The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

My dear friends and fellow South Africans,

"I believe the central objective of the new politics we need should be
a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power from state to
citizens; from the government to parliament?from judges to the people;
from bureaucracy to democracy". Is this passage lifted directly from
one of my many speeches on the subject of devolving power to the
people since 1994? Or was it purloined from the canon of fine speeches
by my old friend Tony Leon whose thinking corresponds with mine on
this issue?

The answer is neither. It is from an address last week to the Open
University by David Cameron, the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition in
the UK, in the wake of the expenses scandal which has shaken the
?Mother of Parliaments' to its ancient 300 year-old-foundation.

I've quoted Cameron to illustrate the point that the pyramid
concentration of power with the executive at the apex is not a
uniquely South African phenomenon; it is an inexorable tendency in all
parliamentary democracies which must be checked as the tentacles of
the executive intrude into every nook and cranny of society.

It is not a left or right or good or bad government indicator; it is
simply the serpentine nature of the exercising of power everywhere.
When the power of parliament wanes, the power of the State increases
exponentially: the nation slips into "elective dictatorship" mode.

I sometimes fear that the case to bolster parliament's role as the
"real engine of accountability" ? mainly made by those of us on the
opposition benches ? is perceived to be a blunt sledgehammer with
which to bludgeon the ruling-party. That is a pity because a properly
functioning parliament would benefit the ruling-party and good
governance most of all.

Perchance, the theme for this week's Opening of Parliament is the
clunky-phrased: "Parliament entrenching people-centred democracy in
achieving development goals". Two mandates flow from this:
"Parliament's function of monitoring and evaluation over the Executive
sits at the centre of its activities" and "Parliament has to be an
enabler of public participation."

First, a word ? again ? about the electoral system which elects
members of parliament in the first place. In 2002, when, as Minister
of Home Affairs, I chaired the task team on electoral reform, I said
the "time was ripe" to reform the electoral system to restore a
constituency link. If it was ripe seven years ago, today it would be
the equivalent of giving mouth to mouth resuscitation to an ailing
institution.

The IFP has long called for a hybrid electoral system like the
Alternative Vote Plus or the Additional Member System which balances
representation and proportionality. In such a model voters would
choose a constituency MP, and a further tier of MPs selected on a more
proportional basis. The growing gulf between the governors and
governed is growing.

The crisp point here is that MPs cannot credibly hold the executive to
account if they are not accountable to the people themselves. The
fascinating upside aspect of the expenses scandal in the UK has been
the awesome firepower of ordinary folk in the constituency parties to
depose arrogant Members of Parliament. Up to fifty percent of sitting
MP's are expected to be shown the red card at the next election. And
in the United States, the electorate has the "power of recall" which
allows disgruntled voters to force a by-election.

And could we not, as Cameron proposes, open up the legislative process
to outsiders by sending out text alerts on the progress of
parliamentary bills and by posting proceedings on YouTube? It seems
to me that politcos, with the notable exception of Barack Obama, have
not grasped the impact of instant information upon the democratic
process.

We also need to strenghten committees and should not chairpersons of
portfolio committees be chosen by a ballot of all backbench MPs? We
must also end the compliant role of parliament by giving MPs free
votes during the consideration of bills at committee stage. MPs should
also be handed the crucial power of deciding the timetable of bills.

And if organisers of a petition collected enough support, should they
be able to get their idea debated in the National Assemby? This kind
of representative democracy might also begin to square the often
stated cononodrum that it is futile to try and transpose the
Westminster style system to Cape Town. It's just a thought.

We also need to, I believe, change the procedure for private members'
bills. Under the current arrangements, private members' bills almost
never become law unless they have explicit government backing. I saw
this vividly last year when I tabled the 18th Constitution Amendment
Bill to separate the Head of State from the Head of Government,
establishing both a President and Prime Minister at the recent general
election.

On Friday 12 March 2008, I presented the Bill to the Private Members'
Committee in the green leather bound and oak paneled surroundings of
the Old Assembly Chamber. Only five days later I heard that the
Committee had rejected the Bill, despite the fact that there was
considerable support for it in the ranks of the ruling-party. Politics
? party politics ? got in the way again.

Until we transform the culture of parliament along the sleek lines of
accountability and transparency, we will continue to fail our
constitutional mandate to be a ?check-and-balance' on the Executive,
and to be the institution where alternatives are born.

Yours sincerely,

Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi MP