Appearing before the commission of inquiry into allegations of state capture last week, President Cyril Ramaphosa called my analysis that the ANC sought to exert direct control over its MPs “fanciful” and a “supposition”. What he subsequently said confirms much of what is wrong with ANC thinking. But, paradoxically, it also shows what remains hopeful with him as head of the party.
In the hearing, with Ramaphosa testifying in his capacity as ANC president, evidence leader advocate Alec Freund quoted from my 2014 book Working Democracy — Perspectives on South Africa’s Parliament at 20 Years. Freund asked Ramaphosa to comment on my assertion that the ANC had formed a political committee in the early 2000s to control the party’s parliamentarians more directly.
This assertion was part of my analysis of the steps taken by the ANC to scupper the inquiry by parliament’s standing committee on public accounts (Scopa) into the notorious R60bn arms deal. Back in 2001, information was increasingly pointing to malfeasance in the arms transactions.
Scopa is unique among parliamentary committees as it was envisaged to be non-partisan in overseeing public spending. Committee members, still relatively fresh to democracy at the time, came together across party lines to scrutinise the arms deal.
They intended to get behind the smoke and mirrors that the governing party, government officials and global arms manufacturers had created. Little did they know that this would be recorded as the first large-scale instance of ANC devastation of democratic institutions in its quest for hegemony.
As Scopa did not have investigative capacity, it instructed the public protector, auditor-general, National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and Special Investigating Unit (SIU) to probe the transactions. The powers of these entities are such that, left to do their work, they would have unearthed the corruption at the heart of the deal.
But the ANC would not allow that to happen. A flurry of interventions followed, driven by then speaker Frene Ginwala at the behest of then president Thabo Mbeki, according to then ANC MP Andrew Feinstein. Particularly worrying to the ANC was the inclusion of the SIU under then judge Willem Heath.
Heath was not a comrade, and therefore could not be controlled. Machinations were set in motion. After much subterfuge, the SIU was not only ejected from the team, overturning Scopa’s decision, but eventually absorbed into the NPA. Heath was axed.
Parliament was the other institution against which ANC fire was directed. The ANC benches in the committee were upended to shake out the “troublemakers”. Along with other membership changes, Feinstein was removed as ANC leader in Scopa.
Committee chair and IFP MP Gavin Woods came under constant attack. The IFP was eventually deprived of the Scopa chairpersonship.
Feinstein was replaced with Vincent Smith who, with newly assigned ANC Scopa member Thabang Makwetla as support act, aggressively railroaded any attempt by opposition MPs to complete the work they had begun. Both Smith and Makwetla have since been implicated in the Bosasa corruption.
The final dousing of oversight was to marginalise Scopa and ensure no other committee could complete the original task. To achieve this, the investigation team’s report was first passed by the cabinet and then referred to a plethora of committees.
The forced piecemeal consideration meant parliament’s capacity was dissipated. MPs across different committees did not have the financial expertise to engage with the arms deal’s complexities. Neither the contradictions in the heavily edited report nor the exclusion of criminal activity from the report were properly interrogated.
As we know, it all turned into a damp squib. The ANC protected itself at the expense of institutions essential to the functioning of democracy. The episode set the scene for subsequent ANC attacks against institutions, which brought SA to this moment where a commission into state capture is combing through the wreckage.
In his response at the state capture inquiry, Ramaphosa inadvertently confirmed how all the above came to be. After his initial dismissal of my assertion as “fanciful”, he conceded euphemistically that MPs cannot conduct their role without “guidance”. He explained that the ANC regards parliament as both “a very important forum” and “a site of struggle”. Reading these two ideas about parliament separately and together is revelatory.
In our constitutional framework, parliament is more than “a very important forum”. It is the forum where the will of all South Africans (not only ANC supporters) is represented.
This is even more the case because of the system of proportional representation (PR), which does not merely favour majoritarianism. But PR is imperfect, as we know, as it also allows antidemocratic control by party bosses, of which this discussion is a case in point.
The ANC regarding parliament as “a site of struggle” necessarily translates into endeavours to dominate this “important forum”, as opposed to enabling it to function optimally as a site for democratic expression.
Hence, parliament’s function as a democratic institution is superseded in ANC thinking by how it can serve as an instrument for the party. The only sacrosanct institution is the party itself.
The result of such a position is there for all to see: the derogation of Scopa and of parliament, and thereafter the Scorpions, NPA, police, State Security Agency, state-owned enterprises and entities and departments at all three levels of government.
But here arises a paradox. Ramaphosa making himself available as ANC president to the state capture commission speaks of the opposite of the above. He did not walk out or refuse to answer questions, as his predecessor in the position did in a demonstration of ANC hubris.
Ramaphosa thereby acceded to the commission as head of the party, and hence to the rule of law. He thereby acknowledged that there is something higher than the party: a legal process as brought about by the institutions of this constitutional democracy. Indeed, he acknowledged that the party is answerable to us, and therefore that the constitution is supreme.
• Van der Westhuizen is an author, media columnist and associate professor at the Centre for the Advancement of Non-Racialism and Democracy at Nelson Mandela University.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.