DA democratic deficit

The DA understands very little about democracy.

One would have thought that a party that has the word "democratic" in its name would have taken the time to understand this political concept. Not so, with our official opposition. There remains a misconstrued perception as to what democracy is and this usually happens when a political party becomes entrapped in more spin than substance.

Take for instance one of the most basic principles of trias politica or more commonly known as the separation of powers. This principle, fundamental to any democracy and the subject of a number of opinion and scholarly pieces, evolved mainly from the practice of having the executive, legislative and judicial powers, in one person, such as a monarch, to having these separated.

One of the best and most common examples used for the near complete separation of powers is that of the United States of America. The executive, except the President, have to be "interviewed" by Congress after being nominated by the President and before appointment. Other than that they are not members of the Legislature (Congress) and whilst they, the cabinet, have to account to Congress, through Congressional hearings, the President almost never goes to "the Hill" except for the State of the Union Address. Often the US is used as an example of one of the world's best democracies, though it does have its democratic deficits.

South Africa has adopted a hybrid between the Congressional system (US) and the Westminster system (United Kingdom). In the UK, a parliamentary democracy, the executive is formed solely from members of parliament; though it remains, in theory at least, "Her Majesty's" government. Then again the official opposition is "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition".

In South Africa, the President, once elected by the National Assembly, ceases to be a member of parliament (because of the separation of powers principle) though the rest of his cabinet remains members of the National Assembly. In fact, the Constitution of the Republic does make allowance for the President to appoint two cabinet members who are not members of the NA.

The Deputy President however must be a member of the NA (See Section 91 of the Constitution of the Republic). Furthermore, the President and the Cabinet (the Executive) in South Africa, as with the Westminster System, are accountable to Parliament i.e. both Houses, both individually and collectively (Section 92 of the said Constitution).

Yet the hybrid is also expressed in the signs and symbols of the House. Our National Assembly chamber as well as the National Council of Provinces one is U shaped (Congressional) whereas a legislature chamber such as the Western Cape one has two separate sides to it (Westminster). In both Houses, maces or rods are used, pointing to the ruling party (at least in the Western Cape legislature), also symbolising a throw-back to the Westminster system.

The Democratic Alliance justified their walking out of the joint sitting during the State of the Nation Address 2015 based on the principle of the separation of powers. No police, South Africa Police Services and under the executive, they argued could enter the chamber because of the principle of separation of powers.

While the matter has been taken to the courts and will be argued on the legal merits, the Privileges and Powers Act will certainly come under scrutiny as it does allow, as was argued by the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services in his reply to SONA, the "security services", as defined by Section 199 of the Constitution, to enter the "precincts" of parliament; "precincts" include the two chambers.

One wishes not to venture into the legal technicalities, as I don't have a legal background, and the outcome will be confirmed by a court of law. However, it is interesting to look at the matter from a political science point of view.

The SAPS have a visible and, if not, demanding presence in our courts. Not only to marshal accused persons but also to keep order during proceedings including civil ones. The courts (judiciary), especially through the use of SAPS (the executive), maintain draconian order both in respect of the parties involved and the public. In matters which are criminal and even in some civil instances, the state (through the executive) is party to a case.

There is a clear understanding in a court of law of the separation of powers yet armed SAPS (the executive) are present to maintain order. On the instruction of the presiding officer one can be held in contempt of court and arrested by a member of SAPS if causing any disruptions; yet no dissatisfaction from the DA in respect to separation of powers here.

In fact, one could go further and argue that, once again based on the Westminster system, a number of practices are upheld in a court of law that are practiced in parliament. Everyone stands upon the entry of the presiding officer(s) in a court of law. All of us are familiar with the command, by a member of SAPS (the executive): "All rise, the court is in session". Very similar to the entering announcement of: "Madam Speaker" or "the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces" by the sergeant-at-arms (who should form part of the security services).

Another comparison is the reciprocal bow between the presiding officer and the parties involved before the presiding officer takes his/her seat. A bow is also made towards the presiding officer when a member of the parties (or the public) enters or leaves the court while the court is in session.

Notice that despite our strict rules for members of the public in the gallery of non-participation in the proceedings of the House yet, as with a court of law, members must stand upon the entry of the presiding officers. To remain seated in a court while the order was given to rise, one could be viewed to be in contempt of court. You could go on with the comparisons e.g. when summons to court or parliament and one does not pitch that you can face criminal proceedings of contempt of parliament or court as the case may be.

Yet what is important is to recognise that while the proceedings and order of courts and parliament are very similar there is no objection from anyone, least of all the DA, for the presence of security services, as defined in the Constitution.

Correctly one would then automatically point out the role and nature of the presiding officers. This is probably the most evident difference between our courts and parliament. Judicial officers are not meant to be politically bias in the administration of justice or at least this is how it's supposed to be (as if political bias is the only bias one gets). Therefore it does lead to the question of the supposed biasness of the presiding officers in parliament.

In this respect it should firstly be pointed out that it is not the first time a presiding officer in our parliament holds a senior position in the ruling party. The Honourable Mosiua Lekota, for example, was the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces and the National Chairperson of the ANC at the same time from February 1997 to June 1999. There was no problem then with the Chairperson being both a presiding officer in Parliament and senior office bearer of the ruling party.

The Honourable Baleka Mbete was Speaker of the National Assembly and Chairperson of the African National Congress from December 2007 and September 2008 before she was appointed Deputy-President by former President Motlanthe.

During this time our political landscape was an interesting one, said our "political commentators" and "analysts", because parliament, and the National Assembly in particular, was now more vibrant and, if not, vicious in holding the Mbeki Administration to account. It was politically expedient for opposition parties then to point this out as it is politically expedient for opposition parties to accuse the Speaker of bias now.

Secondly and unfortunately some "informed" commentators have fallen into this trap of calling for "neutral" Speaker or at least a Speaker "that does not hold a senior position in the ruling party". Yet if one were to look at the United States example, which as mentioned earlier as one of the democracies we have used to model ours on, then we would see a Vice-President (of the US) being the President of the Senate (one of the houses of Congress); the Vice-President being the Deputy-Leader of the ruling party and presumptive next presidential candidate.

Which brings one to the question of the Speaker in the Western Cape Legislature. Though not a "senior" official of the ruling party of the Western Cape, the Speaker has shown that she can be and will voluntarily be manipulated by the Premier of the Western Cape.

The ANC in the Western Cape did not plan to disrupt SOPA. Rather they used the first opportunity they could, at the first sitting of the House, to clarify a decision of the House which during the recess the Speaker unilaterally overturned. In fact, when the House took this particular decision, the Speaker was out of the country. The outcomes of that decision of the entire House i.e. the DA, ANC, EFF and ACDP, would have embarrassed the Premier and this is why the Speaker intervened.

This manipulation of the Speaker by the Premier and the executive is further exemplified through the attitude of the rest of the DA caucus. When the Speaker had decided to suspend the House for a third time on Friday 20 February 2015, the Premier resolved to present a summarized SOPA to the media.

While busy with the media briefing, the Premier asked for clarity on proceedings in the House (whether they were planning to resume it) and MEC Alan Winde, in the presence of all present including Zille's cabinet and the press, said something to the effect: "we will let the Speaker know when you are done here..." In other words, the Speaker must wait for you, Madam Premier, and take orders from you.

Zille retorted and rightfully so corrected Winde, a senior member of the House and her cabinet, that she, as Premier, had to take instructions from the Speaker. If the Speaker called the House back, she had to end the briefing and return to the House. While that's exactly what happened and the briefing was ended half-way, Winde's utterances exposed the exact point the ANC was trying to make and which they had to make continuously throughout the sitting in reply to SOPA.

Appealing to the rules, the ANC had to keep reminding the presiding officers that they, as presiding officers, were presiding and not the DA Premier, Leader in the Province (Ivan Meyer) or the Chief Whip (Mark Wiley). Here, as the ANC correctly argued, one was not only dealing with an bias Speaker, who was consistently bias in her rulings, but even more so with one that was deliberately and wilfully manipulated by her party.

It was apt that Winston Churchill quoted that famous quote, incorrectly attributed to him, about democracy being the best of the worst kinds of government during a debate on the Act of Parliament. Given its supreme stature in the UK, unlike in SA or the USA where the Constitution is absolute, (the Act of) Parliament serves as a quasi-constitution in the UK and Churchill was debating the merits of what, today, we have termed the democratic deficit.

No doubt, whilst investigating the roots of our democratic system is important, we must recognise the nuances and apply democracy to the context in which it finds itself. Even Churchill, when using this quote in his argument, recognised that democracy in the UK had changed over time and that it was applied differently in different contexts (descriptive) though the fundamentals (substantive), such as the separation of powers, remained intact.

The DA's actions during SONA 2015, their handling of the Western Cape 2015 SOPA as well as their continuous objective of scoring cheap political points and being politically expedient leaves South Africa without a viable alternative never mind a serious opposition. No wonder they have had to team up with the EFF lately. If anything, the DA lacks democracy 101. It is South Africa's democratic deficit.      

Wesley Seale has taught politics at the University of the Western Cape specialising in democratic theory and practice and democracy in South Africa.        

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter