Can MPs' new boldness in giving SABC the third degree last?

It would seem, judging by the parliamentary hearings into the shenanigans at the SABC, that some of our MPs have at last not only located or stiffened their backbones; they have discovered, to their amazement, that their political opponents are not aliens with horns after all.

Why this wondrous discovery could not have come sooner nobody seemed able to explain, but the relief was palpable.

They could not stop heaping fulsome praise on each other. It was a bit overdone and perhaps premature.

It's only when the report is finally compiled that this new-found camaraderie will be put to the test.

story_article_left1

It is too early to say whether this new glasnost will last and spread through parliament, or whether it's just a flash in the pan.

It's perhaps an indication of the exasperation in the country over the corruption, malfeasance and downright incompetence in government that a few hard questions to some functionaries can provoke a welter of near-universal joy and celebration.

But let's not be churlish or overly pessimistic. This ad hoc committee would have done well if it were to remind parliament as a whole that its job is not to cosy up to the powerful but to hold them to account.

Like the press, parliament's job is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

It's become a mantra to see President Jacob Zuma as the cause of all our problems. Indeed he is. But he's also a consequence or reflection of what's wrong with our system.

The malaise lies in parliament. It has not done its job. In fact, it has enabled the wholesale culture of robbery and thievery that has taken hold in the country.

We often refer to MPs as public representatives. But they aren't. The party is their benefactor.

The party, not the public, sends them to parliament. The interests of the party will therefore always override public interest, for the simple reason that it's not human nature to bite the hand that feeds you. Even dogs don't do that.

Perhaps because the ANC has garnered such huge majorities over the years, the party has tended to use parliament as something of a fellowship or comradeship of victors where they spend the time prancing and gloating over their achievement.

story_article_right2

And rubbing the noses of the vanquished in the mud took precedence over co-operating with other parties to advance the public interest. This victory lap has lasted all of two decades.

It is interesting that it should take the unravelling at the SABC for some soul-searching among MPs to happen.

It was the fight over the appointment of the SABC board after Thabo Mbeki's defeat in Polokwane that triggered events that led to his downfall as president.

Mbeki had argued that it was his prerogative as president to appoint the board. Zuma and his bellicose supporters disagreed.

Mbeki was ultimately recalled. It was the beginning of the slippery slope for the country and the SABC.

Parliament has been used to shield some of the worst government excesses, from the arms deal to Zuma's catalogue of scandals.

So what has brought about this purported wind of change? Has word come from on high to nail the SABC? Or have the MPs, the foot soldiers, finally got tired of being used as Zuma's doormat, and are now keen to expose him rather than protect him?

It is also clear, however, that the Constitutional Court judgment on Nkandla has been exercising MPs' minds.

Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng had harsh words about parliament's failure to hold the executive to account.

The debacle at the SABC also happened under parliament's watch. Many witnesses, including former board members, told the hearing they had brought the deteriorating situation at the broadcaster to parliament's attention four years ago, to no avail.

Where was parliament, for instance, when the SABC was lumbered with a blind person as chairman?

story_article_left3

The tragic figure of Mbulaheni Maguvhe innocently pleading ignorance of wrongdoings at the SABC was not only disconcerting, but an indictment of those who had appointed him and used him for nefarious ends. It amounts to an abuse of the disabled.

And where were these worthies when the SABC archives - state assets - were sold, it seems fraudulently, to a private company?

If I were MultiChoice, I'd want to take the moral high ground. It has probably played everything by the book, but there's no benefit in being mentioned in the same breath or sentence with Hlaudi Motsoeneng or the Guptas.

Taking from the state for private or personal gain is akin to mugging the elderly. There's no social or moral benefit, only disgust and derision.

The MPs' inquiry will hopefully find a solution to the SABC's problems. And the spirit of frank and honest interrogation of the actions of those in power may infuse their colleagues.

But if MPs, and all elected officials, are to adequately represent the public, they will have to be liberated from the straitjacket of their parties. That will require a new electoral system.