“They believe the GNU is working well and everyone is playing a constructive role,” said Ramaphosa.
“As party leaders, we nevertheless recognise the parties in the GNU represent a range of political and ideological perspectives. There are issues on which we disagree and there will be times when differences between the parties will become more apparent.”
He cited the Bela Bill as a case in point, saying while the leaders were meeting last week, some parties in the GNU were publicly urging him not to sign the bill while others were saying he should sign it.
“The constitution is quite clear on the responsibilities of the president with respect to signing legislation. Once a bill has been passed by parliament, the president must either assent to it or, if they have reservations about its constitutionality, refer it back to parliament. Since, after considering all the submissions, I had no such reservations about the Bela Bill, the constitution obliged me to assent to it.
“However, even as I signed the bill, I noted some parties in the GNU said they wanted to engage each other on parts of the bill dealing with issues of school admissions and language. To give the parties time to discuss the issues, I said we would delay implementation of the act for parties to engage and come up with proposals, if any, on the relevant clauses.”
In taking this approach, Ramaphosa said they were seeking to establish a culture of openness and dialogue among the GNU parties.
“We are also drawing on a long history in South Africa of engagement among parties in matters on which they seem far apart.”
TimesLIVE
GNU will not only survive but will thrive — Ramaphosa
President Cyril Ramaphosa is confident the government of national unity (GNU) will not only survive disagreements between the parties involved but it will thrive.
“South Africans expect the GNU to succeed, and we will not let them down,” he said on Monday.
There were sharp differences in the GNU last week when the DA, in its objection to the signing into law of the Basic Education Laws Amendment (Bela) Bill, accused Ramaphosa of endangering the future of the unity government and destroying the good faith on which it was based.
Writing in his weekly newsletter on Monday, Ramaphosa noted three months have passed since 10 parties represented in parliament signed a statement of intent committing themselves to work together in government and parliament to advance the country’s interests.
Last Wednesday, the leaders of the parties met to reflect on how the GNU was working, and there was general agreement it has made a good start.
“They believe the GNU is working well and everyone is playing a constructive role,” said Ramaphosa.
“As party leaders, we nevertheless recognise the parties in the GNU represent a range of political and ideological perspectives. There are issues on which we disagree and there will be times when differences between the parties will become more apparent.”
He cited the Bela Bill as a case in point, saying while the leaders were meeting last week, some parties in the GNU were publicly urging him not to sign the bill while others were saying he should sign it.
“The constitution is quite clear on the responsibilities of the president with respect to signing legislation. Once a bill has been passed by parliament, the president must either assent to it or, if they have reservations about its constitutionality, refer it back to parliament. Since, after considering all the submissions, I had no such reservations about the Bela Bill, the constitution obliged me to assent to it.
“However, even as I signed the bill, I noted some parties in the GNU said they wanted to engage each other on parts of the bill dealing with issues of school admissions and language. To give the parties time to discuss the issues, I said we would delay implementation of the act for parties to engage and come up with proposals, if any, on the relevant clauses.”
In taking this approach, Ramaphosa said they were seeking to establish a culture of openness and dialogue among the GNU parties.
“We are also drawing on a long history in South Africa of engagement among parties in matters on which they seem far apart.”
TimesLIVE
READ MORE: