The Deputy Speaker of Parliament Nomaindia Mfeketo is not fit for purpose. She does not know the formal rules that govern parliamentary debate. Nor does she understand the point of these rules. Given that it is her job description to be an expert on these crucial determinants of an effective Parliament, quite frankly she should either get something of a skills-upgrade or be "redeployed" in the interests of democracy. Her shocking handling of rather pedestrian criticism levelled against President Jacob Zuma by Congress of the People (COPE) MP Mluleki George is the basis of my own criticism against her.
Here are the essential facts in case you missed the incident (see transcript here). So, George had the audacity of saying in Parliament during the debate on Zuma's state of the nation speech that he felt that our national leader was leading us down a path of lawlessness. Mfeketo's response was to ask George to withdraw the statement. He refused and was ordered to leave the chamber. The rest of the COPE bunch left with him, followed by Democratic Alliance (DA) MPs.
Mfeketo justified her decision on the basis that George's comment was offensive and did not show adequate respect for the office of the president. She claimed that this was in line with rule 66 of the National Assembly rules, which prohibit the competency of some office bearers to be reflected upon.
What utter rubbish, and on so many different levels. First, Mfeketo does not know the very rules she is meant to be enforcing. Rule 66 explicitly refers to the judiciary. It is designed to ensure the integrity of judges remain intact by not allowing political bullies to undermine separation of powers with spurious attacks on the judges.
Indeed, where such judges are deemed to be incompetent, their removal should properly be sought through carefully designed procedures such as the introduction of a substantive motion to that effect.
Furthermore, r ule 66 explicitly allows the government to have its competency reflected upon. One hardly needs to read the fine print to know beforehand that it must be a lie to imagine that MPs cannot express views on government leaders' competency. If they cannot do so, then the very point of parliamentary oversight is thrown out the window.
Other rules were ignored also. Rule 69(1), for example, entitles a member to explain themselves when they think that "a material part of (their) speech had been misquoted or misunderstood". The intolerance shown by Mfeketo in respect of George's request to explain himself smacked of disregard for this entitlement.
Rule 72, furthermore, compels Mfeketo to listen and consider a point of order before responding to it. She violated this rule by not allowing a DA member to express himself when he stood up to offer a point of order.
Clearly Mfeketo has no appetite for complying with the rule book. This is dramatically ironic, given that she was pretending, albeit on the basis of a rule that does not exist, to censure an MP for not following parliamentary rules. Her very own behaviour was a clearer case in point.
Second, and more importantly, it is ridiculous to claim that the content of the statement that was made by George was "offensive" or an affront to the Presidency in his person or to his office in general. It was not. If I was George, I would be rather annoyed that I should make the headlines for such an unremarkable statement. I would prefer 15 minutes of fame for saying something that is way sexier.
This underscores the pettiness and perniciousness of Mfeketo's ruling. If it is deemed "offensive" to dare to criticise the president as leading us down a path of "lawlessness", then what kind of criticism against the president would be acceptable to her? Would it be okay to say he is a poor speaker, or is that "offensive" too? Should we stick to criticising his dance moves (other than, of course, being "offensive" by claiming that he fell when he recently danced at his latest wedding)? Mfeketo is setting the bar for robust debate at a meaninglessly low level.
Third, Mfeketo clearly does not understand the justification behind Parliament's rules. These rules are designed to maximise government accountability. This is why we have related rules such as the one governing parliamentary privilege. So not only was George's comment within the bounds of free speech provisions that would hold outside Parliament, it also fell within the further and wider ring of protection specially afforded to MPs for good reason.
The last thing we want is a society in which criticising the president lands you in trouble. Thoughtless censuring of criticism will get us there and will indeed lead us down a path to lawlessness. Thanks, Nomaindia Mfeketo, for your contribution in undermining the role of Parliament. You are a useful cadre but a useless deputy speaker. Our teenage democracy deserves better.
McKaiser is an associate at the Centre for the Study of Democracy and a contributing editor of Business Day, where this article first appeared. See also http://www.safferpolitics.co.za/
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
