Parliament diary: Bouncers and Bibles to pave way for peace?

Why are religious leaders getting involved in the state of parliamentary relations?

Because “they are duty bound not to fold their arms if there is such a national crisis,” according to Rhema Bible Church CEO Giet Khosa, who spoke to the New Age on Monday.

Their particular concern is that President Jacob Zuma will be prevented from delivering the State of the Nation Address on 12 February due to EFF disruption. “If the SONA is not addressed, we’ll be the first country in the whole world where that has happened, so the religious leaders are concerned,” Khosa said.

Cynics who find that answer unsatisfying might also point out that Pastor Ray McCauley, who heads both the Rhema Bible Church and the National Interfaith Council of South Africa, is known to have a very warm relationship with President Zuma.

“[Zuma] will go down in history as the president who has made a difference,” McCauley told IOL in 2009. “He will produce results with his different, new leadership style.”

And lo, on Tuesday political parties met with Pastor McCauley and his interfaith comrades – apparently including South Africa’s Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein – to talk about a peaceful way forward for the House.

Not all parties attended, it should be clarified – in fact, only the DA, IFP, ACDP, NFP and AIC were there. A source informed Daily Maverick that the ANC and EFF, considered the parties mainly responsible for last year’s parliamentary uproar, had met with the religious leaders separately.

The same source said that the parties which attended Tuesday’s meeting had agreed not to divulge the content of the discussions.

That wasn’t the only meeting going down in Parliament on Tuesday. On the same day, representatives from different media houses and the South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) met with Parliament’s communications staff and lawyers to workshop regulations around the broadcasting of parliamentary sessions. This follows the controversy over the cutting of Parliament’s live TV feed last November when the National Assembly descended into chaos.

SANEF is due to release a statement in due course announcing the agreements reached in terms of the broadcasting regulations.

It’s clear that Parliament and its stakeholders are looking for a new deal for a new year. The ANC held workshops in December and January to discuss amendments to the rules of the National Assembly, which were then reviewed and discussed by Parliament’s rules subcommittee last week.

City Press reported that among the new measures in the National Assembly being considered by MPs were a ban on offensive gestures, a proposal to force MPs to quote the specific rule they were rising on, and giving the Speaker the right to switch off an MP’s microphone.

Foremost on the agenda, however, has been the consideration of a different kind of security arrangement, following the occasion in November when public order police entered the House to forcibly remove an EFF MP and became embroiled in scuffles with DA MPs en route.

Might ours be the only Parliament in the world currently where discussions about parliamentary security focus on how to get MPs out of the House, rather than how to prevent intruders from getting in?

The first incident which prompted questions about parliamentary recourse when MPs refuse to leave the House occurred in August last year, when the EFF chanted #PayBackTheMoney at President Jacob Zuma. On that occasion it took 10 minutes for Sergeant at Arms Regina Mohlomi – technically the head of security in the National Assembly - to approach EFF MPs to remove them after Speaker Baleka Mbete had ordered them to leave and they refused to do so.

At the time, Mbete told the M&G: “I had to leave the chair myself to go and find the Sergeant At Arms to find out what was taking so long. It became clear that it was not something she could do as an individual and therefore [she] had been looking for others to reinforce her role”.

Defence Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula also warned after the disruption that “extraordinary measures” would be put in place to ensure that the event did not repeat itself.

As we know, however, the event did repeat itself far more dramatically in November, culminating in the summons to public order police to enter the House. At last week’s rules committee meeting, all parties were reportedly in agreement that police should never be allowed into the House in this manner again.

This still begs the question, however, of what Parliament should do when MPs refuse to leave. If EFF MPs heckle President Zuma during his SONA and hold their places in defiance of the Speaker’s orders, who gets to eject them, now that it’s been established that police are unacceptable?

In most countries it appears that parliamentary security is provided through the combined efforts of a number of different units, drawn from police, military and private security. Canada’s parliamentary security was in the spotlight in October last year, for instance, after Michael Zehaf-Bibeau killed a soldier on ceremonial sentry duty and entered a parliament building, before being fatally shot by the Sergeant at Arms.

In the wake of the shooting it was determined that one potential problem was the splintering of security forces responsible for parliamentary security, with separate commands for Senate and House security guards, the Ottawa police, the Mounties, and protection services for the Prime Minister.

South Africa’s Parliament similarly has a number of different bodies and individuals responsible for security. Because Parliament is a National Key Point, SAPS members will always be on hand in the parliamentary precinct, distinct to the parliamentary protection services.

The head of security for Parliament is distinct from the Sergeant at Arms’ role, which is confined to the National Assembly. In the same way, parliamentary security in Britain’s House of Commons is ceremonially handled by the Sergeant At Arms but actually overseen by a former MI5 officer.

When Sergeant at Arms Mohlomi testified in front of the parliamentary powers and privileges committee last year, she seemed to hint at some confusion about the chain of command. In the past, she said, the role of the Sergeant at Arms was different. The Parliamentary Monitoring Group summarised her testimony as follows:

“Traditionally, the role involved support to the presiding officer, issuing of gallery tickets, managing the group of people responsible for security at Parliament. This changed with the establishment of Parliament Protection Services. The person to call security services was now the role of the section manager of security services. She was obligated to call SAPS when she observed something that needed their intervention even though the first point of call may be Protection Services.”

Former Sergeant at Arms Godfrey Cleinwerck, by contrast, told Parliament’s magazine In Session in 2009 that he conceived of part of his role as the “chief bouncer”.

The EFF’s Godrich Gardee suggested last week that Parliament should look into hiring actual bouncers to remove recalcitrant MPs, while the DA proposed some form of “parliamentary guard”, as is the case in many countries.

In Hungary there is reportedly a 349-member parliamentary guard, who are permitted to enter the chamber on the request of the presiding officer to remove MPs. Though not armed with guns, they are apparently given an array of tools to accomplish this task if necessary – including handcuffs and stun guns.

These gestures towards regaining control over Parliament are one thing. On the other hand, we’ve already had EFF leader Julius Malema warning that the EFF is prepared to go naked rather than give up their red overalls at parliamentary sessions this year. Perhaps it’ll take more than a few prayers from Pastor McCauley to turn Parliament into a praise and worship session just yet. DM

Photo: Julius Malema (R) and Floyd Shivambu of the Economic Freedom Fighters are seen in the National Assembly during the swearing in of MP's as South Africa's fifth Parliament convenes for the first time in Cape Town on Wednesday, 21 May 2014.Picture: Nardus Engelbrecht/SAPA

Read more:

• Religious heads intervene, in the New Age