Playing by the rules
The EFF’s recent performance in parliament left a bad taste. Hooliganism does not belong in parliament. One should abide by the rules.
Like the DA has been playing by the rules to obtain the spy tapes, right?
It has now been close on five years that the DA had been playing by the rules, and they still do not have the tapes. As the saying goes: a bad lawyer can drag a case out for years, whereas a good lawyer can make it go on forever.
Same thing happens in parliament and in most oversight bodies that exist either within the parliamentarian or constitutional framework, with the exception of the Public Protector. You simply never get to the bottom of any underhand or suspicious dealings involving high ranking officials. Think Guptagate, Inkandlagate, Spytapesgate, you name it. If you get caught with your pants down (even literally), but you are still in favour with the rulers, they will close ranks on you and protect you. They will even walk with you to the gates of jail to still show their support for you when you by accident do manage to be found guilty of your crime.
The problem comes when those in charge of proceedings misuse their positions to protect people who are the subject of investigations. And they do so under the pretext of playing by the rules. This question is too vague, that one is out of order, or the committee was not prepared for that question, or the question has already been “dealt with sufficiently”, whereas it has not.
So you have a culture where the rulers of the day appear on the face of things to play along with all the rules, bodies, commissions of enquiries, etc. But meanwhile back at the ranch, they skillfully misuse the rules to protect those whom they find worthy of protection.
So the sad fact is that our democracy has degenerated to a state of affairs that virtually no accountability exists, in spite of all the rules and bodies designed to ensure accountability. Playing by the rules really gets you no-where.
So now I’m wondering: if a political party would decide to take the house down to draw attention to a problem (as playing by the rules clearly don’t get results), would it be more acceptable if they do so motivated by a genuine desire to ensure accountability, rather than by shear hate?