Madam Deputy Speaker and hon members, Olivier Bernier wrote in Words of Fire, Deeds of Blood that:
The French Revolution, in less than four years changed the world. From the moment Louis XVI walked up the stairs of the guillotine, no other European Monarch felt safe again. France gave itself a constitution and a legislature. The liberties the French claimed for themselves - of religion, of the press, of assembly, of thought; the right to be taxed only if their representatives had first consented; equality before the law; and the end of privileges - all these startling innovations soon appeared to be the normal requirements without which no state could claim legitimacy.
Centuries on, the long and tortuous struggle waged by black people in South Africa against colonial exploitation and the legendary oppressive apartheid rule, culminated in the victorious constitutional and parliamentary democracy inclusive of all the people of South Africa.
South Africans, like the French, won for themselves substantive rights and freedoms without which the apartheid state failed to claim legitimacy. Ideally, the vision of the newly founded democratic legislature from the year 1994 was to build an effective peoples' Parliament responsive to the needs of all the people driven by the idea of realising a better quality of life for all the people of South Africa.
A decade and a half later, in the year 2009, the call by President Jacob Zuma, and subsequently by the Speaker of the National Assembly, hon M Sisulu, for the emergence of the activist parliament and state, demanded of this fourth Parliament a new paradigm and an active review of the manner in which the legislatures respond to the needs of the people, in particular those of the majority of South Africans who continue to toil under the yoke of grinding poverty, systematic, social and economic deprivation, racism, intolerance and underdevelopment.
The new paradigm should mean that the sovereignty of Parliament and the state, the actions of the executive, should reflect the activities and liberties of all citizens. The hon Ben Turok asserted recently elsewhere that the programmes of the executive should be driven by the people themselves in order to attain optimum social and economic development. I must say that this is a long-standing maxim of development theorists and practitioners.
We believe this state of affairs would be partly experienced where the executive did not view the legislature as the adversary, where it did not feel it had to defend the fallibility inherent in the state before Parliament. Recently, the hon T M Masutha also affirmed, rightly so, that the executive should be regarded as an integral part of the parliamentary oversight mechanism.
Activism on the part of the legislature and the executive will require loyal adherence to the principles of egalitarianism, and will seek to promote participatory planning and project implementation to remove inequitable socioeconomic conditions. The manner in which we have pursued service delivery so far has been lacking in this egalitarian respect, and thus has threatened to turn the current process of service delivery into a tool for perpetual dependency, underdevelopment and permanent civil unrest. Fortunately, the Green Papers on National Strategic Planning and on Improving Government Performance by the Ministers in the Presidency envisioned the incorporation of the dreams of South Africans about the future they want to have. The short and long-term strategic plans, the goals and objectives will be interwoven in the social, economic, political, moral, religious and cultural aspirations of the citizens.
Rousseau maintained that:
The state could serve as an instrument of freedom only when all its subjects were at the same time sovereign, for then alone would the people be truly said to rule themselves.
For 15 years in this Assembly, we have deliberated, and legislated with a firm belief fired by political party manifestos and elections, that there is a contract between Parliament and the people; and between the state and the citizens. Factually, we have acknowledged, in part only, the obligation placed on Parliament and the state by this contract. We have unwittingly neglected the fact that there should be quality of partnership in the contract; it should include the people as co-decision makers, co-planners, co-implementers, co-monitors and co-evaluators of the laws and projects that are meant to change their lives for the better. Unless the legislatures and the executive adopt participatory planning as a necessary process in the government's development agenda, the country will find it difficult to shake off the rampage arising from the civil protests that have gone beyond the realm of peaceful expressions of discontent, and have become appallingly violent and destructive.
The success of the developmental state, which the government is now pursuing with such vigour, will depend largely on the kind of activism that places greater emphasis on the component of human development and reserves direct state intervention for public safety, redressing the imbalances of the past, welfare programmes and protective security.
Equally, distributive economic justice will require from the legislatures and the executive the kind of activism that will promote strong participatory economic development, where the economic potentials of the majority are unlocked and economic self-management is enhanced. Perhaps, what we are trying to say here to Parliament and the executive is that we should refrain from perceiving the poor and marginalised majority of our people as passive, helpless recipients of social services, but rather as potential owners, controllers and managers of South Africa's economic resources and wealth.
Finally, how else could we translate into reality what Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe said in Davos early this year when responding to the global economic slump; that it was an opportunity for the nations of the world to think of a new world economic order and rectify the negative implications of uneven international economic interdependence; while President Jacob Zuma said of the slump that it presented good opportunities for South Africa to really look at its own ... [Interjections.]
Mhlonishwa isikhathi sakho siphelile. [Hon member, your time has expired.]
Mama uSekela Somlomo, angidle umzuzu ongale ekugcineni. Ngabe kwemukelekile? [Madam Deputy Speaker, can I use this last minute. Is my request granted?]
Kulungile, ungaqhubeka. [It is alright, you can go on.]
... while President Jacob Zuma said of the slump that it presented good opportunities for South Africa to really look at its own economic development. Precisely what does an activist parliament and state mean to us in this House and the rest of the country? I thank you. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, Judge Dumbechana, a retired Zimbabwean Chief Justice, said:
When dry legalism cannot administer justice, an activist judge must remake the law.
If we put this in a parliamentary context, this judge was calling for a parliament that should be the pulse of the nation - deservedly so.
It seems to me that activism can only be defined through its operation and some of its manifestations. From my experience, I have understood it to comprise, amongst other things, continuity of one's cause throughout one's life. This is a cause that finds expression in one's family life, in day to day life and in the broader society. It should be lived in one's faith community, sporting community, farming community, etc.
Activism manifests in a highly interactive life; in a life that is collective with the society; and in a life that is representative of societal life. It manifests in passion for the cause from conviction. It manifests in relevant leadership and appropriate decisions, which resonate with people's day to day lives. In this life, there is also a commitment not to compromise the cause in question and also readiness to make any sacrifice for that cause.
Activism was key to the success of our liberation, because its cadreship bore all the aforementioned characteristics. It was a major revelation to the forebears of the ANC Youth League in 1944 through worker leaders, amongst others Ntate Dan Tloome. Their cause was noble and strongly intellectual, yet at times lacking in some elements of activism, for example, the interactive and broader societal awareness of life. It is in this instance that veterans like Dan Tloome were able to demonstrate to young academically developed people the underlying factors that ensure effective community leadership.
Again, the challenges and efforts of our struggle in 1969 were responded to and answered through the phenomenon of activism. It was during this 1969 conference that a conclusion was reached that, without being led and leading those who are affected by our cause, our goal remained a pipe dream. It was the appreciation of activism that led to the birth of the four pillars of our struggle.
It was during this conference that the representative authority of our movement assumed dominance over militarism. The birth of the United Democratic Front, UDF, and the broader Mass Democratic Movement, MDM, represented the further exploitation of the benefits of this phenomenon. It was the phenomenon of activism that secured our movements/moral authority as the principal leader of change in South Africa.
The National Democratic Revolution and its strategy and tactics document emanated from the experience of what determines the legitimacy of a noble struggle or pursuit, and hence its focus on the basic causes of national grievance. The strategy and tactics document was a product of the historic fact that a self-sustaining struggle or pursuit of any noble cause must resonate with the day to day lives of people, and hence its focus on the national struggle and its elements, amongst others gender oppression and racial oppression. These are the issues which affected our people then and heretofore.
What must be the key features of an activist Parliament? It should be the knowledge of its responsibility and the consistent activities thereof. Clearly, the knowledge of our responsibility as Parliament must be understood as parliamentary original and not interincidental upon the activities of the executive. It must be understood as a mandate given to parliamentarians originally from this institution, based on the Constitution. It must also manifest in the relevant capacity for effective implementation of its mandate. It must also manifest in the ability to enjoy national moral authority across all sectors, over and above constitutional entitlement.
It must find resonance with the day to day lives of our people, in particular the poor, marginalised, rural and working class people. It must enjoy both national and international trust as the key guardian instrument in the sustenance of the South African democratic conviction as pronounced in our founding laws. It should be the bastion of innovation, robust debate, battle of ideas and home of growth.
What should be done? I thought it was important to note that one of the biggest challenges in South Africa today with regard to our oversight is the lack of a common language between Parliament and the executive. It is the lack of planning models that inform appropriate questions during these oversights. Indeed, unless this issue is ratified, we will continue to raise questions that are incidental upon the nature of the presentation of an executive. I think the intervention by the President through the Ministry of Monitoring and Evaluation seeks to address this. This is because there is a fallacy in promising to do oversight of an institution whose model of planning does not inform questions.
One of the biggest challenges is the role of constituency offices. For Parliament to relate properly and represent people, these offices should be used: as reporting institutions on what is happening in Parliament; as centres for discussions on what is happening in Parliament and what society experiences day to day; and as a collection point for the grievances of our people and their views. They must also constitute centres where mutual empowerment between Parliament and the people prevails. Our people must find representation through the entire conduct of our Parliament in the manner we interact with these people. When we come to the judiciary, one of the biggest challenges lies in what Judge Dumbechana said. For Parliament, as being the lawmakers, the biggest challenge lies in continuing to satisfy ourselves that we are removing dry legalism in our judicial system to ensure that it is a system that is organic and run by activist judges and magistrates. It is in this context that Dumbechana's quotation becomes important to me again when he says:
When dry legalism cannot administer justice, an activist judge must remake the law.
I think he was calling for an activist Parliament. Thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]
Madam Chair, I think it's fit and proper that Parliament has the opportunity to debate this important issue. I want to thank the hon Skosana for having put it on the agenda for Parliament. He spoke very eruditely on the subject as well.
But an activist parliament surely must mean different things to different parties. We wonder what the President may have had in mind when he spoke about it earlies this year. We wonder what the ANC has in mind in this regard now.
We are, of cause, aware that the Speaker is involved in the strategic planning process for Parliament at the present time. This will develop goals and outputs for the fourth Parliament, and I understand that this will be part of the process of bringing Parliament closer to the people, including oversight and nation-building.
If it is to be successful, it has to be practical and not just words. I have to say that the ANC's record, to date, in terms of creating an activist-type Parliament - an opportunity for the people to interact with Parliament, and for Parliament, in turn, to interact with them - has been, at best, a farce.
One has to look immediately at the Taking Parliament to the People programme that was launched in October 2004, which promised that MPs would return to the ground level, listen to the people and help them resolve their problems. Noble in thought, but, quite frankly, dishonest in practice, because nearly five years later, and with millions of rands having been spent, we realise that it has been little more than a lovely and glossy exercise with no real attempt on the part of Parliament to resolve any of the real concerns of the people.
Far more would have been achieved, had the money spent on Taking Parliament to the People been spent on resolving the concerns of the people. It wasn't always necessary, in the first place, to take Parliament to the people to find out what people's concerns were. They are obvious - lack of service delivery, shortage of jobs, no water, poor roads, no housing, crime, and the list goes on.
In fact, we are faced with serious service delivery protests across the country today, because Parliament and the state have failed to provide the people with basic services, despite many promises - many, many promises indeed. But what was really happening was that, while Parliament was being taken to the people, the people, in turn, were being taken for a ride.
The whole concept evolved into lavish parties, costing millions of rands, where MPs spoke more than they listened. Community members were told to be quiet so that MPs could talk about what they planned to do. Their plans stayed plans; they never became actions. An independent observer commented that the current Taking Parliament to the People events are nothing more than extended ANC rallies where criticism is shouted down, and only the voice of the ANC is heard.
Madam Chair, while we welcome the concept of an activist parliament as pronounced by the President and elaborated on recently by the Speaker, we, as a political party, wait with bated breath to discover what the ruling party has in store for us and for the people of this land.
Will it be something new, different, workable, something that is genuinely for the people, or will it be more of the same glitzy, glamorous, expensive and useless exercises? Ideally, an activist parliament should be one where the people of South Africa can hold the executive accountable for their actions, and where the executive ensures that the government upholds its constitutional obligations by providing basic services, alleviating poverty and creating an environment in which people have jobs, homes and security. An activist parliament should listen to the people, genuinely listen, note their concerns and take the relevant steps to resolve the problems within a reasonable time.
I would like this Parliament to know that the DA does speak with experience in this matter. We have attended Taking Parliament to the People campaigns; we have seen, firsthand, what a farce they are. But far more importantly, I want to say that we have started our own initiative called "Parliament for the People", where the parliamentary leader, DA MPs, MPLs and DA Councillors visit areas across South Africa to give people back their constitutional rights by having their voices heard in Parliament.
In contrast with the ANC government's Taking Parliament to the People campaign, the DA's campaign does not cost the taxpayer tens of millions of rands. It is not a road show where MPs simply make speeches on the successes of the party in order to win more votes. It does not victimise or try to silence citizens who voice their dissatisfaction with service delivery. It does not visit an area once, and once only, and then never return to see if actual improvements have been made to the lives of people living in the area.
The DA's "Parliament for the People" campaign is centred on the people and places we visit and not on Parliament as an institution. We actively work to resolve the problems we learn about, and take the people seriously. You've heard about it. Believe me, sir, you will hear infinitely more about it in the future; believe me, infinitely more.
We should be cautious, Madam Chair, that a new activist parliament initiative does not become a waste of taxpayers' money - money which could have been used to address problems of which we are already aware. We should not continue to cultivate and nurture a programme of Parliament which has not had any successes thus far. We must adopt a new approach and avoid the impression that is being created, that Parliament goes to the people under the pretext of listening to their problems, making empty promises, giving free meals and then disappearing until the next election. [Interjections.]
We must develop a system in which we must listen, learn and act on behalf of the people of this country. Unless we do this, we will have failed again to develop an activist parliament and an activist state, despite the best intentions of the President, the Speaker, the MPs, and the people of this country as well. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Madam Chairperson, an activist and inclusive state and Parliament is what Cope offers to South Africa as the second big advance on our path to democratisation and transformation of our country. Progressivism is linked directly to activism. This is what Cope advocates as its ideological direction.
Any government that concentrates too much attention on itself and about itself will naturally not be able to concentrate on the people it is supposed to serve. That much is clear. We in Cope would want a government and Parliament we constitute to send people out into the field, not concentrate them in their silos in Pretoria and Cape Town.
The Westminster style of centralised bureaucracy has to be adapted to our needs and our circumstances. In our country, integrated teams of officials, drawn from a cluster of Ministries, should go out into the field to convert policy into immediate programmes and projects.
Our people should not be subjected to bureaucracy; rather bureaucracy should be subjected to our people for their common good. The bureaucracy that has been the cause of every delay should now be cascaded into a bureaucracy of small integrated field units. This fieldworker-type bureaucracy must make delivery happen by facilitating all processes, removing all obstacles and resolving all legalities on their own.
Members of Parliament should frequently visit communities and listen to the people. We are very clear about the need for South Africa to become an activist state. For us, an activist state is not a protectionist state. In our understanding, political and economic activism require active endeavours by the state to go the extra mile.
An activist state creates optimal synergy. Therefore, an activist state is one where activists, such as you and I once were, remain committed activists in spite of coming into government, assuming high office and serving as Members of Parliament.
Today, very sadly, activists are found outside of government. Many of yesterday's activists have become today's careerists in government. The resulting dichotomy of us and them is not good for our country. In our manifesto, we undertook to develop a new agenda of hope. We wanted to see acceleration in delivery. We also wanted to see the people of our country acting as a cohesive nation.
In our manifesto, we also undertook to ensure that all employees of the state would be professional in their conduct. As such, they will be protected from intimidation and victimisation by the executive. Our vision is of an activist state where leaders will pull together with the "span" [team] and be humble and down to earth, where the will of the people prevails, society coheres, and people power can achieve the things that will, otherwise, remain out of reach. People power is available in our country. Millions of patriots want to serve our country. They do not want to be passive receivers of programmes. They need proper channels to volunteer their services. We would provide them with such channels.
In the activist state, we envisage that each village will become a fully viable village. We see the village doctor, government planners and traditional leaders interacting with one another, to create modern green developments. The planners will be resident planners, thus the villages will make a country.
The role of traditional leaders in our rural areas also has to be given serious consideration. A centralised parliament has to be seen as being at the apex of numerous local parliaments and izimbizo and not an entity in itself. We must harness indigenous consultative and planning processes with the right to determine local solutions.
In the activist state that we envisage, no local institutions abrogate another and no institution arrogates to itself sole authority. The state can never know it all and must never presume to do so. It is common cause that the gulf between those who govern and those who are governed is widening.
Municipalities are not in touch with the people and their affairs as local government is in grave disorder. There is rapidly declining service delivery. To add to the problem, the number of civil servants involved in serious conflicts of interest is escalating. Patronage is endemic. A government that governs strictly by mandate governs evenly, democratically, constitutionally and accountably. Such a government builds national consensus. It fosters a common national identity through common symbols and a shared heritage.
In the activist state we envisage, government will be the government of the people, by the people, and for the people in advancement of all the people. Nobody but nobody will be marginalised in spite of their diversity. The government we seek to establish would be a government of fieldworkers demanding nothing of anybody and offering every service to everybody as a duty on their part.
Let the activist state arise. Let the chains of poverty be broken. Let us go into the future as a united people sharing a common destiny, safeguarded collectively by all of us. For all our children, let our common identity prevail and let a universal activism make our activist state a model for Africa and for the world. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Applause.]
House Chairperson, hon members, I just want to quote from Abraham Lincoln when he said, "... government of the people, by the people, and for the people". The people's government means an agreement between the people and their government which they would have voted overwhelmingly into power, in which the people give their liberty, faith, confidence, aspirations and their hopes in exchange for the government protecting and delivering the remainder.
The theoretical and ideological base for a people's Parliament is informed by that historic document the Freedom Charter, which was adopted at the people's congress in Kliptown in 1955. Furthermore, it was expressed at the Morogoro Consultative Conference of the glorious movement of our people, the ANC, in 1969.
During the Morogoro Conference held in Tanzania from 25 April to 1 May under the theme Intensify the Revolution, the National Executive Committee's political report said:
The Parliament of South Africa will be wholly transformed into an Assembly of the People. Every man and woman in our country shall have the right to vote for and stand as a candidate for all offices and bodies which make laws.
This has been achieved in South Africa today. Here we are, united in our diversity - people of different colours, men and women, being people's representatives.
The report went on to say:
The present administration will be smashed and broken up. In its place will be created an administration in which people irrespective of race, colour, creed or sex can take part.
Forty years after the Morogoro Conference, the people's representatives of different races and colours are sitting on the benches and participating in committees of Parliament, representing our people and also serving to build and reconstruct our nation and our country.
The Morogoro Conference report went on to say:
The bodies of minority rule shall be abolished, and in their place will be established democratic organs of self-government in all the provinces, districts and towns of the country.
Today we pride ourselves on this vision of the ANC which has ushered in true democracy and transformed all organs of state to respond to the needs of our people and those of the developmental state. I raise this and refer to this historic document to remind the House that our struggle for transformation has a vision and is informed by a quest to build a nonracial, nonsexist, democratic and prosperous society.
When we were introducing and debating Parliament's vision in the third democratic Parliament on just one concept called the people's parliament ... I want to respond to the hon Mike Ellis on this. I thought I was not going to respond, but having heard him engaging with and ridiculing the notion of an activist parliament, I felt I needed to remind this House of something.
When we debated a people's parliament, the DA fundamentally opposed the notion of a people's parliament to the extent that they wanted to vote against it in the Joint Rules Committee. To date, since that time, we have never heard any DA member saying in their speeches "a people's parliament" or "an assembly of the people", as it was pronounced by our forefathers at the Morogoro Conference. Neither do we see in any of their literature or doctrine any usage of a "people's parliament" or an "activist parliament". Hon Ellis, instead of waiting to criticise, you ought to contribute ideas towards this novel idea - if you are still in the House, hon Ellis.
To be an activist parliament, a people's parliament, involves bringing about changes, transforming Parliament and turning it into a tool that can be used to transform the state and society. By an activist parliament is meant a power to persuade. Theoretical persuasion is considered to be a communication process designed to influence another person's attitudes, values or behaviour. Most theoretical perspectives agree that there are at least two essential elements in persuasion - intentionality and success.
Persuasion is both structural and people-centred, involving the entire party political spectrum. It is power to be persuaded for change and success in changing people's attitudes. Persuasion is one of the oldest and most studied phenomena in the field of speech communication. An activist is an active individual or a group of people who work for change.
The ANC adopted in its National General Council a slogan or theme pronouncing itself an agent for change. Activism also involves some sort of marginalised status within a particular society. It is aimed at an ideology to change the public's prevailing conception on certain things.
For our Parliament to be an activist parliament and a people's parliament, requires a shift in thinking, doing and understanding. Power relations is a world phenomenon that the executive is dominant over parliaments. In many instance this is deliberately done by those in the executive branch of government by denying resources and capacity to the legislative arm. It is usually in their interest to have a weaker parliament. Such characteristics continue to display themselves in the South African context. The ANC, as a ruling party, must go against the flow.
A number of instruments and tools were adopted by the third Parliament in pursuance of the people's parliament to ensure that we do not become a rubber stamp parliament such as the model we have adopted on oversight, which is still to be translated into a mechanism in the Rules. Powers to enforce compliance need to be adopted. Where there is failure in the power to sanction, we need to change that. The power and function to reject or amend the Budget without affecting programmes geared towards a better life for our people as in the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act should be encouraged.
A delegation that attended the conference of the SADC Organisation of Public Accounts Committees in Zambia came back with the following report. They were told by the Ugandan delegation that the Public Accounts Committee in Uganda has the powers inserted in their rules where they have partnered with the police. Should there be an accounting officer who deliberately misleads or lies to the committee, the official will be arrested immediately until they tell the truth in parliament. So, we could look at such models in Africa and elsewhere in the world, which can then give more powers and ensure that indeed this becomes an activist parliament.
However, the power relations should not be adversarial. They should be understood within the context that we all have distinct mandates. We are differently deployed to discharge these particular mandates without fear or favour, not because we are opponents - those in the executive branch and in the legislative arm - but because we are all enjoined to execute our mandates of overseeing and scrutinising the executive as an implementing agency. In the context of our mandates, we will put difficult questions; express what we see happening or not happening in our communities, what the people feel in as far as the impact of the legislation passed is concerned and whether service delivery is indeed happening. When these things happen, the executive should not think we are attacking them as individuals. However, we should, as Members of Parliament, avoid sensationalism and populism.
The Rules of Parliament is another area we ought to look at. Since the development process that led to the current Rules in 1994, most of the amendments were technical and ad hoc. We need to fundamentally overhaul our Rules, informed by the current objectivity of the society we are building and by the current social and political factors in our country within the context of the African philosophy and way of living and also within the global environment. This will assist us in realising an activist parliament, otherwise the Rules, as they currently are, are confining.
The programming of Parliament also ought to be revisited and reviewed. Fifteen years after democracy, our current programming, which has succeeded in repealing the majority of the apartheid laws which dominated the programme of Parliament in the past 15 years, was helpful and is indeed still helpful. However, the increase in oversight activities, require Parliament to spend more time in communities and in our society, assessing the impact of our laws on the creation of a better life. So, we need more time to release committees and Members of Parliament to spend more time within communities. For example, we could have a situation where for six months we have plenary sessions where we could ask questions, debate issues and so forth, and have another three months set aside for committee work on oversight and then the last three months of the year to do constituency work, when we revisit the programming.
The budget of Parliament is also constraining. The Speaker in the Budget Vote of Parliament said, "We may not achieve the implementation of our mandates as Parliament unless Parliament's budget is reconsidered differently." Currently, the base of Parliament is a mere R1,3 billion, which is just one fifth of the budget allocated to the rest of society. In comparison to other departments, this is nothing.
If we are to fulfil our mandates, we really need to revisit this. We need resources, capacity, etc. The tools to fulfil our mandates as Parliament on oversight are limited and must be expanded. This can only happen if we can really revisit the budget. Otherwise, we will continue riding our bicycles while chasing "Beemers" and "Benzes". As one executive member said when I was complaining about this, "You can hold on to the bonnet at the back as the car is driving whilst riding your own bicycle. In that way, you will catch them."
Leadership and management is another area that we need to focus on as an institution. We need to review quite a number of policies that were crafted between 1994 and 1996. Most of them are constraining. They frustrate innovative ideas that come from hon members and also disengage a robust Parliament that we want to see.
We are unfortunately also losing quite a number of skills because Parliament is not paying well and people are also being poached by various sectors in society. So, we need to look at both the physical and environmental constraints that are unfortunately limiting in as far as Parliament is concerned.
In conclusion, when people see us as parliamentarians, they must see ... [Interjections.]
Chairperson, on a point of order: May I ask the hon member a question?
Order! Hon member, will you take a question?
May I just finish my speech. If there is still time, I will take his question. Thank you.
When people see us, they must see a realisation of their aspirations and hopes as hon members. When Parliament speaks, it must have an impact on them and touch their souls. We dare not fail our people. We have achieved much in the last 15 years. We can and will achieve if we become an activist Parliament - ...
... "ba rata goba ba sa rate". [Whether they like it or not.]
Morwa wa Mokaba - yo a ?et?ego a re ?iile - o kile a bolela a re:
Palamente ke ye nngwe ya makala a mmu?o ao a lwelago tokologo. E swanet?e go t?wela pele.
[The late Mokaba once said:
Parliament remains another organ of state that fights for freedom. It should continue.]
Parliament should remain another site or terrain of the struggle for it is where the battle of ideas is engaged and won.
I fully agree with the hon M B Skosana when he says that we should regard and see people as core planners, core monitors and core participants in an activist movement that includes Parliament, society and the executive. I wish this could be the same vision that is shared and embraced by all parties in this House for an activist and a people's parliament and state.
I still have one and a half minute left, Chairperson. I can take the question.
Thank you, hon member. I will ask you one next time you speak, and you will give me a minute.
Hon member, is the bonnet of a motorcar at the front or at the back?
At the back of the car. They say you just hold on to the back of the car and then the bicycle will move. Thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, an activist parliament, in the view of the ACDP, would lead by its actions, and not just by its words, as hon Bapela did during question time this week when he modelled these actions by insisting that a member of the executive actually didn't run casually over a question, and that he would come back to the House with the relevant answer. I would say that was well done.
It would ensure that it is not in an ivory tower, and that citizens are aware of its authority and limitations; know who their MPs are and how they can assist them. It would, primarily, hear what people have to say, but also persistently raise awareness among all, including the most rural and poor, campaigning on citizenship expectations and encouraging people to hold leaders accountable, through relevant and people-friendly parliamentary processes. Julius Nyerere said that widespread corruption in high places breeds poverty, and we've seen this in our country and elsewhere. Thus, accountability is the hub around which the activist is activated.
An activist parliament would incline its ear to the voice of the people to discern and evaluate the heartbeat of the nation, and not serve just the privileged. It would return to the grass-roots ideology that the people shall govern, and would provide the disenfranchised and marginalised with a voice. It would advance policy that resonates with the deeply held convictions of the vast majority of citizens, and not dash the values and aspirations of many, by imposing a narrow agenda on them.
An activist parliament, not only has external implications, but should also affect us right here in the House; for instance, the German parliament buildings source 100% renewable energy. An activist parliament will use our abundant sunshine and wind. It's a pity the hot air created by MPs, at times, doesn't count. Such a move would boost renewable energy, research and application, bringing down the costs of alternative energy, and could take solar telephones, traffic lights, street lights and electricity, without miles of wires, to rural people and those outside the grid. Thank you.
Madam Chairperson, activism is a thing of the past and should remain outside Parliament. Parliament is a very sacred place where everybody must remain apolitical. True leaders are those who add value to society and, therefore, it is absolutely imperative to close the gap between public representatives and their constituencies.
President Jacob Zuma stated that, regardless of our differences as political parties, we have a common goal, which is to make South Africa a great country. Activism died and was buried when we got our freedom in 1994. Now, it's no longer about words, but about deeds. I received very good news that, in the recent by-elections in KwaZulu-Natal, the MF had a 70% turnaround success - a stunning victory against the DA. This means, hon Mike Ellis, that we mean business in 2011.
As public representatives, we must be efficient, effective, proactive and responsive ...
Order, hon Member. Is this a point of order?
Madam Chairperson, on a point of order: What the hon member is saying here has got nothing to do with the topic whatsoever, and I think, consequently, he should be ruled out of order and told to concentrate on the topic.
Please continue, hon member.
The MF strongly believes in raising the levels of service delivery, because it is better to have a heart without words, than to have words without a heart.
Madam Chairperson, hon members, in deference to the many preachers of different faiths present in this House, I shall borrow a little from their style and begin as I will end. If we wish to have a truly activist parliament, then we need first to have an activist people.
Not, of course, that we can actually argue against having an activist parliament. That would be a bit like saying that what we want is a parliament that's dead on its feet with apathy. We want a parliament that is active, engaged and busy.
It's safer to assume that all the members of this House want an institution that is wholly committed to representing the interests of the people with vigour and integrity. This means that we want to focus on those factors that limit the effectiveness of our oversight function, for example, the woeful lack of capacity of many of the committees. We need more staff and more resources to make our committees work more effectively.
Being an activist parliament means much more than having a huge staff of researchers or a lavish overseas tour budget. Rather, it means having the will and independence to go seeking issues, and being prepared, where necessary, to confront the executive authorities of our country. Some recent examples will show how far we have to go. Does our defence committee, for example, seek to investigate the claims that we are selling arms to countries with shocking records of human rights abuse; or does it act to shield the Ministers from the questions of committee members?
We have a long way to go before we have a defence committee that can act, as their counterparts in the House of Commons did recently, when their chairperson criticised the United Kingdom's Minister of Defence for the standard of equipment being supplied to their frontline troops. That is what it means to be independent from the executive, and that is what it means to exercise real oversight.
Our labour committee that recognised the need to examine the plight of millions of South Africans, for whom casual labour is the best employment they can find, is another example. Instead of seeking to understand the difficult choices such workers have to make, the committee heard a torrent of self-righteous bluster akin to human trafficking. This was a further example of ideological posturing at the expense of real activism.
The institution of Parliament can only go so far when it comes to improving the standards of public accountability. For us in this House to realise our ambition of truly engaging the poor, we need to be accessible to the broad masses of our population. Engaging the people still seems to mean the mass meetings we know as izimbizo, or the road shows like Taking Parliament to the People. These events can so easily become mere window dressing, if there is no engagement with, or better still, listening to and acting on the complaints of the people.
Why, for example, did we have to wait until 2009 for a presidential instruction to principals, to make it clear that teachers are expected to be present in their classrooms every day, actually teaching? We have had a South African Schools' Act since 1996, which set up school governing bodies with powers to monitor what is happening in our schools. We need to empower parents and our communities to use the powers given to them in the legislation.
If we have a truly activist population, we will see citizens demanding proper service. We shouldn't have to wait for the tyres to start burning and the bullets to fly before we, in this House, realise that there is a problem.
For this level of engagement to become a reality, we need education which goes beyond mere literacy teaching. We need people who can read, understand and interrogate documents such as Mr Manuel's Green Paper on Planning. I, for example, was taught more about literacy teaching by a former member of this House, Willie Hofmeyr, than any lecturer I ever had, and I know that if we want an empowered citizenry, we have to teach a literacy which empowers people to ask questions and engage meaningfully with what they are told by the so-called experts. Then, and only then, can we talk about having become an activist parliament which is able to provide all citizens, rich or poor, urban or rural, with the standard of government that they expect and deserve. I thank you. [Applause.]
Sihlalo, babu Skosana... [Chairperson, hon Skosana ...]
... thank you very much for raising this debate.
Hon Ellis, firstly, I must teach you the difference between Taking Parliament to the People and the People's Assembly. What happened in 2004 was the People's Assembly. You totally missed it, because, in fact, you were not there. I was there, hon Hlengiwe Mgabadeli was there, but you were not there; that's why you mixed up the concepts. [Interjections.]
Order, please!
We went there and we followed up on the issues and we went back there. You wouldn't have gone back yourself, because you were not there in the first place. Hon Mgabadeli went into a household with myself the morning of the assembly and the next morning. We went into a household where we uncovered lucrative illegal transactions and dealings with trucks. We followed up on this and exposed it, and we successfully had people prosecuted. Some of them were people who claimed to work for the National Prosecuting Authority and some of them were policemen.
We went there and we looked for women's projects and projects in the community. Hon Mgabadeli bought a headboard to the value of R7 000 to support the community, which came back many months after we were there to support the communities economically. [Interjections.] We bought ostrich products there, so you don't know what you are talking about when you say that we never went back. In fact, you were totally wrong when you were referring to Taking Parliament to the People, because it was the People's Assembly.
Hon Bhoola, if you don't believe in activism you are at the wrong place and you should pack up your bags and go, because then you landed here by accident. [Laughter.]
Hon Smuts Ngonyama, you say that for economic activism we must go the extra mile. I want to ask you, did you travel an extra mile when you were MEC for economic affairs in the Eastern Cape? I recall that you failed dismally to the point where we redeployed you to Head Office in Luthuli House as our spokesperson to save you the shame of nonperformance. [Applause.] The Eastern Cape is still struggling in the quagmire that you left behind as MEC for economic affairs. [Applause.]
Hon Steele, if I have time I'll come back to you. Yesterday in the US Senate President Barack Obama had this to say when he was answering to the rich, strong lobbies that are against the review of national health insurance in the US. He said to them, referring to the Senate, "We did not come here to fear the future. We came here to shape it." I want to say in my own words, we did not come here to fear transforming this Parliament into one of activists. We came here to do exactly that and face that challenge. [Applause.]
I would like to pay tribute to President Zuma. The previous time I spoke here I criticised ourselves right from the President and the Deputy President down about being true to the oath we took. I said that this Parliament was failing to ask the President, the Deputy President and all of us whether we lived according to the oath we took.
When President Zuma took the risk of welcoming Caster Semenya, he fulfilled part of the oath he took which says that "I promise to promote and secure the rights of all South Africans", without even wondering whether the International Association of Athletics Federations would say aye or nay to the gender tests because they had suspected that Semenya was not completely female. The President did what he promised in his oath by welcoming her and promoting her rights and accepting her as a heroine of our country, so I really want to say that sometimes we must not just offer criticism. When people begin to respond in the manner which we called for we must say thank you.
The Preamble to the Constitution talks about the freely elected representatives, who are us, and it says that, amongst the things we must do, we must improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each and every person. I want to submit that we have said that all South Africans would have basic services such as water, electricity, housing, education, health, but we have not yet actually developed a minimum standard to secure that - a minimum common standard by means of which we will gauge and judge everybody. We shall judge a municipality and we shall judge ourselves as MPs, we shall judge provincial governments and we shall judge the national government.
I propose that the first step in activism to fulfil this preamble that you must live up to as freely elected public representative is that we must generate a minimum standard which says, for example, that every community of South Africa will have a functional school with this ratio of teachers to learners, with this kind of resources, within this radius, and a functional, nonracial high school, not one where learners kill themselves - I think his name was Duduzile Ngqulo and may his soul rest in peace and may his family find consolation - where teachers are not harassing learners to a point where learners kill themselves; where there are laboratories that are functioning; where there are libraries that are functioning; where teachers are teaching and arriving on time and leaving on time. [Interjections.]
Within that radius there should be a clinic with prescribed minimum standards of nurse to population ratio, of nurse to doctor ratio, of nurse to dentist ratio. Within a prescribed radius there should also be a day clinic and we should also determine a radius within which there should be tertiary health care with minimum standards. When we go on oversight visits we shall say to the municipality, "you don't have this school prescribed in this standard within this radius. You don't have this FET college prescribed in this standard with this equipment, with this ratio of educators and learners, and with this kind of budget."
I think sometimes we are criticising local government without really giving direction as government. They don't have a common standard. There is no minimum standard for water quality that this Parliament is prescribing and enforcing. When they appear before us we don't say, "But the quality of water in Bolobedu or in Mafikeng has deteriorated from this standard, which is the minimum, to this standard." With that minimum standard we'd be able to gauge from one term of Parliament to the other whether the quality of life of South Africans is improving or deteriorating. [Interjections.]
Order, hon members!
Lastly, hon Chairperson, in agreement with hon Bapela, I think we must give ourselves teeth as this Parliament. We don't bite. I was listening to hon Godi of Scopa this morning lamenting - and he can only do that, lament! - that a Director-General for Human Settlements appeared before this committee, misled Parliament and said that the defects in the N2 Gateway Housing Project had been corrected, and when they went there as the committee they realised that those defects had not been corrected, but Parliament and its committee can only lament. It cannot hand over people for prosecution for appearing before themselves and lying, as is happening in other parts of the country.
I think if we can give ourselves those kinds of teeth, even the executive and everybody who appears before us will know that if they don't tell us the real truth we shall have teeth to bite, and that will be one step towards activism. I thank you. [Applause.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M B Skosana) Madam Chair, hon members, I would like to thank all the members who took part in the debate. The intention was to try and marshal a common understanding and common ground from where we can all try to make these pronouncements a reality.
I must say that this was indeed a good debate from: Firstly, the hon Gungubele, who emphasised the relevance of leadership, which I think resonates with the daily interests of people of all classes, and its legitimacy, which is derived from its sovereignty.
Secondly, to the hon Ellis, who still wanted to know the meaning of the pronouncement from the Presidency. However, I do think he supports taking Parliament closer to the people and I think he also supports the fact that the sovereignty of whatever programme we work on will have to be derived from the people.
Thirdly, to the hon Smuts Ngonyama, who emphasised the integration of the deployed teams and then decried the state bureaucracy when he said that the legitimacy of bureaucracy ought to be derived from the powers or the will of the people.
Fourthly, to the hon K O Bapela, who reminded us of the agreement between the people and government. Again, those government programmes would also have to have their legitimacy derived from the sovereignty of people. He also said something about breaking the present administration. I thought he was going to talk about the withering-away of the state, but he didn't. He spoke about a shift in thinking and about the oversight model. I think the oversight model is going to be an important mechanism in this fourth Parliament, because it addresses a crucial engine of Parliament, which is the committees and the chairpersons.
Hon Dudley emphasised the voice of the people; that Parliament ought to be the voice of the people and the heartbeat of the nation, which means that the people shall govern. Again, the legitimacy from government is derived from the sovereignty of the people.
Fifthly, to hon Bhoola, who said that activism is out of Parliament and that it is dead, but he said that there must be effective service delivery - now I'm wondering who is going to do that, if it is not the active Members of Parliament?
Sixthly, to hon Steele, who said that activist people are the ones who will make an activist parliament. So we will start from the people and move to Parliament, then Parliament will be busy. He also emphasised the empowerment of committees and a relook at izimbizo and road shows.
Lastly, hon Mentor explained to some of our members what the People's Assembly and Taking Parliament to the People are. She also made an important point about transformation; that it is only a transformed parliament that could do whatever we want to do. Whether we give it teeth or not, it has to be transformed.
These are simply the remarks I wanted to make and, again, I would like to thank the hon members for taking part. I think it was a good debate. Thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.