LETTER: Cabinet’s dereliction of duty

Peter Bruce refers in passing to the “elasticity of the red lines” which, if crossed, would signal the possible demise of the 10 party coalition that governs SA (“Chilling warning from the CEO of Toyota”, January 30). 

According to the much-maligned “statement of intent” signed on June 14 last year, establishing the government of national unity (GNU), all parties to the agreement commit to uphold listed fundamental principles, including respect for the constitution and rule of law.

The constitution requires a multiparty system of governance in which it is our supreme law. Openness, accountability and responsiveness are the watchwords of our new order, in which a sovereign parliament (for which the MK party longs) has been replaced by a system that is constrained by what the constitution allows, both in the laws and in the conduct of our politicians.

There is no reference to “revolution” in the constitution (nor does it appear in the GNU’s statement of intent). On the contrary, peaceful transformation of the old SA into the new system is envisaged, in which the human rights guaranteed to all in the Bill of Rights are front and centre in the work of government. Our national accord and the processes that led to the overwhelming adoption of the new constitution were the product of negotiation between the government, political parties and the movements active in SA 30 or more years ago.

The “red lines” to which Bruce refers are stretched to breaking point when the policies, new laws and conduct of the government do not align with the statement of intent summarised above. The ANC’s ongoing pursuit of its strategy and tactics of the past 30 years to achieve its long-delayed “national democratic revolution” tends to test the elasticity of the red lines because all too often the revolution is not consistent with what the constitution demands and requires of governance in SA.

Under Section 92 of the constitution members of the national cabinet, including the president, are “accountable collectively and individually to parliament for the exercise of their powers and the performance of their functions”. They must act in accordance with the constitution.

The only tenable interpretation of Section 92 is that there must be cabinet unanimity on all new laws and policies. In cases of uncertainty or disagreement about the constitutionality of any new law, the president has the power to refer a bill to the Constitutional Court for a decision on its constitutionality. This power is underutilised. If used more often it could serve to remove much stress from the red lines Bruce mentions.

When cabinet is not unanimous on any matter it is the collective responsibility of the whole cabinet to use the avenues provided by the constitution to reach a collective decision unanimously, with or without the help of the Constitutional Court. Not to do so is unconstitutional.

Had the appropriate steps been taken by cabinet on the National Health Insurance, Basic Education Laws Amendment and Expropriation bills, SA would not be facing speculation on the elasticity of red lines in the GNU.

Paul Hoffman
Director, Accountability Now

JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments to letters@businesslive.co.za. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.