Africa-Press – South-Africa. Instead of Parliament being positioned as a laboratory for innovative thought and conversation about improving citizen’s lives, its processes have become ensnared in the binary space of either being with the government of the day or against it, writes Brett Herron.
Participating in parliamentary debates over the past few months, mostly in the context of budget votes to debate budgets that have already been settled, one feels a sense of dislocation and foreboding not dissimilar to that of many so-called ordinary citizens.
The image that comes to mind is of a bushveld scene at a fast-drying waterhole during a drought. Drained of energy and ideas, the old and long-unchallengeable bull elephant (the governing party), weakened by a catalogue of disastrous leadership decisions, faces its mortality. There’s an inevitability about it… An array of predators (opposition parties and politicians) see the opportunity and smell blood. They dash in and out to hasten the beast’s demise, focused on fuelling their own power. Thoughts of fixing what the old bull has broken evidently come later. This is not about accountability; it’s about opportunity.
Either you’re with the elephant or against it. The louder you proclaim your allegiance, the better. Nothing else matters.From cars and minibus taxis on the sidelines, citizens view the show with an increasing sense of anxiety. They can’t stop the elephant’s suffering, nor do they necessarily want to, but what new creature will emerge to lead the herd? Shape and nature of conversation remain the same, regardlessI represent a relatively small opposition party with the express aim of working constructively with the good people who exist in all (or most) parties to contribute to building back better. But with few exceptions, the reality in Parliament is that it’s a case of every animal (or party) for him, her or itself. Here, despite our species’ technological ingenuity to shrink the earth into what we call a global village, the old evolutionary principle of survival of the fittest reigns and considerations of inter-dependence don’t applyWhen parliamentarians speak, they recite the crises the country faces as if ticking boxes..
They touch on prioritising addressing entrenched poverty, the sluggish economy, unsustainable inequality, poor-decision making, mismanagement, maladministration and corruption… And they are not wrong.But what is more important for them to say, and how they expend most of their energy, usually amounts to the same-old-same-old ringing endorsement of the State or withering attack on its integrity. Everything is adversarial It often doesn’t matter what subject is being debated, the shape and nature of the conversation remain largely the same.Everything is adversarial.
Instead of Parliament being positioned as a laboratory for innovative thought and conversation about improving the lives of citizens and developing better systems, and senses of justice and nation-hood, its processes have become ensnared in the binary space of either being with the government of the day or against it.In such a space, there are few possibilities either for members of the majority party to express alternative views to those of their colleagues, or for constructive opposition. Surely we would benefit more as a nation from creating more space to hear the constructive views of knowledgeable people among us, irrespective of on which side of the binary divide they sit. There are no benefits for struggling South Africans from political parties maintaining what amounts to heightened election season-style antagonism between elections?
Lord Gilbert Campion, the British civil servant who served as Clerk of the House of Commons for 13 years, including during World War II, made the point that parliamentary decisions are best understood by taking into account the agenda-setting that precedes formal resolutions.
The Canadian professor of English and rhetoric, and author, James De Mille wrote that the aim of parliamentary debate was to: Investigate the subject from many points of view which are presented from two contrary sides. In no other way can a subject be so exhaustively considered.But US linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky seems to describe us best, when he said: The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.In other words, the fact that there is noise is more important than its quality.
The effect of it is to render what should be our primary platform for debates of critical national importance as secondary to the debates behind closed doors in our political caucuses – and, ultimately, to diminish perceptions of Parliament’s leadership role in our society.
The old proverb tells us that when elephants fight it is the grass that gets trampled. When the powerful disagree, it is the weak who bear the worst consequences.Grass will burn again Those with the privilege to serve as MPs – who enjoy the lifestyle perks in a society in which many citizens struggle for their basic survival – should be wary of trampling on the very people they are meant to represent.
As we saw last July, in response to the incarceration of former President Jacob Zuma, the grass in our country is desperately dry.If we carry on carrying on, and Parliament does not fulfil its leadership obligations, the grass will undoubtedly burn again, and when it does, it could come at a more immense cost to the country.Despite political provocations, gross inequality and unrequited post-apartheid ambitions, South Africans cannot afford to lose sight of their inter-dependence altogether. The more they go down that road, the more expensive it will be for us to fix it.
– Brett Herron is GOOD’s Secretary-General & Member of Parliament.To receive Opinions Weekly, sign up for the newsletter here.
*Want to respond to the columnist? Send your letter or article to [email protected] with your name and town or province. You are welcome to also send a profile picture. We encourage a diversity of voices and views in our readers’ submissions and reserve the right not to publish any and all submissions received.Disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.
For More News And Analysis About South-Africa Follow Africa-Press
