Lessons from South Africa: parliamentary conscience and the courage to rebel

The motion of no confidence against President Jacob Zuma displayed tension between party and conscience.
REUTERS/Mark Wessels

Prior to the motion of no confidence in President Jacob Zuma in South Africa’s National Assembly, former Finance Minister, Pravin Gordhan, among others, urged the African National Congress (ANC) MPs to be guided by their conscience, implying that they should break ranks with their party and vote with the opposition.

The thrust of Gordhan’s argument was that under Zuma the presidency had become corrupt and morally compromised. Therefore a vote against Zuma’s continuance in office would be in the national interest.

The further implication was that voting for Zuma to go would be in the long-term interest of the ANC. The reasoning behind this was that, unless the party is to return to the values for which the liberation struggle was fought, it will wreak its own destruction.

The counter-argument by the ANC hierarchy was that ANC MPs were bound by obligation to the voters who had elected them to vote the way the party instructed. MPs in the South African system are not elected as individuals, but merely as members of their party. To vote against the party line would be to overturn the logic of democracy.

A further argument put forward by ANC speakers in the debate was that the opposition was seeking unconstitutional “regime change”. This was quite correctly challenged. The opposition pointed out that the motion had been put in terms of the constitution, and that they were seeking to replace the President and not the ANC government.

And yet, although the ANC argument was manifestly “rubbish” (to quote Wits academic Ivor Sarakinsky in commentary on a local television stations eNCA), the debate highlighted a very real tension at the heart of South Africa’s democracy. Should MPs have the right to vote according to their conscience?

The role of the political party

Universally, the rise of political parties alongside the expansion of parliamentary democracy inevitably came at the cost of the independence of individual MPs. It is rare today for any individual not belonging to a political party to secure a seat in any parliament. Belonging to a political party has become a necessity except in the most exceptional of circumstances.

In turn, belonging to a political party requires that MPs or representatives sign up to a Faustian deal. If they want to progress politically, they have to follow the party line, even on occasions where they disagree with party policy.

This is entrenched in the communist notion of ‘democratic centralism’ – once the party has ‘democratically’ made its decision, the individual is politically bound to implement it.

In practice, however, party systems are not always so rigid as this implies.

Parliamentary histories are stuffed not merely with internal party rebellions but individual MPs voting against their own governments. Internal rebellions are prone to occur where party leaderships lose the confidence of their backbenchers (who are usually relaying extra-parliamentary discontent). And individual MPs may choose to vote against their party’s line – often for religious or ethical reasons. They may also do so because they see themselves as representatives of constituencies or interests that are offended by party policy.

Political parties handle such problems in different ways. Often they will seek to fudge policies so as to contain intra-party differences. Alternatively, minority factions within parties may grow to become a majority and secure a change in party policy.

Where parties are split down the middle, party leaderships may try to resolve difficulties by suspending party directives and allowing a free vote (as during the Brexit referendum debate). On key issues, individual MPs who threaten to vote against their parties may be bribed by promises of bounty for their constituents or by compromises made to relevant policy proposals, although ultimately the threat of expulsion from the party lies in waiting.

Individual MPs may also be buoyed up by the honour that accrues to them if they are perceived to be standing their ground on matters of political or moral principle. They may earn the respect of their political opponents as much as the brick-bats of their party colleagues.

Challenge for the ANC

The variations, inconsistencies and flexibility built into modern party systems clearly stands as a challenge to the contemporary ANC mantra that MPs are slaves to their party’s requirements. Yet the ANC position is by no means without logic. It is indisputable that under South Africa’s electoral system, as it stands, MPs are elected as party representatives and not as individuals.

National-list proportional representation allows for no individuality of candidates. Voters do not have individual MPs. They simply vote for a party. Under this system MPs are allowed minimal scope for conscience.

But, ultimately, the ANC has no answer to the popular expectation that, when pressed on major issues, MPs should vote for what they think is right. They should vote against that which they think is wrong. They must be guided by their conscience rather than their pockets.

Voters seem to expect that when MPs refer to each other as ‘honourable’ that they should indeed embody ‘honour’. Yet equally, the public distaste for blatant political opportunism, as displayed during the floor-crossing episodes of yesteryear when minority party MPs jumped ship, mainly to join the ANC for personal and financial reasons, it is clear that voters expect MPs to respect the outcomes of elections.

Discipline yes, but courage too

Seemingly there is no consistent set of principles and practices which will satisfactorily resolve the tension between party demands and individual conscience. Yet what does become clear is that there is much more scope for flexibility, tolerance of dissent, and – yes – freedom of conscience in systems where MPs are directly responsible to constituents rather than, as in South Africa, they are wholly accountable to their parties.

Is this why the ANC so forthrightly rejected the recommendations of the Van Zyl Slabbert Commission on Electoral Reform? The commission recommended a mixed electoral system, whereby MPs would be elected on party platforms but from multi-member constituencies?

There is no escaping the necessity of party systems to get the job of government done. Voters understand the need for party discipline. Yet as the vote of no confidence also shows, they also want MPs to have the courage to rebel.

Roger Southall, Professor of Sociology, University of the Witwatersrand

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Trump's threat of 'fire and fury' is a gift to North Korea's propaganda machine

Whose fire? Whose fury? EPA/KCNA

Anyone who thought August might offer a lull in geopolitical crises got a rude awakening when, from the confines of his New Jersey golf resort, Donald Trump essentially foretold a thermonuclear war with North Korea. Asked about the north’s recent missile tests, he said Pyongyang had “best not make any more threats to the US”, or “they will be met with fire and fury and frankly power the likes of which the world has never seen before”.

Though the relationship between the US and North Korea can hardly be called stable, this so-far-rhetorical escalation is something new. Washington has rarely, if ever, used language infuriating and colourful enough to match Pyongyang’s style, but times have changed. One news outlet has even set up a game called Who said it: Donald Trump or Kim Jong-un?

While this would all be amusing if it wasn’t for real, the world is facing the real possibility of instability, military escalation, and a potential nuclear conflict that could cause millions of casualties. In an ironic role reversal, many are now pondering whether Trump’s US is in fact any more rational than Kim’s North Korea.

Still, it’s easy to forget that the north has been developing nuclear weapons for the better part of the last two decades. While the current situation has been precipitated by a volley of tit-for-tat missile tests, UN sanctions and tweets, Pyongyang’s overall nuclear strategy and propaganda style has hardly changed.

So what should we make of Pyongyang’s current nuclear rhetoric? What does it say about the government – and where it might lead?

Loud and clear

As do most totalitarian governments, North Korea speaks through various spokespeople – but with one voice. Over the years, its messages have been communicated clearly and without divergence to the rest of the world by foreign ministers, officials from the Korean People’s Army, or the three Kims themselves. To this effect, North Korea’s goals have been articulated clearly and publicly. At the Seventh Workers’ Party Congress in 2016, Kim Jong-Un put it very bluntly:

We will consistently take hold on the strategic line of simultaneously pushing forward the economic construction and the building of nuclear force and boost self-defensive nuclear force both in quality and quantity as long as the imperialists persist in their nuclear threat and arbitrary practice.

These messages are disseminated within the north by official press outlets, such as Rodong Sinmun, the official newspaper of the Central Committee of the Workers’ Party, and abroad via the English-language Korean Central News Agency. Since these channels are all tightly controlled, the Kim government usually communicates quite consistently, its stock-in-trade being a high daily dose of anti-US and anti-Japan rhetoric laced with acerbic takes on South Korea and self-aggrandising reports on its own policies and accomplishments.



Pyongyang’s claims about its nuclear programme have followed a similar pattern. Take this piece, from July 1, 2017:

[North Korea] has towered as a world’s power with military strength and self-fortitude based on the single-minded unity and nuclear force which no other country and nation have achieved.

The claims made have also been remarkably consistent over the years, centring on the need to develop nuclear weapons to avoid a potential American preemptive strike and mentioned in more than 400 similar articles by the KCNA over the past two decades. On May 31, 2017, it had this to say:

[North Korea] had access to the nuclear deterrent for self-defence, according to its independent decision as it was badly needed for preserving its dignity and vital rights from the nuclear threat posed by the US.

The north is also adamant that its nuclear arsenal is not intended for use as a bargaining chip (though it has been in the past, especially during the Six-Party Talks when they were functioning). This was most recently reported on August 7 via an official North Korean mission statement at the United Nations, and on the same day by Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho’s message at the ASEAN Regional Forum: “We will, under no circumstances, put the nukes and ballistic rockets on the negotiating table.”

So is the world really closer to a nuclear apocalypse than it was just a week ago?

The nuclear path

If we look beyond the propaganda at military reality, perhaps not. Donald Trump’s “fire and fury” statement might have been motivated by reports that the north has finally developed nuclear warheads small enough to fit inside missiles, but even if those reports are true, they don’t necessarily change the game. Pyongyang is still trying to develop a reliable delivery system, and has yet to solve the complex problem of missile re-entry.

As for the diplomatic side of things, many are calling for renewed negotiations – but an entirely new approach might be needed since the Six-Party Talks, meant to deal with the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, have been at a standstill for years. More troublesome at this point is Washington’s blurring of military and diplomatic lines, and the flurry of mixed messages it’s sending.

Judged against Trump’s own rhetoric, it seems the Kim regime’s survival now depends more than ever on developing a full-blown nuclear weapon as quickly as possible to deter any preemptive American action. But more than that, Trump’s madcap statements provide the regime with exactly the sort of rhetorical material it needs.

North Korea’s political culture revolves incredibly tightly around its leader’s directives, so for the purposes of domestic propaganda, it needs the American president himself to issue the most belligerent of threats. And so Trump’s words, especially his most inflammatory ones, are all grist to the propaganda mill; any explicit threats or attacks will only bolster the North’s argument that it has a right to pursue an independent nuclear deterrent to resist a belligerent, hostile West.

The effects of Trump’s mode of engagement are clear in the north’s direct response to the “fire and fury” comment: the threat of a potential military strike on the island of Guam, which houses the US’s Andersen Air Force Base. This flare up urgently needs to be diplomatically deescalated, and no meaningful progress will be made on the nuclear issue until that happens. In the meantime, it would not be surprising to see Pyongyang test another missile – and exactly what Donald Trump might say or do in response is anyone’s guess.

Virginie Grzelczyk, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, Aston University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Pros and cons of the three women running for South Africa's presidency

Women singing at a South African ANC Women’s League meeting.Three senior women in ANC are contesting the presidency of the party.
Reuters/Siphiwe Sibeko

South Africa celebrates Women’s Day on August 9th to mark the day in 1956 when 20 000 women marched to the Union Buildings in Pretoria to insist on their rights.

Women’s Day provides an opportune moment to reflect on what it would mean for South Africa to be governed by a woman president after the 2019 elections. Three women from the governing African National Congress are running as candidates - Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, Baleka Mbete and Lindiwe Sisulu. Because voters vote for a party, the President is elected by the members of parliament. The ANC holds the majority vote, which means that the president will most likely be an ANC candidate.

All three women are ANC stalwarts who can be considered as part of the exile generation. They were all active in the liberation struggle, and all have contributed to the country since the first democratic elections in 1994.

The question is: will having a woman as president lead to more of the same in terms of the trajectory the ANC has been on since 2007 when Jacob Zuma was elected as President?

And, will a woman at the helm bring a set of feminist values to the table? Women leaders who believe in substantive representation, more than merely numbers in government, will bring a commitment to changing conditions of gender inequality to the position. They are normally influenced by feminist values. Former British Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher, for example, did not care about women’s equality at all, while Michelle Bachelet implemented far reaching gender policies in Chile.

A woman at the helm

If South Africans get a woman who will govern in the same way as a man they would have gained nothing but a switch in gender. But because the three candidates also participated in the liberation struggle, they know how difficult it is for women to advance in political parties and how gender equality needs to be taken off the back burner.

Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma.
GCIS

Dlamini-Zuma, Sisulu and Mbete are more or less the same age and have long track records as political leaders. In many respects they have similar or better track records than some of the ANC’s male leaders. All three are well educated.

Dlamini-Zuma holds a medical degree from the University of Bristol. She has held three ministerial positions – health, foreign affairs and home affairs. She was also chair of the African Union from 2012 to 2017.

It’s both unfair and sexist to talk about Dlamini-Zuma solely in terms of the fact that she is President Jacob Zuma’s ex-wife as though she has no other credentials.

As Minister of Health she spearheaded policies that made health care free for poor women and children under the age of six.

During her period at the AU she championed gender equality and a gender vision for 2063.

Baleka Mbete, holds a diploma in teaching and is the national chairperson of the ANC and the speaker of the National Assembly. She was the Secretary-General of the ANC Women’s League from 1991-1993 and a member of the presidential panel of the country’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission. She has not held a ministerial post.

Baleka Mbete.
GCIS

Staining her record was her connection with a scandal involving the misuse of parliamentary air tickets, as well as fraudulently obtaining her driver’s licence.

Lindiwe Sisulu is the daughter of ANC icons Walter and Albertina Sisulu which is why she’s often referred to as “ANC royalty”. She has a BA Honours degree in history and political studies and is studying for a PhD.

Of the three candidates she has the most experience in the executive. She has held six ministerial portfolios, including defence and intelligence.

What makes her an excellent candidate is the fact that she is not involved in any faction and has a good record of good governance. She will also be able to deal with the rot in the intelligence sector since she worked as an intelligence officer under Zuma when he was head of ANC intelligence when the organisation was banned.

But what is their relationship with the organised women’s sector?

The candidates and women

Mbete was the Secretary-General of the ANC Women’s League at a time before it became a tea club for male leaders. She was also the chair of the women’s caucus in parliament. She understands feminism and was considered a militant member of the women’s league when it returned from exile. At the time she insisted that women should be mobilised to fight for their rights.

But her years as the speaker of parliament have marred her track record. When members of the opposition Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) – which included women – were forcibly removed by security guards during Zuma’s State of the Nation Address she stood by as they were manhandled and assaulted.

For its part, the women’s caucus never really took off.

Dlamini-Zuma was a member of the Gender Action Group during the Convention for a Democratic South Africa. But in the first parliament she didn’t stand out as a vocal supporter of feminism in the same way as many other women MPs. These included Pregs Govender and Frene Ginwala.

The case for a woman president

I believe that South Africans should support a woman for president. The fact that they’re being scrutinised more closely than male candidates points to the patriarchal assumption that woman cannot possibly be well qualified as political leaders.

South Africa has lost many opportunities to appoint a woman president. Take Phumzile Mlambo-Ncguka, who served as deputy president under Thabo Mbeki. She went on to become the executive director of UN Women where she is doing a sterling job.

What the ANC needs is a candidate who will unite its factions and start to root out corruption. It should be a candidate with a good track record of clean and committed governance and one who is committed to promote a women’s equality agenda.

Lindiwe Sisulu.
GCIS

The fact that Dlamini-Zuma has hedged her bets with the Zuma camp has made her a member of a faction. She’s supported by the ANC Women’s League and the ANC Youth League. But the credibility of both organisations is severely damaged. This may not, however, be the perception of many hardcore ANC supporters and may win her large numbers of votes at the ANC conference due to be held in December.

Support for Dlamini-Zuma could have far reaching consequences. If she’s viewed as representing an extension of Zuma’s patronage networks, her election as his successor could lead to a split in the party, weakening it severely in next year’s general election.

The right woman therefore needs to be supported.

During her term as speaker Mbete used strong arm tactics against opposition parties. Her decisions may have left many voters with a bad taste in their mouth. She is also viewed as a Zuma ally.

That leaves Sisulu, who may be a dark horse. But is she a darker horse than Cyril Ramaphosa, another contender for the presidency?

What is unfortunate is that so far none of the three women have made gender equality the focus of their campaigns.

Amanda Gouws, Professor of Political Science, Stellenbosch University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

No confidence vote: a victory for Zuma, but a defeat for the ANC

South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma celebrates with his supporters after surviving a no-confidence motion in parliament.
Reuters/Mike Hutchings

Jacob Zuma is a natural born political survivor. Yesterday South Africa’s president overcame an eighth no confidence vote, despite the mountain of evidence of corrupt conduct that has emerged in recent months.

But it may prove to be a Pyrrhic victory – for him and most certainly for his party, the African National Congress (ANC). “Hollow” was the word that one opposition leader, Bantu Holomisa, used afterwards, while the Economic Freedom Fighter’s leader Julius Malema employed a well-known Africa proverb: “When you want to eat an elephant you do it bit by bit”.

Zuma’s political death is proving to be a protracted affair. There was an air of expectation yesterday that recent allegations of “state capture” – attested to by a welter of evidence from the so-called #guptaleaks – would be enough to persuade a sufficient number of the members of the ruling ANC to support an opposition-sponsored no confidence vote.

In the event, after a fractious two-hour debate scarred by ugly banter across the floor of the National Assembly, the motion fell short of the 201 votes required to remove Zuma and his cabinet. But yesterday was remarkably different. On the previous seven occasions that the opposition have tabled no confidence votes since Zuma’s power began in 2009, the ANC has remained steadfast in its support for its beleaguered president. Yesterday’s vote was a watershed for the liberation movement that brought an end to apartheid in 1994: around 30 of the 223 ANC MPs who voted yesterday sided with the opposition.

As the ANC’s chief whip, Jackson Mthembu, ruefully observed afterwards, this is true pause for reflection for the ruling party. Never before has such a significant number of the parliamentary caucus rebelled and defied the party whip.

Zuma’s streetwise political skills are well-known. So too is his adeptness at using executive patronage to secure the loyalty of party members as has been made clear in the revelations arising from his links to the Gupta family.

The secret ballot saga

But the back story to the unprecedented rebellion within his own party was the method of voting as much as Zuma’s political skullduggery. For the first time, parliament was compelled to allow MPs to vote in secret. This followed a legal challenge to the rules by Holomisa’s United Democratic Movement.

In its 22 June judgment, the Constitutional Court – an institutional beacon of excellence and integrity in the context of the “capture” of other state bodies – had held that the speaker of the National Assembly had the discretion to order a secret ballot in exceptional circumstances.

Since the ruling, a number of ANC MPs have gone public with testimony of intimidation and even death threats in the case of Makhosi Khoza. In turn, the ANC shot itself in the foot when one region of Zuma’s home province, KwaZulu-Natal, demanded that disciplinary proceedings be brought against Khoza after she had called for Zuma to go. The intervention served to underline the need to depart from the generally established principle of open voting.

Accordingly, speaker Baleka Mbete had little legal choice but to opt for a secret ballot, even though it would encourage dissenting voices among the ranks of the ANC caucus. Politically, she had probably done the political mathematics and, as the national chairperson of the ANC, was confident that regardless of the shield that she said was necessary to protect ANC MPs so that they could vote with their conscience, the numbers would still work out in Zuma’s favour.

And so it proved: 177 MPs voted for the motion, and 198 against (with 9 abstentions). Since the opposition has 151 MPs, at least three of whom were absent through illness, it means that that at least 29 and possibly as many as 35 ANC MPs jumped ship.

Win-win for the opposition

But it was a win-win situation for the opposition. Afterwards, in the unseasonably balmy winter’s evening outside the parliament in Cape Town, one after another of the leaders of the opposition spoke cheerfully about the political future and of the health of South Africa’s democracy.

They may have lost the battle, but they feel confident that they will win the war. After all, it is clear that Zuma is now their greatest electoral asset, with several polls (including the respected Afrobarometer), showing that across race and class, trust in Zuma has collapsed since he was returned to power for a second term in 2014.

Last year, the ANC suffered its first major electoral setbacks since the advent of democracy in 1994 when it lost control of three major city governments in Pretoria, Johannesburg and Port Elizabeth. Now, its political management skills appear to be in disarray as factionalism and deep, painful divisions dominate internal party politics. This is all unfolding in the run-up to what is likely to be a bloody five-yearly national elective conference in December, at which the ANC will elect a new President of the party to succeed Zuma.

That may or may not mark the start of a new era of renewal for the ANC. But Zuma’s term as President of the country is only due to end in 2019. A lot more damage could be done to the country’s economy and its prospects for growth.

The consequence of that, however, is that the ANC will face the prospect of losing its majority at the national polls for the first time since Nelson Mandela’s historic victory in 1994.

Yesterday may have been a victory for Zuma. But in the longer term it is likely to come to be seen as a major defeat for the ANC.

Richard Calland, Associate Professor in Public Law, University of Cape Town

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Both sides cheer as Zuma survives no-confidence vote

Eighth unsuccessful motion of no confidence was much closer than most people expected

By Sune Payne
8 August 2017

There were protests in Cape Town, Pretoria and Port Elizabeth against President Jacob Zuma on Tuesday. Photo: Ashraf Hendricks

There were cheers from both sides when Speaker Baleka Mbete announced the results of the vote on the motion of no confidence in President Jacob Zuma.

The motion against Zuma was defeated, again, but only by 21 votes. For the opposition it was a first. Never before had its regular motions of no confidence come so close to winning. It was generally conceded, by all except the ANC, that Zuma’s victory was so close that he should be a worried man.
Nevertheless, ANC Chief Whip Jackson Mthembu looked relieved at the end of it all and Zuma did what he usually does. He took to the podium to sing and dance in celebration at what was effectively a very close shave.

The motion sought to have president Zuma removed from office on the basis of Section 102 (2) of the Constitution. The DA referred to the removal of former Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan and his deputy Mcebisi Jonas and accused Zuma of “irresponsible, reckless and irrational leadership”.

This was the eighth unsuccessful motion of no confidence to be brought against the President by the opposition Democratic Alliance since he came to power in 2009.

Buy this time there was one important difference. After a Constitutional Court hearing, the Speaker of the National Assembly, Baleka Mbete, was left to decide whether calls by opposition parties for a secret ballot would be permitted. Their concern was that ANC members would be penalised if they voted with the opposition in an open vote and needed the protection of a secret ballot if they wanted to bring their party leader down.

Mbete took a while to reach a decision, but at the last minute, less than 24 hours before the vote, agreed that Members had the right to honour their pledge to the Constitution above their loyalty to their own parties.

This was a significant about-turn, and it seemed to have resulted in an unprecedented increase in ANC votes in support of the motion, suggesting that more members of the ruling party than was expected had voted according to their conscience instead of their party position.

For the first time, private voting booths were erected in the Chamber to allow Members to vote privately. The ballot boxes were then sealed and counting was conducted under strict supervision.
After a two-hour voting process and with a total of 384 votes cast, Mbete announced 198 MPs had voted against the Democratic Alliance’s bid to remove Zuma, while 177 voted in favour, meaning the motion was defeated by 21 votes. There were nine abstentions.

ANC MPs held a caucus meeting during the morning in which they were told the party line was to protect Zuma. They emerged from the meeting appearing confident and buoyant.

But the opposition speakers lashed out at Zuma during the debate and made impassioned appeals to ANC members to vote with them to remove Zuma from office.

Zuma’s relationship with the Guptas was one of the chief criticisms of Zuma, with Reverend Kenneth Meshoe from the African Christian Democratic Party saying “the extent of allegations of state capture is treasonous.”

The Economic Freedom Fighters’ Julius Malema stated “we are here to remove Duduzane, in a reference to Duduzane Zuma, the president’s son, who according to the #GuptaLeaks has played a significant role in the controversial allegations of corruption involving Zuma and the Guptas.
As leaders of each of Parliament’s opposition parties took to the podium many declared their support for the motion.

Pieter Groenewald from the Freedom Front Plus called the President a blame shifter; asking when South Africa could have trust in the president. The African People’s Convention’s Themba Godi, who is also the Chairperson of Parliament Standing Committee on Public Accounts, said his party would support the motion as it wanted ethical leadership in the country.

Bantu Holomisa from the United Democratic Movement summed up the mood in one statement. “We have to seize the opportunity to put our country first.”

For the ANC Arts and Culture Minister Nathi Mthethwa said the allegation that the recall of Gordhan and Jonas led to a downgrade and recession was fake news. He chose instead to focus on the successes of the ANC in developing access to electricity, social grants and education.

While the votes were being counted, ANC members and their supporters in the public gallery danced and sang their praises to the ruling party.

They came out of the debate victorious and joined crowds of ANC supporters gathered in the parliamentary precinct and the surrounding streets.

Cape Town and cities elsewhere in the countries saw massive protests during the day both pro and against Zuma as ordinary citizens demanded to have their voices heard.

---

Published originally on GroundUp .

---