Madam Speaker, Honourable President, Honourable Members,
The points you have raised, Mr President, are generally
favourable, if unsurprising. We support many of the initiatives
you have spoken of and we would be contradicting ourselves if we
were to say otherwise. We have called for the government to do
more, and thus responsible interventions on land, skills and
infrastructure are welcomed. South Africa must build its own
economy utilising its own resources and thus avoid being dictated
to by outside forces that flood our markets. The UDM also supports
your position on Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology for peaceful
means. It is high time that the UN, in particular the Security
Council, realised that if they want to succeed with the
non-proliferation agenda they should be even-handed. It is
hypocritical for the Security Council to do little about the US,
Russia, China, France, Britain, India, Pakistan, North Korea and
even Israel and their nuclear warfare capability, but to isolate
one country which insists that is only pursuing peaceful nuclear
use.
Last year the honourable Minister of Finance announced R370
billion in the Mid Term Budget Statement for infrastructure
projects. Then the ANC "8 January" statement spoke of R400 billion
for local government infrastructure development. And yesterday the
honourable Deputy President announced that R372 billion in
spending would underpin the ASGISA initiative. Any reasonable
South African would have noted these announcements over the past
six months and felt optimistic that so many thousands of billions
of our taxpayer money is being ploughed back into the community. I
would appreciate it if the honourable President could clarify in
his response whether all of these are separate amounts for
separate programmes, or whether this is the same amount that is
being talked about every time.
Mine today would be to contribute to two specific issues that I
believe would improve the benefits that the democratic state
should be providing to all of its citizens.
Madam Speaker, the honourable President has spoken of an Age of
Hope, and yes, many South Africans are optimistic about the
future, but that hope is a fragile thing that is regularly dented
and undermined by embarrassing incidents.
The first specific issue that needs attention is the different
kind of community protest with underlying party political tones
which we are seeing with increasing regularity. These protests
give expression to internal tripartite alliance squabbles.
This constitutes a broader threat to our democracy, emanating from
within the ruling party and alliance, and it is an undeniable
feature of the State of the Nation. Indeed, I can say without fear
of contradiction that it formed the basis of the most sustained
and prominent public debate of the past year.
Quite naturally, the ruling party would not want us to discuss
this matter. But it is not we in the opposition that have decided
to wash our dirty linen in public. It is not us that have
embroiled the upper echelons of the state intelligence and other
state departments in an unseemly struggle for power. These matters
affect the State of the Nation like few other matters do at the
moment.
For instance, in the Eastern Cape in the last couple of years we
have witnessed how these political undertones and divisions have
affected the provincial government and service delivery. If a
premier comes into power the cabinet and senior administrators who
are viewed as loyal to the previous administration are purged,
thereby destroying continuity and management experience. Similarly
there are those from the old administration who remain behind
purely to undermine the efforts of the new administration. These
divisions have threatened the stability of government, like the
example of the ANC councillors in Qaukeni Municipality that shot
each other in the municipal offices. Or the well-documented role
of the ruling party's alliance partner, the SACP, in Khutsong. Who
would have thought that a decade into democracy - when no-go areas
operated by political parties had finally become a thing of the
past - that there would be areas where you cannot put up election
posters, including even the ruling party itself? Who would have
thought that this resistance to democracy would be led by a ruling
party alliance partner?
The SACP needs to be reminded that they have never had the guts to
fight an election on their own. If they want to ride the
coat-tails of the ANC, that is their right. And if the ANC doesn't
mind the burden of dragging them and their other alliance partners
along, that is also their full right. The ANC must handle its
alliance arrangements as it sees fit, but it cannot forget that it
is the party with the mandate of the voters and it should deliver
to them and not be held to ransom by its alliance partners.
I am referring here to more than the local protests that they have
fomented. Members of the ruling alliance have taken their internal
squabbles and campaigns into the civil service and disrupted the
work of key institutions of the state. They have openly campaigned
against independent institutions of the democratic state and they
have even vilified the judiciary for daring to remark upon the
behaviour of their political darling.
And these embarrassing incidents continue to happen. Just recently
another election-shy coat-tail surfer of the ANC, SANCO, was
advocating the amendment of the Constitution to allow a third term
of office for the honourable President. For now, that debate has
been quashed by the honourable President, who said that the ANC
would respect the Constitution.
Madam Speaker, we still need to address this issue because it
throws up a very important issue for the citizens of this country
that goes far wider than ANC internal power struggles.
This question keeps cropping up because those in the ruling
alliance are concerned about who the honourable President's
successor will be. But why should this be solely their concern?
Has the time not arrived for all South Africans, and not just the
most powerful faction in the ANC, to decide who their President
will be?
Madam Speaker, what if the next incumbent does not feel the same
as the honourable President and decides to pursue three or more
terms in office? I would appeal to the honourable President to use
his influence to ensure that electoral reform occurs. Not only do
we need to pursue the recommendations of the Van Zyl Slabbert
Commission to increase the accountability of public
representatives, but we should also allow South Africans to choose
and hold accountable their own President in separately held
elections.
Madam Speaker, the second issue is that I believe there are more
specific measures that can be taken to address the underlying
reasons of poor service delivery that inspired the violent
protests that have taken place in many poor communities across the
country in the past two years.
Some of the frustration that is being expressed is that the very
administration created by the new democratic state, especially the
provinces and the new local governments have become obstacles to,
instead of agents of, service delivery.
Indeed, many reasons for the failures in service delivery have
been advanced, but the solutions offered do not seem to be on the
same scale as the challenges. The Provinces are failing to
correctly spend their budgets, whilst the majority of local
councils are in a state of bankruptcy, short on skills and
management.
Big problems require bold and far-reaching solutions. The UDM
would recommend that there should be a plan to integrate some of
the responsibilities of provincial and local governments so that
we minimise overlapping and better use the available skills and
resources. Such a step would reduce an inefficient and wasteful
administration, whilst freeing up the skills, personnel and
resources that can resuscitate and strengthen local government and
local service delivery.
I hope the suggestions on these two broad areas will find a
favourable hearing.
I thank you. |