Nkosikhulule Nyembezi
CAPE TOWN - With President Cyril Ramaphosa reeling, Parliament was a stormy place at the State of the Nation Address (Sona) debate last week. The impact on the president’s fate was minutely scrutinised. As a result, a separate exchange in the background during that session has had less attention than it deserves.
On February 16, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, the Speaker of the National Assembly, once more declined the African Transformation Movement’s (ATM) latest request for a secret ballot on the proposed motion of no confidence against Ramaphosa.
This ATM’s latest request follows the ruling of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in December 2021 in which the court set aside the previous decision of the Speaker to decline the request for a secret ballot due to the flawed process followed in arriving at a decision.
You might think this was a reasonable request for a motion-sponsoring political party to make. But no. For at this point the Speaker’s intervention told the ATM: “I’m not aware of any threats to the lives or property of any members of the Assembly resulting from their exercise of their duties as members of the Assembly, to lead me to the conclusion that the circumstances warrant a departure from the Constitutional foundation principles of openness and transparency.”
Reprimanded, the ATM might decide to either move on to convince the rest of the MPs to openly vote supporting its motion or further challenge the decision through other political means that might end-up seriously embarrassing Ramaphosa.
Why did the Speaker do this? Why is a secret vote not instantly available upon request, especially after Mapisa-Nqakula has admittedly taken into consideration that the country recently held free and fair local government elections; that the president delivered his Sona in an atmosphere that allowed all political parties to freely debate matters of national importance; that the robust Sona debate does not point to a toxic environment but confirms that members can express themselves without fear or favour, and that the president has received and immediately shared with the public the first two reports of the State Capture Commission?
What is there to fear or hide? And for what good reason is this restraint linked, in the Speaker’s exercise of her discretion, to the “political contestation [that] exists within the governing party, of which the president is the national leader”?
The reasoning is dubious, absurd and not a little hypocritical in an environment where we elected Parliament to represent the people and not just political parties. It is ripe for rejection and further contestation.
We should be clear. What the Speaker told the ATM and the nation last week was not some idiosyncratic assertion. Her intervention was institutional, not personal. She was restating established practice as set out in the rules of Parliament, giving her discretionary powers to determine voting procedures for such motions. She was saying exactly what other former Speakers would say if an MP ever tried to request for a secret ballot on the proposed motion of no confidence against a president.
All of these raise a much larger question for SA’s democracy. Since we are a constitutional democracy – and proud of it, in the majority of cases – how can it be that our Parliament is gagged – and is gagging itself – from voting by a secret ballot whenever such a procedure has been requested? The effect is self-important self-censorship and an unwelcome departure from the same constitutional foundation principles of openness and transparency which Mapisa-Nqakula and the ANC risk subverting.
We should all – Parliament included – prepare to have these conversations more openly. We are adults, entitled to discuss the kind of constitutional democracy under which we live, entitled to discuss what it stands for (not least about the free availability of a secret ballot procedure for determining important political issues), and who is and is not part of it.
This readily available secret ballot procedure happens in other constitutional democracies, but not ours. It ought to start here too, and now, because decisions about demanding accountability from our elected representatives will always impact on skilfully navigating the thin dividing line between secondary internal party power struggles and primary national interests.
Indeed, the basis for the motion is the contention of the ATM that State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) have collapsed on the watch of the president, that he misled Parliament in stating that there will be no load-shedding, but rolling blackouts continue to happen regularly, and other aspects of alleged poor performance by the president.
These are the same issues found in the ANC election manifesto and its 54th conference resolutions, and for which Ramaphosa will be expected to account for at the party’s elective conference in December.
There are clear signs everywhere that most South Africans support the tabling of this motion of no confidence because they appreciate its invaluable role in our constitutional democracy and the necessity to ensure its efficacy through a secret ballot.
Our courts have confirmed that a motion of no confidence in the president is a vital tool to advance our democratic hygiene in so far as it affords the Parliament a vital power and duty to scrutinise and oversee executive action. They also confirmed that the ever present possibility of a motion of no confidence against the president and the Cabinet is meant to keep the president accountable to the Assembly which elects her or him.
Even if Ramaphosa was to announce his willingness to face a secret ballot to test confidence in his leadership, the Speaker would probably still be advising that MPs could not express their views through a secret ballot just because she has discretionary powers to disallow it. This is plain silly. The Speaker is wrong.
It is time for Parliament to stand up for itself by amending its rules to presume in favour of a secret ballot upon request. It is time for the party leaders and senior MPs to get together and find a way to let the sunshine in.
* Nkosikhulule Nyembezi is a policy analyst and human rights activist
Cape Times