Is it asking too much that our MPs act with a modicum of civility?

The pleasant lull we've enjoyed during the festive season is about to be rudely interrupted. The circus is about to begin. Parliament will soon be back in session.

It's often said that a country gets the parliament or leadership it deserves. In our case, what is supposed to be a crucible for ideas and solutions has been turned into a schoolyard for bullies.

This week, as parliamentary committees resumed work, cordial greetings had hardly been exchanged before MPs were arguing, not about great matters of state, but about whether the Economic Freedom Fighters should wear their beloved gumboots and red overalls.

One suspects that the fight over a parliamentary dress code is a smoke screen for something else. The ANC has yet to figure out how to handle the EFF, a noisy bunch that's stolen its thunder.

The EFF has turned coarse or loutish behaviour into a fine art. It seems to take enormous delight in annoying its opponents. For the moment the public seems to be on its side. It is still a novelty. The ANC is getting a taste of its own medicine.

Boorishness, however, has to lose its appeal at some point.

But the ANC has no reason to complain. Since the inception of this democratic parliament, the ANC has used its majoritarian thuggery to bamboozle and intimidate a feeble opposition. In the EFF, however, it has met its match - a foe that's not only adept at but relishes playing its politics of the gutter.

"Entitlement" is a popular word in South African political discourse, often used to chide the poor for demanding services they apparently don't deserve.

But the ANC seems to think it is entitled to power. That's a mentality that courses through everything it does. We may be a democracy, but in the ANC's view, it is in power and therefore deserves unquestioned authority. The opposition should have neither a role nor any say. It should simply sit in a corner and shut up and let the ANC run things the way it sees fit.

It is solely to blame for the animus in parliament. It set the tone right from the beginning. When parliament started questioning aspects of the arms deal a few years ago, the ANC moved quickly to frustrate any debate on the subject.

The chairmanship of the standing committee on public accounts, or Scopa, which is traditionally occupied by the official opposition, was taken away from the DA's Ken Andrew and given to Gavin Woods of the IFP. But he, too, was ejected when he started asking awkward questions. Scopa is now chaired by Themba Godi, who represents the African People's Convention in parliament and has proved a pliable poodle for the ruling party.

Almost two decades after the procurement of these armaments, South Africa is still nowhere near knowing why such a costly enterprise was undertaken, or who personally benefited from it.

Parliament is again dealing with a debilitating scandal, one that has completely hobbled the work of the institution and poisoned relations. What's even worse this time is that a sitting president is personally enmeshed in it. President Jacob Zuma has done everything except tell the truth about his Nkandla homestead, and he has made certain his party is behind him.

Zuma should not be persuaded to answer questions in parliament. It's a duty of the office he has sworn to uphold. But staying away seems the only safe option for him.

Waiting for him whenever he chooses to enter parliament again will be the brooding figure of Julius Malema, Zuma's bête noire, who triggered the furore in the first place. Malema knows how to get under the ANC's skin. He knows about its blind spot and where the bodies are buried.

In fact, his mere presence in parliament seems to rile the ANC; it sees it almost as an affront - a red rag to a bull. The man it failed to destroy has come back to haunt it.

Adding to the tension is the language used in parliament. English is not the first language of most of us and therefore has tended to have a constraining effect on conversation.

Many MPs struggle with the language. They can hardly think on their feet in it, let alone deploy subtleties such as satire and humour to ridicule or disarm an opponent.

Slights and insults are perceived even where none are intended. Being misunderstood can add to the fury.

But our MPs should be able to handle such affray with ease. After all, they're supposed to be the cream of society, in parliament to solve problems, not engage in crude one-upmanship.

Parliament is the jewel in the crown that is our democracy. It's a sacred place, a repository of our dreams and desires.

It should not be trampled upon, especially not by those supposed to be its guardians.

Debates and disagreements are the stuff of the place, and shouldn't make for eternal enemies. It's surely not too much to expect of our elected representatives, in pursuing their purposes, to behave with a modicum of civility?