Is democracy here a system in which the people decide? Or, as a silence over the past few days suggests, something we care about only when it helps us remove presidents?
Parliamentary finance committee chairman Yunus Carrim says the ANC caucus did not want the 100-basis point increase in value-added tax (VAT) the budget speech proposed. No one has contradicted him, so we can assume this is what the caucus thinks.
Most MPs are in the ANC caucus and the DA also opposes the VAT hike. So a large majority of our elected representatives do not want the increase. Yet it is sure to become law. Carrim pointed out that Parliament can change anything in the budget it does not like. But no one expects the ANC caucus to reject the increase. Its national executive has defused the rebellion by promising to look at exempting more goods from VAT. Party discipline and a system that allows parties to fire MPs means Parliament has not used its power to change the budget in the nine years it has been allowed to do this and it is unlikely to do it soon.
This should have caused an outcry. Democracy means the people decide; where they can’t do this directly, those they elect to make law decide. No measure that is constitutional should become policy or law if most MPs do not want it. And yet on the budget, perhaps the most important government instrument, those who citizens elect have no say.
Only months ago the air was thick with concern for MPs’ right to decide. We were told that every effort was needed to hear the voice of MPs, even if this meant allowing them to vote in secret. Now, when most MPs do not want a tax rise, no one with influence feels strongly enough to insist that Parliament must decide. Why?
Surely because we have become so used to the idea that budgets are decided by experts that no one finds it odd that Parliament is ignored. That we know what the ANC caucus thought about the budget is itself a major change — usually, any differences are aired away from the public gaze. Treasury officials insist that they respect Parliament and inform it on the budget. But the result is not a vigorous attempt by the people citizens elect to make the budget meet voters’ needs.
Many people with influence believe the economy would suffer if MPs decided on the budget (even more if citizens had a say). Only people trained to know what the country wants are up to the task, they insist. But there is no reason why technicians should decide the budget. The budget process is not a "pure" technical exercise. Bargaining within the government on who gets what is crucial. So unelected officials influence the budget. Why not elected MPs? There would also be a limit to what MPs could change: many budget items reflect binding commitments the government has made.
The core issue is that in democracies budgets should reflect what the people want or at least what those they elect want. Economics does not produce "right" and "wrong" answers: Nobel Prize winners can’t agree on what is needed. What we want depends on our values and interests; differences between them should be settled by debate and majority decision. Budgets affect people’s lives so directly that democracy is not working if MPs have no say. And the more we allow Parliament to be ignored on "technical" issues, the more what matters to us will be decided by "experts" who do not account to us.
If we really are democrats, Parliament’s right to decide on VAT is as important as deciding who should be president.
• Friedman is research professor with the humanities faculty of the University of Johannesburg.
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.