The formation of Cyril Ramaphosa’s government under the “Government of National Unity” (GNU) mantra has produced an elevated, optimistic mood in almost all echelons of the country.
For one, because the ANC’s overbearing majority and stern grip on all levels of national power have been loosened and lessened. After being subjected to subpar governance for at least 15 years – arguably longer – there is a belief that “things can only get better” from here, and the trajectory promises to be positive.
It is at such junctures that any dose of realism or criticism is quickly labelled as unpatriotic. There are at least two similar moments in recent times to provide instructive lessons.
The first, and most recent, was the election of Ramaphosa as president in February 2018. Riding the almost universal Ramaphoria wave, it was a moment that only a few didn’t welcome. Coming off a low base of nine years of Zuma-sponsored State Capture, it was unbecoming to not give the president a chance.
I vividly recall in those first months of Ramaphosa’s administration, the groupthink within the chattering class was to go easy and play with kid gloves because we couldn’t afford a Zuma acolyte making a move.
When we uncovered that corruption-tainted Bosasa not only had links to his son but had also donated to his leadership campaign, it was not greeted with the same energy that followed the Nkandla saga. On more than one occasion I was deemed unpatriotic; somehow wanting the country to fall, by holding a president accountable for misdeeds.
The other instructive moment is the formation of a government of national unity following the 2008 presidential and parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe. Essentially, Robert Mugabe won the presidential election, but the official opposition, the Movement for Democratic Change, won control of the National Assembly. Observers, media and the international community cast doubt on the legitimacy of the presidential poll. Despite this, MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai took his party into government with Mugabe – even though many claimed he had lost the election.
The negotiations were a grand compromise. Today, Zimbabweans are still in the death grip of Zanu-PF’s unfettered governance which has dragged the country into economic ruin characterised by escalating poverty, hyperinflation, food shortages and politically motivated violence.
In both of these instances, what occurred was a weakening of checks and balances and accountability in the name of unity. There were compromises made and principles weakened. We can sacrifice letting some things slide for the so-called greater good, can’t we? Nonsense.
South Africa today finds itself in a state of GNUphoria – we cannot avoid or deny this fact. However, accountability and keeping those in power in check cannot be sacrificed at the altar of government unity. An effective and principled opposition should always be celebrated as patriotic – just as important as those in the executive arm of government.
Parliament’s role will be crucial in the next phase, both legally and politically. In this vein, certain parties cannot expect to have their cake and eat it. If you are in the GNU, you are not in opposition. This requires considering how the oversight mechanism of a GNU can adapt to a political reality whereby 70% of Parliament is part of the government in some way or another.
Several key observations follow. The first is that the GNU can suffer from narrative-forming which sets unrealistic expectations. It describes the government as though it was the Springbok rugby team. This is a false comparison. The Springbok team is merit-based and competitive, where the best players are chosen from any of the teams.
The current Cabinet is certainly not this, given the calibre of some ministers. However, if this narrative is formed, it’s an “us” vs “them” dichotomy. You are either with the Springboks (or GNU), or you are against them, and therefore unpatriotic. This narrative is not helpful as our parliamentary system is geared in a manner that says there shall be a government and there shall be an opposition. It is why the Leader of the Opposition is a constitutionally recognised position.
I held this position for five years and it provided a powerful platform to not only hold the government accountable but to communicate an alternative for South Africa.
The new dispensation means that the role of a constructive opposition is absolutely crucial in representing the interests of South Africans. It is crucial as Parliament now has a government that consists of 70% of the parties in Parliament. And as such, if we create no credible opposition, 70% could act as a different form of State Capture.
A decision has to be made on the role of Leader of the Opposition. Currently, the Constitution and National Assembly rules are silent on what happens in a political situation such as this. Parliament has asked for a legal opinion on this aspect of the law, and we keenly await the outcome.
By logic, the role must surely go to the largest party that is outside of government – whether we agree politically or not. It would be anomalous for the Speaker to acknowledge the government on both sides of the aisle as she walks in, instead of the government and the opposition.
Second, the rules of Parliament require an amendment to reflect the new political composition of the National Assembly. Our duty as members of Parliament is to ensure that role is fulfilled using accountability mechanisms such as written and oral questions, speeches, debates, motions and oversight visits.
Because Parliament is the apex of the people’s accountability of government, the proportion of these mechanisms should be increased for the opposition. More written and oral questions, more time in debates, and so on. The structuring of committees is important as well. Parties essentially send senior leadership to Cabinet and the junior members stay in Parliament.
In the past, the ANC sent its top NEC members to Cabinet who then came to account to its members junior to them in Parliament. This was easy in the majoritarian system that the ANC has enjoyed.
The same equally applies to the DA. Its more senior leaders now sit in government, and they will have to come to account to Parliament where its junior members sit. Then the dictum can be: you may be in charge in Parliament, but we are ultimately in charge in the party. When we take the oath as members of Parliament, we do so to defend the Constitution, not the party we are affiliated to and, as such, this role will be crucial.
Bosa has chosen to stay out of the Government of National Unity and will instead build a centrist accountability structure for the government. We wait to see the plan that government sets out and we must ensure that the 60 million South Africans are the primary beneficiaries by using all accountability mechanisms on the table.
We will hold the line and learn from previous moments in history where accountability was sacrificed on the altar of government unity. It is not to be in opposition to the Springboks; it is about ensuring that the players don’t themselves become the referees. DM
This article is more than a year old
Beware of GNUphoria sacrificing accountability on the altar of government unity
Accountability and keeping those in power in check cannot be sacrificed at the altar of government unity. An effective and principled opposition should always be celebrated as patriotic – just as important as those in the executive arm of government.