Petitions could give power back to the people

Parliament should be a constant conversation.

It should be an exchange of thoughts, suggestions and ideas between the electorate, members and the executive.

This conversation can take many forms: a debate, negotiations, protest and yes, even praise. What it should never become is a monologue.

Unfortunately, where it matters, this seems to have already happened.

For at least the past five years, parliament has neglected one of the most fundamental mechanisms for ensuring its accountability to the electorate: petitioning.

On its website it encourages citizens, and rightly so, to get involved in its activities, this involvement being a cornerstone of democracy.

It cites four ways in which a citizen can "directly influence parliament": through voting in elections; through attending meetings (although non-members of parliament seldom have speaking rights at these); by contacting an MP; or by submissions, representations and petitions.

The fourth is the most important post-election option, because it is the most direct contact parliament has with real issues affecting our people.

It is even argued that parliament has petitions to thank for its very existence. Legend has it that parliament originated in meetings of the Tudor kings' council where petitions were considered. Petitions were then, as now, one of the only forms of redress available to some citizens.

In our own parliamentary system, theoretically, petitions are still regarded as instrumental to public participation in the activities and discussions of the legislature.

The nature of and circumstances under which a petition can be submitted are vast, from individuals' political issues to ones of public interest and legislation.

This is the easiest and most direct way for a South African to get issues of importance into parliament without having to depend on an MP. Unfortunately, the practice leaves much to be desired. This is where parliament has indeed become a monologue, turning active citizens into passive spectators.

More often than not, these issues deal with a lack of service delivery or human rights issues that might raise questions about the government's effectiveness. Governing parties that control the committees dealing with petitions know this. The more ineffective a government, the more annoying petitions become.

Similarly, governments know that the easiest and most effective way to make petitions go away is to allow these committees to become dysfunctional. During the fourth parliament, between 2009 and 2014, President Jacob Zuma's first term, about 70 such petitions were referred to the select committee of the National Council of Provinces assigned to deal with petitions. Of these, only 10 were presented to the committee, mostly dealing with service delivery issues.

Only one was dealt with completely: the petition for the pardoning of two men, Tsokolo Mokoena and Fusi Mofokeng, who were jailed for 19 years during the apartheid era for a crime they say they did not commit - the murder of a police officer in the Free State.

The parliamentary portfolio committee, together with the local community and the Wits Justice Project, was instrumental in obtaining early parole for them in 2011 (although the pardon they sought has still not been granted).

In the current parliament, elected in May, several petitions have been referred to the same committee but, in these three months, it has failed to convene a meeting save for the election of a chairman.

Of course, parliament is doing its best to involve citizens in its day-to-day activities: women's parliament, youth parliament, opening its meetings, televised debates, taking parliament to the people ... but it's still a monologue of the absurd.

The institution with the motto "we, the people" will, without the people, be reduced to a rubber stamp. The government can encourage a robust opposition as much as it likes, but without public participation, there will be no debate; and without the public, there will be little point in debate. The government is not accountable to the opposition for the opposition's sake; it is accountable to the voters that we (and they) represent.

To remedy this, parliament will have to reconsider the process of dealing with petitions, either through proper, detailed guidelines for the committees with time frames, or through legislation.

There is one simple reason why the front door to parliament remains shut to our citizens: the serious lack of political will. It is that political will that can turn the monologue of our legislative process into a vibrant conversation. That political will to sit down and listen to the not-so-good stories the people have to tell, and to act on them. We must open the doors to the people and the way we as members do so is through petitions.

Michalakis is a DA MP and also serves on the select committee for petitions & executive undertakings