Yesterday Secretary General of the ANC, Gwede Mantashe, announced that a review committee of the ANC will review the work done by Ministers annually and will fire Ministers if they do not perform adequately. The question is whether the ANC can actually fire Miisters and whether the Party (spelt with a capital letter with a reason!) is not usurping the power of the government with statements like this.
The easy answer is that the ANC can NOT fire MInisters in the cabinet. Only the President can appoint and fire members of the national cabinet. Even when such Ministers are drunk every day, say, or are found to have been convicted of stealing a patient’s watch, say, only the President has the constitutional power to fire that individual Minister.
We know that during ex-President Thabo Mbeki’s term it was almost impossible to get fired if one failed to do one’s job as a Minister or Deputy Minister. As long as one agreed with everything Mbeki said, told him all the time how cl;ever he was, and as long as one sucked up sufficiently to his Holiness, one’s job was safe. If, like Kader Asmalk, one was less respectful, that would be the end of that cushy job.
So, the principle behind the ANC’s statement is therefore not a bad one: Underperforming Ministers should be fired and more talented members of the National Assembly (of which there are many) should then be given the chance to try and perform the rather difficult task of getting the civil servants to do their jobs.
Moreover, constitutionally the ANC majority in the National Assembly is not without power regarding the composition of the cabinet. As part of our quasi-Westminster system, the National Assembly may adopt a vote of no confidence in the cabinet alone (not in the President) if a majority of its members have lost trust in some of the cabinet Ministers. The President will then remain in power but will be forced to reconstitute the cabinet and to align it with the wishes of the majority of members of the National Assembly.
So, if the ANC wanted to fire cabinet Ministers it would be able to ask the President to do this and if he refused would be able to use its majority in Parliament to fire the entire cabinet. Few President’s would want to go through such an embarrasing process, so if the ANC “asked” the President to fire certain cabinet Ministers he would probably have to oblige.
But the ANC really should be careful when it deals with these issues and should show more respect for the Constitution. It should not issue statements about how it would fire underperforming cabinet Ministers because such statements conflate the Party and the State – something that is not good for any democracy. A more circumspect attitude would do much to show that the ANC does not believe itself to be above the Constitution and respects the power of the President to appoint and fire members of his cabinet.
It is simple really: the ANC should leadership in Luthuli House should study the Constitution before it makes silly statements like this and should then couch their decisions in the language of the Constitution. Their failure to do so, suggests that the ANC sees itself as somehow above the Constitution and also conflates the Party and the State. Once again, a bit of Constitutional knowledge could go a long way to demonstrate a commitment to democracy. Pity there seem to be so few ANC leaders who know or understand the Constitution.
Prof. I would just like to add that interview with Independent Newspapers, Mantashe said that this ‘policy institute’ will have an evaluation capacity and a monitoring element that will provide early warning systems to identity incompetence (how about interviewing sufficiently qualified individuals before placing them in ministerial positions?)…and incompetent ones will be fired. Just a couple of questions then a) Manto, Yengeni and Malema going to be in this ‘policy institute’ b) who will be monitoring the ‘policy institute’ c) will the powers of the institute extend to the evaluation of the president? O and ozoneblue – ‘generic songs about machine guns that are open to interpretation’ – may I ask how you interpret this song?
Prof – What about “ANC, Know your Constitution: Part III”?
But, Prof, I do agree with you that “the principle behind the ANC’s statement is therefore not a bad one”. Indeed, some (pehaps, many) of the ANC’s policies are not necessarily bad. It is what some of its leaders at times have to say (or what they do) that is usually bad. And then, the ANC as organization usually appears to be at a loss of how to remedy the situation – except where it decided to recall Thabo Mbeki. But then again, the recall was not really because he has deviated from ANC policies to an extent that it became an embarrasment for the ANC (the interference with the Jackie Selebi matter, the not acting against Mantho and Nkosazana and others, etc, etc), but because he did not treat the Deputy President of the ANC, the next ear-marked President of the ANC and the country, poor JZ, in a way they would have liked to see him do. Now, when an organization like the ANC becomes so “ruggraatloos” that it would not act against people for not following good governing policies drafted by the organization, but that it would act against people for daring to challenge its choice of future leaders, regadless of how immoral or crooked they might be, then that organization becomes a threat to both democracy and society.
I can’t imagine how in the good name of the Lord anyone could somehow have a problem with the ANC saying that incompetent ministers should be fired. But with the opposition one never knows, one moment this – the other moment something completely different. The only real principal is being against the ANC.
@mill
The lyrics are here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umshini_wami for anyone to see. Perhaps I would want a machine gun to defend myself against armed gangs of criminals, perhaps I want to trade it in for a second hand telly or perhaps it just means I would want to be prepared to fight for what I believe in if I have to ? Lets not forget – even the good old USA’s constitution enshrines the right of the people to bear arms.
Im with the ANC on this one
As the DA has said: start by firing the incompetents currently in government – and make Manto the first!
Eish,
That Mantashe …….
Deep SACP…………..
Intelligence is written all over his face ………
Forget about it!
Don’t even try to teach him anything constitutional – way above his fireplace…….
Guys, your problem is this ANCPHOBIA and what troubles me is what could be its cause? You use to complain of too much power given to the president and now when the ANC reverses that somehow, you cry foul! Secondly Mantashe said that policy institude would comprise of Experts, not neccesarily members of the ANC….New Year, same OLD baseless noise!!! Eish, Maar eintlik, wat soek julle???
Does this extend to all presidential appointments?
I mean, Pikoli has it on black and white after an enquiry that he was not in fact incompetent.
We all know with incompetent, the prez means ‘people who are suspected of being covert Cope supporters’.
Garg – I think you’ve said ity all.
@ozoneblue and Spuy
Guys you’ve said it and there’s nothing to add, it’s pure ANCPHOBIA with this opposition! They bendoverbackwards to find something bad to say about the ANC.
Comrades let’s just accept it, you cannot pacify or appease you arch foes,just reminds me of the time when Spephan was stoned regardless of the truth he was preaching!
Mdu – Living in the ‘shadows of Stephen’ is a good philosophy, but, to risk being stoned, one has to be sure that it is indeed the truth that you are defending. With St Stephen’s walk and talk, I have no qualms, but with the walk and talk of politicians (including ANC leaders), I have serious problems. If you want to rsik being stoned for that, then so be it. I think you might need a ‘spirit of distinction’ to determine what the truth is.
Ladies and Gentlemen, especially Prof, please grab a copy of the Mail and Guardian of today and get most of your quaries answered by the ANC deputy President and Prez of the country. Hope the ANC critics and self stlyed analysts who have the luxury to be cerebral but unaccountable get answered!
To be fair to Pierre. I don’t think his article is so much a criticism of keeping ministers accountable. He is saying that ANC spokesmen should learn to make a clear differentiation between the South African government and the ANC when they make statements like this. It also goes the other way : especially when people start blaming the ANC for not walking the talk when it comes to thorny issues like our government’s relationship with the government of Zimbabwe.
ozoneblue – This time around you are spot on. Keep it up!
Monday is D-Day for JZ in the SCA. Already his legal advisors are talking behind the scenes with the NPA and according to Carl Niehaus, the ANC wants an alternative judicial process (whatever that may mean) to make an end to this matter. Just see what JZ himself said on June 21, 2005 (three and a half years ago!) http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2450303,00.html
Thereafter he has brought how many? applications to stop the prosecution he was so looking forward to in june 2005
@ Spuy: What we want is for the ANC and all its members, especially the leader, to operate (read also speak and act) within the confines of the law.
The blurring by the ANC of the lines between party and state is nothing new. The finest example to date will have been the so-called recall of former head of state, Thabo Mbeki, where he was treated by the ANC as just another cadre deployed to serve at its pleasure, rather than THE COUNTRY’s president. This, according to the Constitution (89, 1 and 2), should of course have been the job of the National Assembly, not the NEC.
But the ANC, who seem to hold the collective view of being the government, state and country all rolled into one, and secure in the knowledge that their own MPs always rubber-stamp their decisions, reckoned they could get away with it. And so they did.
Guys, read the article again. This is not a criticism of keeping ministers accountable.
How on earth can an ANC review committee hire and fire any minister as they see fit? It is my understanding that ministers are hired based on the seats gained in parliament during the general election. The ANC – as one of a myriad of political parties – thus has as much jurisdiction as the ACDP or the VF+ to form their own minister review committee, unless it is a process approved by government.
Oh, I forgot. Government is just there to rubber stamp Polokwane decisions. My apologies.
Ja, it feels as if the ANC has given up even pretending they believe that there are other political players in SA, and that there are laws which they are subject to. I’m sure Mantashe didn’t actually mean what he said, but still – the fact that he can utter things like that without a second thought as to how they may be interpreted certainly sheds some interesting light on how the ANC views its position in SA.
I’m completely in favour of firing useless ministers, I wish we’d been doing it all along. However, it would be nice if the president (whoever he is at a point in time) would just grow a damn backbone and do it himself. Why do we need an ANC committee to tell us if a minister is kak?! When Manto was health minister, the whole COUNTRY said she should go. The pres didn’t listen because he was bigger than the silly masses of course. I wish we had politicians in the ANC who would (a) have the balls to stand up for the right thing, regardless of political allegiance or loyalty, and then (b) be allowed to continue serving when they do that. Then we might see some of those over-stuffed clowns in parliment get the boot like they deserve.
It is a pity that any form of subtle argument is lost on some of the readers of this Blog. Not that the argument here was so subtle. It is easy, really, so please dear readers, try and concentrate for a second or two, make use of those brain cells and stop being blinded by a physcophantic loyalty to the Party: in a democracy (as opposed to a Stalinist dictatorship, say) a distinction must be drawn between the ruling party and the government. Otherwise the Party becomes the state and the Rule of Law is undermined. Where the constitution says that THE PRESIDENT can appoint and fire Ministers, the PARTY has no legal power to do so. If the PARTY usurps the power of the President, it undermines the Constitution and we are on the road to Party dictatorship. This is not ANCPHOBIA. It is a mere factual description. If you are in favour of a kind of Stalinism in which the Party is more important than the state then you would not see anything wrong with it. You would then be a dangerous, undemocratic Stalinist – like I fear Mantashe is turning out to be. So either you are for democracy or you support this ANC plan. Easy. I know which side I am on in this particular issue.
If I were Mdu, Spuy and ozoneblue, I’d say “Ouch!” “Touche!” and all that stuff. .Khosi, where are you in all this brother?
Perhaps we should save Gwede the effort of being polictically correct in future and just ban all other political parties. There clearly isn’t room for dissent from the all important Polokwane Resolutions. The disbandment of the Scorpions for instance, was pretty much steam rolled through parliament. Snuki “Censorship” Zikalala said that election coverage would be proportianate to parliamentary representation – in theory COPE could therefore get no coverage as they have no presence in parliament. The Nats used similar tactics. Strange, the more things change the more they stay the same.
PdV
“a distinction must be drawn between the ruling party and the government.”
As I said in my second post – that is entirely true. Question for you Pierre – when we/you are criticizing the ANC for our policy on Zimbabwe for example : are we also drawing on those subtle distinctions ?
Ozoneblue, if you go back and read this Blog you will see that I usually criticise an individual who said or did something – and not the party as a whole. “Some leaders of the ANC”, “The President” etc.
Do we really have to trivialise such minor issues. Granted, it is ideal that ANC commentors must not leave space for ambiguity in their speech (given the obvious ANCphobia by a certain minority). In the same tone, a reasonable and untainted individual would appreciate that when Mantashe says they will “fire”, he simply means that they (the ANC) will initiate “necessary measures” to oversee the “firing”. This may include making a recommendation to the President or even passing a vote of no confidence as PdV suggests. What then is the real issue here?
Setumo Stone // Jan 10, 2009 at 9:53 pm
“….What then is the real issue here?”
Amongst others the fact that you think there is no real issue here.
@Tatera. Thanks for the response (unhelpful as it is). My question was not meant to be sarcastic, but to provoke introspection from the concerned parties. That is, how does a comment to the effect that incompetent public servants will be fired flow to a conclusion that such firing can only be executed in a manner that disregards the laws and constitution of the country? “Would” the president not be a member of the ANC and thus involved in the deliberations on who needs to be fired and why? That is, when Mantashe says “we”, does he not include the president in his/her capacity as a top ANC official? To further avoid a ping pong of sarcasm with you, I’ll tell you why certain individuals are prone to arriving at such irrational conclusions whenever the ANC is involved. It primarily emanates from a pre-conceived notion that the ANC is BOUND to disregard the law and the constitution. It’s all well and good to cook some propaganda if it will deliver on your objectives, but it’s really sad when one begins to passionately swear by their propaganda.
It primarily emanates from a pre-conceived notion that the ANC is BOUND to disregard the law and the constitution.
That is my pre-conceived notion. Of course, it would amount to mere propaganda or bias on my part if it were not rooted in reality. Let’s see..
The ANC has steam-rolled the process to disband the Scorpions. Despite lawsuits on the fringe questioning the legality and despite a huge public outcry – not by a minority but by the majority of South Africans – the ANC did not as much as flinch. The decision to disband the DSO – which is no doubt a political one to protect Jacob Zuma, Jackie Selebi and others – was followed through without any regard for constitutional or legal matters.
Jacob Zuma is already guilty of a bilateral crime. The ANC is quick to fire alleged rapists after they defected to Cope when they are not part of the party elite. It’s much harder to get the party elite to follow decorum. Jacob Zuma should have stepped down as member of parliament before Mbeki fired him until his name has been cleared.
There is an ANC official involved in Mombela Stadium who has been gunned down in his home. The motive? Sheer coincidence that this official was a whistle blower who exposed the corruption of the ANC with regards to the FIFA World Cup? Nothing was taken from his home. His son and himself have merely been gunned down in what appears to be a Mafia-style hit.
Need I even start on the Blue Light Brigade? When’s the last time they opened fire on civilians in a legal and constitutional matter?
From the big issues to the minor issues: The ANCYL president can’t open his mouth without trampling the constitution for which his elders have spent years imprisoned.
The list of where members of the ANC did not disregard law and constitution is much shorter. If I were Nelson Mandela I would hang my head in shame. This once proud human rights movement has become a bloodsucker that just wants more and more gravy for its train.
Garg – Thus, ANC = Gravy-leech?
Hoo boy! Now even “Bombscare-manic” Trevor Tutu has decided to leave the boat, and that to join the DA, not COPE. http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2451466,00.html
Now things are beginning to become interesting
garg – “Scorpions. Despite lawsuits on the fringe questioning the legality and despite a huge public outcry – not by a minority but by the majority of South Africans – the ANC did not as much as flinch.”
You forgot to mention that the Scorpions infringed on individual’s constitutions rights quite frequently by leaking confidential information to the media and then conducting itself in a way which was at odd with the constitution. Lets see what happens tomorrow because the ruling is not so much about Zuma as it about the NPA fighting for its their life after Judge Nicholson’s unsolicited commentary.
Anyway -we cannot tolerate a powerful state apparatus like the Scorpion acting above the law and in conflict with our constitution in a democratic society any longer.
Ozoneblue:
You forget that the Scorpions did not leak that information. They were investigating public figures – who by definition give up a certain amount of privacy – and that they divulged those juicy bits during press conferences.
Making information about their investigations available is their job.
garg
Clearly you haven’t got a clue. This is what Judge Hefer said about Ngcuka’s office’s conduct towards Mac Maharaj. JZ was a by far not the only victim of such abuse.
“However, I find Mr Maharaj’s evidence most disturbing. As I have already said, it is beyond doubt that leaks did occur. I have also indicated that it is highly likely that the guilty party was within Mr Ngcuka’s office and we have it from Mr Ngcuka himself that he or she could not be traced. Such a state of affairs cannot be tolerated. Months have elapsed since Mr Maharaj was questioned by members of the Investigating Directorate and, although Mr Ngcuka has assured me that the investigation has not been completed, no charges have yet been preferred either against Mr Maharaj or against his wife. In the meantime press reports about the allegations against them kept appearing. In a country such as ours where human dignity is a basic constitutional value and every person is presumed to be innocent until he or she is found guilty, this is wholly unacceptable. Section 41(6)(a) of the Prosecuting Authority Act was not enacted for nothing and as long as someone in the National Director’s office keeps flouting the prohibition against the disclosure of information, one cannot be assured that the Prosecuting Authority is being used for the purpose for which it was intended.”
http://www.pmg.org.za/bills/040120hefer.htm
Needless to say – after six years of “investigation” has transpiredn no charges has been brought all we are left with is the NPA media smear against Maharaj’s and his wife.
Well, the Khampepe Commission says that you clearly don’t have a clue:
After considering the information, evidence and arguments placed before it the commission found that the rationale for the establishment of the DSO remained valid. It found the DSO to be unique and novel and this view was shared by a number of governments across the world.
The commission asserted that the legal framework regulating the mandate and location of the DSO was not in conflict with the Constitution. In this regard it emphasised that there was no legal impediment in having a structure such as the DSO within the prosecuting service as long as the independence of prosecution was safeguarded.
It is thus clear that your notion that the DSO is somehow unconstitutional is spurious. Furthermore, the Khampepe Commission does address your concern for the Constitutional rights of public figures:
It was also recommended that the DSO should desist from making public announcements on the subject matter of its investigations, where such communication could undermine the fundamental rights of affected entities and individuals.
The commission recommends that complaints in such regard should be addressed to the Independent Complaints Directorate. Sound advice, I think.
Furthermore:
Cabinet endorsed the NSCs decision to accept in principle the recommendations of the commission, including the matter of retaining the DSO within the NPA and its law enforcement responsibilities shall be subject to political oversight by the Minister of Safety and Security.
For your information, the ANC is not cabinet. Cabinet agreed that the DSO should be retained within the NPA. Why did the ANC decide not to stick to the findings of this commission? Political move to protect guilty parties?
http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2006/06062915451001.htm
garg
The Khampepe report was evaluated by cabinet in June 2006. Meanwhile the Scorpions – was preoccupied with another investigation into Zuma i.e. the infamous Browse-Mole report that investigated Zuma as being part of a political conspiracy. This time the ‘leaking tactic” back-fired though and some pro-Zuma state agent leaked it to the public. Subsequently Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence (JSCI) made the following revelations in a report tabled to parliament:
“The DSO continues conducting intelligence operations and collecting intelligence contrary to the recommendations of the Khampepe Commission and the law. This illegal activity is prohibited in terms of section 209 (1) of the Constitution of South Africa;”
The DSO made use of discredited information peddlers:
“The information peddlers are a network of people who originate mainly from pre-1994 or apartheid officers, most of whom worked in the covert intelligence structures. They were involved in “sanctions busting” and disinformation through Stratcom Operations. The peddlers also have links with foreign intelligence services such as of UK, Germany, France, USA, etc.”
http://www.pmg.org.za/docs/2008/comreports/080226jscireport.htm
Again – the obvious becomes apparent: The Scorpions acting with a political agenda – drawing on resources including pre-1994 Apartheid covert intelligence officers.
Spot on ozoneblue, Garg your silence is defeaning!
ozoneblue – How can one trust Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence (JSCI), since Parliament (at least the ANC majority thereof) has been shown, for the wrong reasons, to be partisan to the ANC’s push since Polokwane (and JZ’s election as the ANC President / “future President of the Republic”) to have the Scorpions removed. Why didn’t the ANC opt for a judicial enquiry in this regard? It’s easier to cope with and cover up a report such as that of the JSCI, than to cope with reports of a judicial enquiry which makes it clear that the Scorpions should be allowed to do their job.
Mouse, congrats! score now is 2-1.
Actually, section 209 (1) of the Constitution of SA reads:
1. Any intelligence service, other than any intelligence division of the defence force or police service, may be established only by the President, as head of the national executive, and only in terms of national legislation.
As is evident by the findings of the Khampepe Commission, there was nothing unconstitutional in the dealings of the Scorpions in this regard. Neither their structure or the nature of their investigations were in conflict with the Constitution, nor national legislation.
Again, the obvious becomes apparent – the Scorpions were incorporated into the police force as part of a political agenda to protect Jackie Selebi, Jacob Zuma and other ANC maffioso.
Bongs – thanks. Looking forward to the next bout concerning the Hlophe matter.
On browse mole: The Committee chairperson on that report, Dr Siyabonga Cwele , is now the minister of intelligence.
Just for interest.
Z – Thanks for that info. Surely supports the desired response to my unanswered question to ozoneblue Anonymouse // Jan 12, 2009 at 9:23 am