body-container-line-1
14.02.2015 Feature Article

Democracy Means More Than Mere Words

Democracy Means More Than Mere Words
14.02.2015 LISTEN

There are both formal and informal elements in any democratic set-up. The formal elements include (1) free elections - of a Parliament and a President; (2) freedom of the media, of speech and of assembly (3) an independent judiciary and (4) independent state institutions, set up by the Constitution, such as the armed forces and the police; the auditor- general the central bank and so on.

But the above formal elements of democracy become useless if the spirit in which they were enacted is flouted in the day-to-day operations of the democratic state.

The informal aspects of democracy are, indeed, of utmost importance. For they exist to prevent the rulers in a democracy from becoming unresponsive to the popular will, on a continuing basis. When a democracy becomes unmindful of the popular will, it ceases to become a democracy and becomes transformed into an elective dictatorship. This dictatorship, however, can be removed at election time. But that creates an unsatisfactory situation, for although an elective dictatorship may foist itself on the electorate for the period it comes to power until the next election, life must go on in the mean time, and it is possible for an elective dictatorship to use its majority in Parliament to ruin a country totally before it is thrown out at the next election.

Unfortunately, some people in South Africa - the country that unexpectedly attained peaceful democratic rule in 1994, to very high praises from the entire world - appear to have to the conclusion, only 21 years later, that their country has reached the point where the elected rulers want to use their majority in Parliament to do what they want, not what is in the people's interest.

On Thursday, 12 February 2015, President Jacob Zuma arrived in Parliament in Cape Town to give his State of the Union Address. However, the South African Constitution - unlike Ghana's - is democratic enough to allow MPs to ask the President questions, usually after he has completed his State of the Union Address. In this case, however, the questioning began before the President had got fully into his speech. On a 'point of order', a member of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) asked the President, 'When are you going to pay back the money spent on your private house at Nkandla?' The EFF is led by Mr Julius Malema, former Secretary of the Youth League of President Zuma's African National Congress (ANC).

President Zuma tried to explain that there were legal procedures laid out regarding the expenditure on Nkandla, and that these procedures would be observed. But this answer did not satisfy the EFF members and they rose, one after the other, to repeat the question: 'When will you pay the money?' Mr Malema put the issue this way: 'The President is hiding behind legal procedures. The Public Protector has ordered that the money should be paid. Why is the President hiding behind legalities? When is he going to pay the money?'

Eventually, the Speaker ordered that the EFF MPs should be thrown out by the Sergeant-at-Arms. But it was security officials in white shirts, believed to be drawn from the President's protection unit, who invaded the House and began to scuffle with the EFF members. The EFF members fought back. Six were reported to have been injured.

Meanwhile, the security services had - some say illegally - cut off cellphone calls and texts from the Parliament building, so that reporters could not contact their offices or be contacted. The live TV feed from the House was also disrupted. This is how the London Financial Times reported the scene:

QUOTE: 'Chaos flared at the opening of South Africa's Parliament on Thursday when armed security officials ejected opposition MPs from the Assembly after they tried to question President Jacob Zuma over a financial scandal.

In scenes unprecedented in the 21 years since the country held its first democratic election, security officials, dressed in white shirts, scuffled with Julius Malema, the firebrand leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), and other members of his party as they interrupted Mr Zuma's annual State of the Nation Address.

Members of the main opposition party, the Democratic Alliance, as well as other parties, then walked out of Parliament, in protest at the decision by [Ms] Baleka Mbete, the Speaker, to send armed security personnel into the chamber.

Mr Malema said the government responded to political issues not with 'political answers but security apparatus. We are not going anywhere' [he said]…

Mr Bantu Holomisa, leader of the United Democratic Movement, said: 'This is a police state — the ANC is trying to force everybody to toe the line in their own way.'

President Zuma has been dogged by allegations over the $22m spent on security upgrades to his sprawling Nkandla homestead. The Public Protector recommended last year that he repay some of the money, but the President… has refused, insisting he is innocent of any wrongdoing. However, opposition MPs have accused him of avoiding Parliament in recent months to dodge questions over the affair. …' UNQUOTE

A new chapter, then, appears to have been opened in South African politics. Asked why his party had chosen this form of protest, Mr Malema had a simple, apt answer: 'South African only reached this stage in its political development as a result of protests.' He did not mention the Soweto uprising of 1976 and other political eruptions in South Africa, but it appears that Mr Zuma will soon be confronted with the type of situation that forced P W Botham and F W De Klerk out of office. And all because he does not respect the democratic spirit.

By Cameron Duodu

body-container-line