SECTION 57 (2)(d) of the constitution states the National Assembly must provide for the recognition of the leader of the largest opposition party in the Assembly as the Leader of the Opposition. But the designation is merely titular. The constitution affords that person no formal power, only recognition on the basis that their party has the second-greatest number of votes. That party is currently the Democratic Alliance (DA). The ambiguous nature of the title means there has been some debate over whom it refers to. Helen Zille is the DA federal leader; but she does not sit in Parliament and, as the relevant clause falls under the section detailing those powers afforded to the National Assembly, one could argue that it refers to the leader in the House. This has resulted in the informal title most often afforded Mmusi Maimane: leader of the opposition in Parliament. But as there are no prescripts accompanying it, by what measure is Maimane actually the leader? In other words, to what extent does he lead the opposition? Does he set the oppositional agenda in Parliament? Is he the most forceful leader in the House? The most charismatic? Do his words command attention and his actions necessitate change? The answer to all these questions, on the available evidence, seems to be a resounding no. The person who has really set the agenda in the National Assembly in this way is the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) , Julius Malema. This is not a comment on the nature of the message the EFF wishes to deliver to South Africa, nor the strategy and tactics it uses to do so. It is exclusively a comment about impact. Love him or hate him, Malema has, by some distance, defined the discussion emanating from our fifth democratic Parliament. And, never mind the opposition, one could go so far as to say he has forced even the African National Congress (ANC) to respond and behave on his terms. Prior to the chaos in Parliament last Thursday, there was a telling moment. Maimane had the second question on the order paper. It concerned the director of public prosecutions and the pending inquiry into his conduct. President Jacob Zuma laughed it off. But, more tellingly, he laughed off the follow-up question from Maimane, too. Maimane had rightly asked whether or not there was a contradiction in the president appointing someone who might well have to reinstate charges against him at some point. The obvious answer is, of course, yes. But Zuma then demonstrated exactly how little accountability counts for in Parliament. He said as there were no charges, there was no contradiction. He went on say, You are raising an issue that is a non-issue and closed by dismissing the question entirely, there is no need to answer the question really … your question really is not a question. It is the way Zuma dismissed Maimane that is telling. You can watch the exchange here, starting at 27 minutes. Zuma responds at 28 minutes. His body language is revealing. At 28m33s, you can see Maimane politely nodding as Zuma fobs him off. At 28m40s, you can see Zuma pointing aggressively at Maimane, putting him in his place. At 29 minutes, Maimane takes a sip of water and falls back into his seat, as he is lectured to. From the moment his question ended, he was a passive, even submissive observer. Zuma ends with his contemptuous remark about it not being a question at all, and that is that. What happened here? The answer is: Zuma made a mockery of Maimane, of the leader of the opposition and of the DA. And he did so with a smile on his face. He casually swatted away a question and Maimane as if both were nothing more than pesky flies. And Maimane nodded and sipped water. Significantly, the DA failed to challenge this. It is astounding that the president can simply say, there is no need to answer the question and the DA whippery could not even bring itself to challenge that with the Speaker. What more compelling grounds do you need for an objection? This is the great democratic practice the ANC would later so vehemently defend. Next up was Malema, on Nkandla. The contrast is marked. His follow-up is at 43m35s. He starts by saying, reasonably, we are asking this question precisely because you have not provided an answer. At 41m22s, the shot moves to Zuma. He is pensive, his hands clasped, thumbs circling each other. Zuma laughs at Malema’s remark that he is not going to leave until he gets an answer. But it’s a nervous laugh. Malema is aggressive. He points in rhythmical fashion at the table. We want the date of when you are paying the money. His language is powerful and demanding. At 41m35s, interrupted by a point of order, Malema switches up a gear. His tone becomes more adamant and he points at Zuma. These things of points of order are the ones that you are hiding behind. It is now Malema talking down to Zuma. It is Malema doing the lecturing. Many will say the use of you is disrespectful. It is irrelevant. The power dynamic is evident. President Zuma is on the back foot. Malema is dictating the terms. At 42m30s, in his reply, the president is defensive — arms folded, hands clasped. At 43m20s, the shot cuts to Malema. He glares unhappily. No nodding in polite agreement from him. It is a look of angry frustration. From this point on things descend into chaos. But, for the purpose of this argument, you can tell much already. Zuma regards Maimane as an annoyance. He does not take him nor his questions seriously and fears no reprisal; nor does he have reason to. Zuma might not have taken Malema’s question seriously but he knew he was playing with fire. And the raging inferno that erupted thereafter will only fuel that hesitancy in the future. It is remarkable that Maimane should be the one left flailing. Erudite, well educated, and with a large party machine behind him, it all counts for nothing in the heat of the moment. In the moment it is just you and the president during question time. And it was left to a belligerent street fighter, ethically compromised and ridiculed for a standard-grade G in woodwork, to demonstrate the fortitude and conviction one expects during the president’s question time. True, it then all disintegrated into mayhem but, in the moments before, Malema owned the stage. He made Zuma leave the House. He forced the Speaker to call security. In a brilliant rhetorical sound bite he captured the national mood. He caused Parliament to abandon question time and forced the DA, ANC and even the South African Communist Party to focus their attention solely on the EFF. The headlines the next day were all about the EFF. Whatever you make of his agenda, Malema dictated the terms. And he has Maimane’s number too: Mmusi Maimane, he must not worry. We are here to protect him. If his party can’t do it, then (we will), Malema said after the state of the nation address. What he is saying is, You have neither the gumption nor the wherewithal for a real fight but never fear, the EFF is here. That narrative has found its way into the media — Maimane charms Zuma while Malema turns up the heat, wrote the City Press in summarising the debate. Maimane is the glow of a dying ember; Malema is a blowtorch. Maimane has not been helped by Zille, who has all but vanished from the national political scene. There is a vacuum there too. She seems to focus almost exclusively on the Western Cape these days. Having dismissed any chance of representing the party in Parliament herself, on the suggestion her cabinet might crumble without her, she has left a novice to run the show. Instead, he is getting rings run around him. Such has been the EFF’s effect that the press were already looking to him, and not Maimane, ahead of question time. Fiery Malema-led Nkandla showdown expected in Parliament, Thursday, was the story lead in The Times the day before. Zuma to face questions on Nkandla, prosecutions head, Business Day reported. Maimane is just an appetizer. Malema is the main meal. And he has every one licking their lips. He might be coming at all the biggest problems facing Parliament from a pseudo-revolutionary angle, but Malema has identified them correctly: the position of Speaker is fundamentally tainted; there is a free speech problem in the National Assembly; and accountability, especially where the president is concerned, is deeply inadequate. Maimane’s response to all these things seems to be a gentleman’s rules approach: issue a press statement complaining about the number of unanswered questions. But the EFF knows the rules of street, and it plays by them. It is a curious fact that the ANC has, so often in the past, evoked mass action to make its point, whether by its marching on the Goodman Gallery to protest The Spear or throwing faeces on the steps of the Western Cape legislature. It only cares about democratic good manners when it suits the party. Given a dose of its own medicine and it cries blue murder. But let’s be honest: it is a very particular treatment, and only the EFF is able to deliver it. Julius Malema is the real leader of the opposition in Parliament. Maimane has a problem: he lacks the necessary gravitas. He is, as they say, a nice guy. And we all know where they finish. Share Article:
Posted on: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 12:18:49 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015