Will all our ‘honourables’ live up to their new name

MANY probably spent a few days shopping for their best outfit.

The veterans knew where to get what they consider to be appropriate and latest fashion items for such a big occasion.

There’s little doubt the novices spent some time contemplating the most fitting looks for the day. Some arrived in their overalls.

Some probably visited their mirrors several times and pinched themselves in disbelief. Like children who excitedly toss and turn the night before their first school trip, they must have asked themselves: Is this for real?

Families, friends, partners and members of the public witnessed this historical occasion on Wednesday. It was a day never to be forgotten.

They lined up in their numbers, across the legislative capitals of nine provinces and in the National Assembly in Cape Town, and stood before the country’s top judges.

Each judge asked our newly elected members of the provincial legislatures (MPLs) and members of parliament (MPs) to make a public undertaking to the republic and its citizens.

At the heart of the undertaking is what the political scientist John Kane calls “practical fidelity” to the constitution and all laws of the republic.

They swore and made a solemn affirmation before the judges, committing themselves not only to respect the laws governing our democracy, but also, more importantly, to advance and uphold the supreme law of the land.

The judges asked them to appeal to God to help them live up to the expectations of the oath . They obliged without hesitation.

The media cameras and the latest smart phones did the snapping. Comrades clapped their hands in fervent approval.

With the verbal expression of the undertaking came a new powerful status – “the honourable so-and-so” – in recognition of the honourable duty they are obliged to perform on behalf of the republic and its people.

Some of the MPLs and MPs would at a later stage make undertakings after being appointed as members of executives, premiers, deputy president and president.

There were, of course, thoroughly fermented liquids that were sipped later on, and, in some cases, until the early hours of the morning in celebration of the important day.

But after all the pomp and ceremony, will the honourable members remember the oath of office when duty and circumstances dictate that they do?

Will they call on God to help them to live up to the promise they made – to serve the republic and its people with the requisite honesty?

Will this covenant, entered into before a judge who invoked God’s assistance in full view of the public, friends, family and comrades, stand up to the private, secret pledge that the honourable members entered into with their respective political parties?

Our short history as a democracy suggests that the oath of office for some elected public representatives is taken as a procedural requirement rather than a substantive undertaking that must be honoured at all times.

Self interest, narrow party political considerations and personal ambitions sometimes triumph over the undertaking made before a judge.

The biggest challenge in South Africa’s politics is not the lack of good laws – minus the Secrecy Bill.

Fortunately, the constitution – upon which all our laws are, or should be, anchored – is hailed as the world’s best. Nor are our politics bereft of competing ideologies.

The biggest challenge is to get politicians across the political and ideological divide to honour their oath of office.

Leaders of political parties, who are supposed to lead by example, must not subject junior party members who are MPs and MPLs to untenable situations where they have to choose between doing their work as is required by the constitution or advancing narrow party positions.

Quite often the MPs and MPLs become the defenders of their leaders at the expense of the public they pledged to serve.

Party political positions, for as long as they are within the parameters of the constitution, should be advanced because that’s what voters want.

Voters want parties to implement the programmes sold to them during the election campaign. Failing that, they can withdraw support of the political party they voted for.

But not one political party promised that its members would violate the oath of office.

Sadly, though, not one political party stressed the importance of their leaders respecting the oath of office once they are elected into power.

It is true that an oath of office is not tangible enough to be sold to voters as, for example, social grants, promises of jobs and improved service delivery.

But a violation of the oath of office means our public representatives are negligent of their public duty and any of the promises would be impossible to fulfil.

The violation of the oath of office is by its very nature unconstitutional.

Shouldn’t the first item on the agenda for debate in all provincial legislatures, the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces be about the meaning of the oath of office?

Just a layman’s suggestion.

Mpumelelo Mkhabela is the editor of the Sowetan