Africans.

The Tricameral obviously lacked legitimacy and a democratic mandate. But it took its duties seriously, and even the most junior MP, such as me, could harass Ministers every week in Question Time, for example, for which every Minister arrived promptly and engaged Parliament with a degree of seriousness.

I had high hopes that after 1994, the new Parliament would be the fulcrum of democratic discourse and decision-making. After all, it was everything its predecessor was not:  racially integrated, constrained by checks and balances and, crucially, representative of all the people.

President Nelson Mandela had some regard for the seriousness of Parliament and, in fact, a high regard for interacting with the opposition. However, as early as 1994, Cyril Ramaphosa, then the Secretary General of the ANC obliged all his MPs to sign a code of conduct forbidding “any attempt to make use of Parliamentary structures to undermine organizational decisions and policies.”

Within a few years, question-time was reduced; Ministers treated Parliament as an annoying encumbrance (very often MPs would read in the newspaper of government’s decisions, rather than receive them for debate in Parliament); and legislation was drafted in broad terms, leaving the details to be determined by ministerial regulation over which parliament had no influence.

Under the Thabo Mbeki administration, with the support of Speaker Baleka Mbete matters deteriorated. Independent-minded MP’s, of whom Jeremy was an excellent example were sidelined. This came into the sharpest focus when the Arms Deal scandal surfaced. The Opposition-headed SCOPA was undermined in its enquiry, and another independent-minded MP Andrew Feinstein quit the assembly altogether. Reading his account of the bullying strong-arming to which he, and other MPs were subject, is to read a horror story of Parliament’s surrender to the whims of the ruling party.

Then the structural elements of the system further undermined Parliament’s role: extreme proportional representation and closed party lists, vests power in the hands of party bosses (in all parties) rather than with the voters and the individual MP; floor-crossing and the feather-bedding of cheating Travelgate MP’s further undermined instutional respect and credibility; the exiting of high-quality MP’s, particularly from the ranks of the ANC  impaired the quality of debate.

Some of these impairments, such as floor-crossing, have been removed. Others await the attention of the new Speaker and Parliament. But, beyond question, we need to restore executive accountability back where it belongs-to Parliament and the people. The ANC has a hefty majority, and its MPs must account to Luthuli House. But the Constitution imposes on government a higher commitment: to be accountable to Parliament, not just in word, but by deed and in practise.
 
Cronin responds:
 
Yes, I largely agree. In the past 15 years parliament has not lived up to its responsibilities. We seem to concur this is attributable to both executive high-handedness (notably during the Mbeki presidency), and to weaknesses in parliament itself.
 
I am optimistic that our new parliament will see a marked improvement. The high-handed disdain with which opposition parties were often treated by the Mbeki executive was, ironically, not dissimilar to that experienced by the broader ANC (and alliance) leadership from the same quarters. The internal Polokwane turmoil within the ANC was centrally about changing this style of operation.
 
In the coming months, I’m looking forward to a more open, robust and constructive engagement between the executive and colleagues in parliament, from both the ANC and opposition benches.
 
Disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of those published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.
 

Comments
  • pedido - 2009-08-13 12:56

    Jeremy is dodging the questions.The truth is the ANC has no regard and respect for parliament.It's still remain a mystery why parlianmentary procedures were not followed when Mbeki was recalled as a president of the country without first adhering to parliamentary rules governing the removal of a sitting president.why are ministers called to account to Luthuli house as ministers instead as deployees of the party. This shows disdain for parliament and a scant disregard and disrespect for other parties in parliament. granted the ANC has got a majority in parliament and can overrule any motion rejected by the opposition but parliament superceeds party headquarters.

  • Jim - 2009-08-13 12:56

    What is becomming more and more noticable is the arrogance and abusiveness of the ANC members. The law and constitution seems to apply to exeryone EXCEPT the ANC who now think they can do and take as they please. After all they are above parliament and really do not give a damn for the poor, especially when this hinders their filling their own pockets.

  • Anon1 - 2009-08-13 12:59

    If it was not as a result of the DA opposition questioning and making public the lavish spending habits of our "Responsible Ministers and MP's" then the Minister of Finance would not have been forced to table a report on the spending habits of the ANC Ministers. Shows you what a good opposition party can do. The less the ministers waste, the more money is available to help SA citizens. The question should rather be "Who is the ANC as ruling party accountable to?". Should it also not be the citizens of SA? The parliament and by implication the ANC should work for the citizens of SA and not create the impression that they only care about themselves by driving around in expensive cars with the best entertainment equipment in, that they only want to live in golf estates at R35 000/month houses and allocate tenders to comrades and get kick-backs.

  • andile - 2009-08-13 13:57

    the one thing i know is that the goverment accounts to us the citizens , hence we see it as an obligation that we our taxes and thiers is to make sure that tax is divided from thier monthly salaries and all our our state ownwed property is maintained , that by default sets a place for the minister of finance and whoever is responsible for seeing to it that all the tools that are required for SARS to run and control tax are there in place , evrything that our gorverment decides will affect us , the goverment does not have to account or report to the luthuli house this is not an ANC gorverment MPs in thier personal capacities as memebers of the ANC they should report to their mother organisation to indicate wheter they have carried out their Mischievous mandates . We are the goverment's imediate constituancy .

  • johnnoh - 2009-08-13 14:52

    Fantastic. An educated well mannered debate. Are MP's not answerable and responsible for advancing the goals, dreams and ideas of their constituents. I doubt that many of the voters out there know what the finer details mandate of the any party is.They voted for someone in a party in hope that that person and the party would make their life better, not solely further the aims of the party. The party is the people not the MP's. They are the mouthpiece of the people, not the party. When are the ideals of a democracy going to be brough home to SA?

  • who cares? - 2009-08-13 16:14

    Both these gentlemen's views are totally irrelevant. One is an apologist for the most murderous ideology of all time (70 million dead and counting). The other was an apologist for the apartheid military (via Paratus) and has now shown his real colours by begging for an diplomatic posting! This country does not need either of these jokers.

  • Nobby Mouse - 2009-08-13 16:40

    The constitution is written on toilet paper, it is as worthless as a R100. The ANC will wipe its a...with it, and flush South Africa's hopes with it.

  • Simon Raswele - 2009-08-14 08:12

    The ANC led government should be accountable to both Lithuli & parliament.The reasoning behind this, is that the policies that need to be implemented and make difference in the lives the SA citizens are ANC's. The ANC as the ruling party should be able to see if their policies are implemented properly because at the end of the day, SA citizens point fingers to the ANC as the ruling party.

  • shee - 2009-08-14 09:11

    in order to answer the post question, we need first to intorigate the current south african system that is it a parliamentary system of government or a presidential system of government and when we have determined that we will be able to give a accuret answer. i come to a conclusion that say the south african system is a parliamentary system and that the government should be accountable to parliament because parliament elect government and then parliament as a whole is accountable to the people. the issue of government been accountable to Lentuli house is netural in any states were people been elected through political parties. there is no way were our government is directly accountable to the citezen in the current political system were the president of the country is elected by parliament. my take in this discussion is that the current government should be directly accountable to parliament and that parliamentaries should stop engaging issues along their party lines but debate issues in a spirit that will make government to work hard in delivering services to the community. i agree with one point which is raised by jeromy cronin that government is becoming relaxed due to th majority advantaged of the ANC in parliament which always deffend government rather than making it accountable to it.

  • pedido - 2009-08-14 10:06

    The ghost of apartheid is buried now and Thabo Mbeki will be blamed for all the ills of the poor majority.It also boggles one's mind that Tokyo Sexwale can blame Thabo Mbeki's administration for all the service delivery protest but he became a millionaire during Thabo Mbeki's administration without questions been asked about the use of MK Veterans' money which he had to repay without paying interest after the leak to the papers.It's also strange that all the good things of the past 15 years are attributed to ANC and all the bad things to Thabo Mbeki's administration. Infrastructural development is cushioning the massive job losses but all the credit goes to the ANC and JZ's administration without mentioning the role Thabo Mbeki played in securing the world cup. It was not only the Mabiba magic that gave us the world cup. Thabo Mbeki gave an input and helped with the bid presentation, but all that has been forgotten to try and admonish him. I have no empathy for him about the HIV debacle but credit must be given where it is due.

  • IandI - 2009-08-14 11:29

    MPs are not accountable to us voters coz we vote for the party, not individuals.In the same way, the ANC ministers and MPs are made to report to Luthuli house. If they don't toe the party line, they could be re-deployed by the party, therein lies the problem.They feel more accountable to the party than parliament or to citizens. This is a demo-crazy system that should be re-visited soon or voters will lose their patience one day.

  • Swannie - 2009-08-14 20:51

    Good, honest debate. Kudos to both participants. But in the final analysis Tony's correct - the Constitution's requirements are non-negotiable, yet clearly and purposefully undermined by the ANC.

    This country would be well served if we could have:

    1) A constitutionally sanctioned NGO that has the power and resources to challenge, on behalf of Joe Citizen, any seemingly unconstitutional behaviour by anyone in the Constitutional Court, and

    2) Parliamentary committees chaired by members of opposition parties - also constitutionally sanctioned.

  • Stef - 2009-08-14 23:05

    This is the kind of sober, responsible, courteous and meaningful debate I would like to see in Parliament, indeed in all our political forums. Thanks guys, you are a good example to all South Africans.

  • Mlungisi - 2009-08-15 13:30

    It is imperative to note that MPs are elected to carry out the mandate of those who voted the government of the day in. Whilst this may not auger well to those who had a different mandate which could not see light, it is also proper that accountability first remains with Parliament. The interventions by political parties should not then be seen as going against the aspirations of Parliament unless such aspirations are contrary to the initial mandate of the ruling.My understanding is that the programs of the government of the day are representative of the mandate given during elections. Deviations by MPs from such should be treated with seriousness it deserves. The culture that used to prevail during the past administration needs to be uprooted in all corridors of our democracy. We need leaders that are sensible to the needs and plight of the majority. I honestly hope that the current administration will see to it that powers of Parliament to properly exercise its oversight are respected. Political parties should ensure that support for Parliamentary decisions is always at given even if this means that some underperfoming individuals are recalled.

  • Sinudeity - 2009-08-16 22:26

    Lithuli house is not the government. Why, when an ANC politician, is guilty of a crime, does he get pulled into lithuli house, and not a court room? Is this the new South African shadow government? The new broederbond?

  • masusu - 2009-08-17 08:39

    the ANC is responsible to their tummies and to nobody who is not in the active clique. they are sick with a desire to uot do each other about how much they can steal!!!

  • pages:
  • 1
Report Comment