by Nontando Guwa

The men and women of the ANC’s National Executive Committee (NEC) have gathered frequently in past months to deliberate on important challenges facing the nation.

Initially, the debate was dominated by an agenda of disbanding the Directorate of Special Operations also known as the Scorpions. This was as a result of a resolution taken by the ANC in its recent National Conference in Polokwane.

Most participants in this roundtable debate of the NEC were leading figures who have either been investigated for, or convicted of, serious criminal offences by the Scorpions. Also in their midst was Tony Yengeni, a convicted fraudster who is proving to have very little regard for the rule of law.

The speed with which the NEC and the ANC wanted the Scorpions disbanded left many wondering what it was they wanted to hide so hastily.

A Bill formerly known as The General Law Amendment Bill quickly made its way to Parliament. The Bill sought to incorporate the Scorpions into the South African Police Service (SAPS). A national outcry arose where citizens demanded to be consulted in this matter.

A series of what the ruling party termed as public hearings was then carried out throughout the nine provinces. However, these meetings were nothing more than ANC rallies, or imbizos. Anyone with an opposing view to that of the ANC of disbanding the Scorpions was booed down by the ANC supporters attending the meetings, and was not protected by the facilitators of these meetings; and no respect was given to members of the opposition parties. Unruly behaviour by ANC supporters, like that displayed at the Polokwane conference, was the order of the day at these meetings, and as a result, the ANC and its supporters ensured that the public participation space was closed to anyone not an ANC member.

The parliamentary committee officials deployed to facilitate these meetings appeared neither skilled enough, nor inclined, to facilitate a healthy debate on sensitive and controversial issues where everyone would be afforded equal rights to speak freely without intimidation.

In fact, they appeared to encourage and support the indecent behaviour of ANC supporters at these meetings.

Sadly, in our democracy, public participation is a mere token to rubber-stamp the ruling party’s decisions; whether those decisions seek to better our country or not seems to be little cause for concern in the general public.

Sitting in Parliament debating the future of the Scorpions are some 220 Members of Parliament (MPs), if not more, who have been investigated by the Scorpions on the Travelgate saga, including National Assembly Speaker Baleka Mbethe.

It doesn’t take a degree in law to realise that these MPs are biased, and on the grounds of conflict of interest, should not participate in the debate.

A Cape Town businessman, Hugh Glenister, wrote to Mbethe requesting that these MPs recuse themselves from debating the future of the Scorpions, but the Speaker’s Office rejected the demands. Glenister approached the High Court to intervene and order these MPs to disclose the fact that they had been investigated, and some even convicted by the Scorpions in the past, and therefore recuse themselves in the debate.

Leading the Scorpions debate is the Safety and Security Portfolio Committee, whose chairperson was implicated in the Travelgate matter. Other high-ranking MPs who had been implicated include the Minister of Safety and Security and Home Affairs.

As we await the final verdict on the future of the Scorpions, South Africans need to ask themselves this question: “Had it been the South African Police investigating their Chief Commissioner Jacky Selebi, would he have been charged by now?”

(Especially considering the overwhelming statistics: The Scorpions had an 85% success rate in their investigations while the SAPS rank in the region of 50%.)

Triumphantly in April 2008, taking us away from the Scorpions debate, the government approved constitutional amendments to ban the floor-crossing of MPs and ward councillors. The Bill containing the amendments sought to abolish floor-crossing in the national assembly, provincial legislatures and municipal councils.

This effectively meant that MPs would no longer be able to become members of other parties while retaining their seats at national, provincial and local levels of government.

Ebrahim Fakir of the Centre for Policy Studies said floor-crossing needed to be abolished because it substantially eroded the credibility of legislative and representative political institutions, and was abused in the scramble for political advantage. Fakir believes that the debate that has ensued around floor-crossing since its inception in 2004 is indicative of the maturity of South African democracy.

In contrast with the recent decisions that government had made, one could comfortably say that the scrapping of floor-crossing will eventually strengthen our democracy, particularly service delivery at local government level, as political uncertainties and squabbles had a negative impact on service delivery at local government level.

As the dust was settling and the policy environment was quietening down, Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang proposed the Medicine and Related Substances Amendment Bill. In this Bill, Tshabalala-Msimang proposed a two-tier system of approval and registration of medicines for use in South Africa where she would have a final say in the process.

Anyone who cares about their health would surely prefer that scientists decide on the registration of medicines based on scientific empirical evidence, and not political influence. Fortunately for us, the committee agreed that there was a need for a seamless process of certification and registration that would make the proposed South African Health Products Regulatory Authority the sole body to register medicines and related substances.

And just when we thought it was all over, and that we were finally approaching an era of stability and responsible decision-making in government, Judge Nicholson stirred it all up again in his ruling in the case of ANC president Jacob Zuma. In his ruling, Judge Nicholson accused three successive National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) Heads – Bulelani Ngcuka, Vusi Pikoli and Moketedi Mpshe – of being influenced by Mbeki and his cabinet’s improper “meddling” and failing to prosecute “without fear or favour”. He concluded that there was a pattern of public interference in Zuma’s case that continued from 2003 to December last year, when Zuma was recharged after Mbeki lost the ANC presidency in Polokwane.

As a result of these utterances by the Judge, the ANC’s NEC decided to recall Mbeki from the office of President of South Africa. Gwede Mantashe – the ANC’s Secretary General – in an interview with the SABC admitted that the decision to oust Mbeki was based on Judge Nicholson’s ruling. He said that “Parliament must still develop a formula to deal with the recall”, meaning that this was not a well-thought-out situation.

As the politics of the day in South Africa get murkier and murkier, the international community notes with appreciation the maturity of our democracy. One however wonders if what we are displaying as a country is a mature democracy, or if we are seeing a change in politics.

Is this politics influenced by the liberation struggle, or politics for personal gain?

Transformer Vol. 14 No. 5 Oct-Nov 2008