This month, President Cyril Ramaphosa appeared before the National Assembly for his first oral question-and-answer session of the year. In theory, these sessions are a cornerstone of democratic accountability. They afford elected representatives the opportunity to question the head of the executive on government decisions, policies and performance.
In practice, however, they have become a weak instrument of accountability. Under rule 140 of the National Assembly, the president is required to appear before parliament only once a quarter. In each session, just six of the 400 MPs may ask questions. Responses are pre-submitted, pre-prepared and often evasive. Supplementary questions frequently go unanswered or are addressed in vague generalities.
Taken together, these sessions amount to less than 10 hours of direct questioning of the president in an entire year — a fraction of the time required for meaningful oversight. Accountability cannot be meaningful if it’s so tightly rationed.
Parliament is the central institution through which the public exercises oversight over government. Its purpose is not ceremonial. It exists to interrogate power, demand answers, and ensure that those who govern do so in the interests of the people.
Yet too often our parliamentary plenaries descend into political theatre: partisan shouting matches, personal attacks and defensive posturing. Instead of sustained scrutiny of government performance, the focus shifts to scoring political points.
The result is a legislature that appears more interested in spectacle than substance. Many South Africans are left asking: when will the work of parliament truly be about us?
When the head of government appears before parliament only four times a year, the scope for meaningful scrutiny shrinks further. This is not how strong parliamentary democracies operate
The effectiveness of parliament is further dampened by the government of national unity, in which roughly 70% of MPs belong to parties represented in the executive. At the same time, nearly one in five MPs serves as a minister or deputy minister. This significantly reduces the number of parliamentarians whose primary role is oversight and accountability.
In such an environment, limited opportunities to question the president become even more problematic. When the head of government appears before parliament only four times a year, the scope for meaningful scrutiny shrinks further. This is not how strong parliamentary democracies operate.
Consider the UK, which shares a broadly similar Westminster-style system. The prime minister appears before the House of Commons every week during sitting periods for prime minister’s questions. These sessions are robust, direct and often — as they should be — uncomfortable for the executive. They provide a regular forum in which the head of government must defend decisions and respond to concerns raised by citizens through their representatives.
No-one would suggest that the British system is perfect. But its frequency fosters a culture of accountability that South Africa currently lacks. If we are serious about strengthening democratic oversight, we must begin by fixing both the rules and the habits of parliament.
The first step is straightforward: the president should appear before parliament more often. Increasing question sessions from once a quarter to twice a quarter would raise appearances from four to eight times a year. This would double opportunities for MPs to interrogate government decisions, follow up on commitments, and raise issues affecting citizens.
Bosa (Build One South Africa) has initiated a process to amend the rules of parliament accordingly. I have requested that the speaker of the National Assembly, Thoko Didiza, refer this matter to the rules committee for formal consideration. The proposed amendment states: “(a) scheduled in accordance with rule 210 for a question day twice per quarter during session time within the annual programme, and the president must appear before the assembly on those occasions to reply to questions, except where the speaker is satisfied that exceptional circumstances beyond the president’s control make such appearance impossible”.
Too often, ministers and the president acknowledge concerns without addressing them. We hear variations of ‘I agree’ or ‘government is committed’, but rarely receive specific, measurable commitments or clear timelines
But frequency alone is not enough. The quality of answers also matters. Too often, ministers and the president acknowledge concerns without addressing them. We hear variations of “I agree” or “government is committed”, but rarely receive specific, measurable commitments or clear timelines.
Parliament should therefore define what constitutes a substantive answer. Supplementary questions that cannot be answered in the house should require written responses within five days. A dedicated parliamentary office should monitor compliance, while public scorecards track how responsive ministers and the executive are to parliamentary questions.
Where ministers or the president repeatedly fail to respond adequately, there must be consequences.
None of these reforms are radical. They are common-sense measures designed to restore a basic principle: those who exercise power must answer for it.
Parliament is constitutionally mandated to ensure democratic accountability. When it functions properly, it allows the voices of South Africans to reach the highest levels of government. When it fails, that connection breaks down.
South Africa’s democratic institutions remain strong, but they cannot rely on tradition alone. They must continually evolve to meet the expectations of citizens who demand transparency and responsiveness.
- Maimane is an MP and leader of Bosa
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.