|
Volume 15, No. 08, 23 February 2016 |
|
|
|
Red Alert The 2016 State of the Nation Debate and the PressAdvance the second, more radical phase of our struggle!! |
By Cde Alex Mashilo
Tomorrow, 24 February the Minister of Finance Pravin Gordhan will present the Budget Speech to parliament. It is not too late to urge all parliamentary parties and the media to assist us with information on matters of substance, content and depth. In order to understand the reasonable nature of this appeal, let us look at what happened during the state of the nation address delivered by President Jacob Zuma on 11 February and subsequent debates.
The bad element characterised by the disrespect and disorder displayed in parliament by those who do things for the sake of grabbing headlines dominated matters of substance, content and depth in the media discourse where positive behaviour is not considered "newsworthy". This has to be discussed.
Three political parties the "Economic Freedom Fighters" (EFF), the "Democratic Alliance" (DA) and the "Congress of the People" (Cope) attempted to disrupt the process. Interestingly, all other parliamentary parties did not support them. This showed that the opposition is not cast in a homogenous mind-set. There are organisations and people who are able to differ with respect where they hold a different view. They acknowledge areas of convergence where they agree. They do not oppose for the sake of opposing just because they are an opposition.
After several attempts at the theatrical disruption of parliament, including points of order that were out of order, interjections and heckling by the EFF, its leader left the house along with his bunch of disruptors. The EFF was preceded by Cope in a move that left many people puzzled. The disruptive, childish theatricals taking place in parliament were introduced by the EFF, a party led by the plunderpreneur of Limpopo, Julius Malema, who according to the report of the Public Protector into tender corruption titled "On the point of tenders" through his Ratanang Family Trust "benefitted improperly from unlawful, fraudulent and corrupt conduct".
When Cope and the EFF left parliament during the state of the nation address the DA remained behind and occasionally heckled, in varying degrees, disruptively. This interrupted the delivery of the state of the nation address at times. It disadvantaged the audience in the house, television viewers and radio listeners at home or elsewhere, prompting the President to call on them to practice what they preached. When the EFF was disrupting the delivery of the state of the nation address before leaving the house, DA leader Mmusi Maimane, behaving as if better, stood up and said the disruptive conduct was inhibiting South Africans, particularly mentioning the unemployed, from receiving the President`s message.
Through the disruption it was clear that the three minority political groupings the DA, EFF and Cope elevated their rights above the rights of the overwhelming majority of South Africans. During his answer session on 18 February, President Zuma had the following reminder to make about the connection between rights and responsibilities: the exercise of one`s right does not give that person the right to violate other people`s rights. Perhaps this is one of the key challenges facing our nation. There are organisations or people who, in expressing their rights, whether in words or action, including protest action, have made it their inherent strategy to violate the rights of other people.
It is the right thing to call unconstitutional behaviour to order. In particular, measures must be put in place to act against it and protect the rights of others from being violated by those who are exercising their rights. This must extend to other societal contexts and not just in parliament.
Existing rules and institutional mechanisms meant to ensure orderly proceedings as it relates to parliament were designed for public representatives who are truly honourable and are matured in both self-respect and respect for others. Compare the rascal disruption of parliament by the so-called honourable MPs with the orderly proceedings of the constitutional court - for instance. The two are diametrical contradictions.
Those who lead or encourage the disruption of parliament would in fact not allow the same behaviour in their own political organisations or homes. Their behaviour is therefore hypocritical and dishonourable.
There can be no doubt that additional work is required to revise parliamentary rules, procedures and institutional mechanisms to ensure orderly proceedings, protect and further develop our democracy. It is utterly out of order and politically infantile for instance to raise issues that fall outside the purpose and set agenda of a parliamentary gathering and then hold it back.
By the way the President was not meant to address the parliament only but the nation as a whole. In the past, the joint parliamentary sitting to receive the state of the nation address was held in the morning when many workers and students were engaged at either work or in class, respectively.
Particularly the rights of the electorate at home or in the gallery who want access to matters of substance must now be strongly factored when parliamentary rules and institutional mechanisms to guaranteed orderly proceedings are relooked at in order to address existing weaknesses that are exploited by those who thrive on causing disruption.
What is the most startling though, is the manner in which disruptive theatricals are revered by some in the media. It is correct that the media reports on what is going on in parliament. What we also need in the reporting however is educational content as a contribution towards building a prosperous society. It is important, as part of this work, that harmful tendencies are isolated and exposed. Unfortunately, disruptive and disrespectful conduct especially if theatrical attracts more coverage than substantive matters of content and depth.
Again, it is also as if the opposition parties, especially the disruptors are the only parties that participate in parliament.
The following headlines were carried in the newspapers on 17 February, a day after yet another theatrical disruption in parliament during debates on the state of the nation address, held on 16 February: "Zuma is out of touch" (Daily Sun); "Opposition parties lay into `out-of-touch` president" (Sowetan); "Planet Zuma under attack"; "Opposition pummels JZ" (The Citizen); "Malema apologises to Mbeki for backing Zuma" (Business Day); "`Zuma must resign`: Opposition parties in scathing attack on beleaguered president" (The Star); "Acrimonious attacks" (The New Age); "Punch-drunk: Opposition leaders rain blows on president in bruising debate" (The Times). A common thread in all these headlines is that they are premised on the agenda of the opposition (particularly the DA, the EFF and Cope).
The ANC had more time than any other parliamentary party, which it dedicated to matters of substance. The headlines are largely silent about it. This is the trend.
At one occasion when one attended a parliamentary portfolio committee meeting, several media practitioners left the room immediately after the DA made its representations. "It is mostly what happens", a member of parliament replied after the session, when one asked. The stories that follow are usually headlined and organised around what the DA says. Most prevalent on radio and television, as in the newspapers headlines, too we hear: "This or that opposition party" (but mainly the DA, or the EFF) "says " In the process, wittingly or unwittingly, a particular political psych or sentiment but all negative based on the allegations made is forged to the disadvantage of the ANC.
The movement must discuss this imbalance, extensively!!
Let us now unpack the story behind the headlines. It is organised in four main categories.
The first category covered only one side of the story. This is the story of opposition parties but only, if not mainly, the DA and the EFF in a debate where they were neither the only side nor alone.
In "Zuma is out of touch", the Daily Sun only covered what Malema said against the President. In "Opposition pummels JZ", The Citizen covered the DA and the EFF and two political analysts, quoting one of them or the DA saying Zuma "is a president who does not consider the plight of the poor". In "Malema apologises to Mbeki for backing Zuma", the Business Day goes: "Mr Malema said ", "Mr Maimane said ", " ", said Malema, " ", said Maimane; and then makes a lone mention at the end of the story in one line, of what the "United Democratic Movement leader Bantu Holomisa" said. All of them were covered on the "Zuma must go" mantra rather than on social and economic transformation.
The second category covered the other side of the story as well, that is that of the ANC too, but with the story anchored on what the opposition and again the DA and the EFF said.
In "Opposition parties lay into `out-of-touch` president", the Sowetan newspaper mainly covered "opposition MPs" but Maimane and Malema who "savaged" the President and said he was "illegitimate". The newspaper gave coverage to Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies, who "argued that there was a lot to be proud of in South Africa - even in an economy that had been hard hit by global woes such as commodities price falls".
The third category typified by The New Age in its headline, "Acrimonious attacks", covered both Maimane and Malema as well as the ANC - not on the substantive issues it raised during the debate but on condemning "flagrant abuse of parliamentary rules and our democracy" by some opposition MPs.
The media has an obligation to give fair coverage that is informative, educational and thus strengthens society, without, of course, shying away from all other incidents and issues.
Let us find out what was covered in the fourth category, where we find The Star.
The newspaper not only struck a greater balancing act covering the opposition, but still the DA`s Maimane and the EFF`s Malema in their personalisation of the state of the nation and attacks on the President. The newspaper moved media coverage closer to matters of substance, starting with difficulties in the present global operating environment faced not only by South Africa but also by other resource-producing economies.
The Star covered Minister Davies, who spoke first and thus opened the debate. Dr Rob Davies focused on policy issues and domestic successes rather than the petty squabbles that characterised much of the childish behaviour that has found its way to parliament.
The Minister "sketched the global context affecting the economy, saying conditions including a slump in commodity prices would hit economies like South Africa `right in our soft underbellies`", said The Star. The newspaper covered the Minister saying the "speakers to follow would try and pin this on the ANC government" (What a foresight on the behaviour of the dominant opposition?); that "those offering `quick fixes` were `the equivalent of snake-oil salesmen`. The Minister underlined the President`s message that South Africa `had strengths and capacities it should build on` and listed government achievements in protecting and creating new jobs." Among others, as correctly captured in The Star, are the revitalisation of the clothing and textile sector; the preservation of automotive production and its further development with a strong base including export programmes; the revival of electronics production including television; and the support given building the film industry.
The Star also covered the Deputy Minister of Mineral Resources, Godfrey Oliphant raising an important point of substance for policy thinkers, a contradiction in the rand foreign exchange rate. Oliphant said "unsettled global order was reflected in the rand exchange rate" but that "this had a positive effect on mining", reported the newspaper.
While the weakening of the rand had a negative impact such as pushing up the cost spent in dollar-rand exchange rate to purchase and facilitate imports such as oil (South Africa is an oil import dependent country. A surge in the cost of the commodity exogenously acts as an inflationary pressure given its role as a key input in production and transportation), it acted as an advantage for exports (such as raw materials that still play a significant role because of the untransformed features of the structure of our economy). Thus as captured in The Star from what the Deputy Minister said, "Commodities like gold were doing well, while platinum was stabilising and the country remained an attractive investment destination".
But, in addition to Foreign Direct Investment, what we need as a country is more domestic investment in production, research and development to encourage innovation, promote own designs and increase efforts to break new grounds in terms of inventions and discoveries. We need to develop the habit of searching for our own scientific and technological solutions, including product and production processes development. In this way we can make a positive contribution towards creating decent work and reducing inequality, unemployment and poverty, and even change ownership patterns. Minister Davies covered some of these issues. The projects that created hundreds or thousands of jobs that he underlined are important in that line of development.
Productive activity, even in instances where it creates jobs for less than ten people must be encouraged. This is crucial particularly when the investment advanced or the magnitude of the support provided is offset and overwhelmed by the benefits.
Other than causing disorder in the house, personalising the state of the nation (address) and reducing it to an attack on the President, much of what the three opposition parties the DA, EFF and Cope did simply revolved around electioneering in the context of the forthcoming local government elections. They offered no more than the equivalents of those quick fixes that Minister Davies warned against.
* Alex Mohubetswane Mashilo is SACP Spokesperson, and writes in his capacity as Professional Revolutionary
Umsebenzi Online is an online voice of the South African working class
