Public Protector Takes It Personally Thuli Madonsela's personality, opposition parties, tripartite alliance members and the media have all compromised the Chapter 9 institution Clyde NS Ramalaine, The New Age, Johannesburg, 7 August 2015 In South Africa we are polarised today because of how the public protector (PP) office is experienced. If you question the PP and express an opinion you are labelled as attacking her and her office. Those who "defend" the PP and the office do so consciously refusing to hear others, whom they already have declared as pro-Nkandla and, by default, against our Constitution. The PP's office is in disrepute and perhaps four groups are to blame. Firstly, the PP's personality is to blame for the office being in disrepute. Thuli Madonsela.jpg Overreaching: South Africa deserves a public protector's office in which the personality of the incumbent cannot be the epicentre of its functionality as Thuli Madonsela has done, thereby giving life to claims of a political agenda, the writer says. Picture: Bongiwe Mchunu Secondly, opposition parties - who have lost at the ballot - attempt to use, if not manipulate, this office to deal with what they cannot in Parliament. This is not new because we have seen how an attempt was made to use the courts to secure political victories against the ruling party. The third group that must take blame for the state of the PP office being in disrepute is the ANC and its tripartite alliance members. Fourthly, the media who confuse pure journalistic reporting with their own opinion pieces. It is perhaps time we ask how did the PP office become such a political reality. We have had PPs before and the office was not so politically loaded or charged as this one. We dare not accept that previous PPs were mere lapdogs of the ANC. The PP office now has its third incumbent: meaning before advocate Thuli Madonsela two other advocates, Selby Baqwa and Lawrence Mushwana, occupied the office. It is here that I wish to make the point: there is a stark difference in how the public protector's office was experienced under Madonsela's predecessors as juxtaposed to her tenure. The question can thus be posed: has the Constitution changed? No. Has the mandate changed? No. Has the functionality of this office changed? Maybe, but let us say no to this also. That leaves the question: why the big change that sees the office in the current state? Is it perhaps a personality? We must ask why the PP is perceived as being part of the active political world of SA, in particular the opposition party world. We must ask why the opposition parties in SA seeks to "defend" the PP and how she is perceived by them as a tool for their political fights against what they term majoritarianism, the ultimate sin in our political discourse. We can no longer just assume the vocal defence of the PP by opposition parties as accidental and even coincidental. Perhaps we must ask how was the political identity and presence of the current PP crafted? The secondary question is: how is this fed? Is it fed by opposition parties that have contaminated this office in attempt of using it as part of its arsenal against the ruling party? We have never heard the PP being public about her discomfort with the deliberate intents of some opposition parties to attempt using her as a tool, yet she is vocal on the ANC leadership. I had expected her to say to opposition party leaders: you are not helping my office if you are polarising it. Why the deafening silence on this when this public protector is very vocal? We cannot assume bullies are only number- based; we have seen how Parliament is subjected to bullying by a small party, so to assume it is only the big that can bully is farcical a claim. When we look at how specific reports were delivered, how the "public" was psychologically prepared, how leaks and claims of leaks occurred, how dates of reports releases were changed and postponed, we will see the evidence of what some term political gerrymandering. This PP (Madonsela) offered lectures on certain reports; therefore she is in the media on what she already has written. Can it be argued that continuous presence of the PP on some of her reports clouds the reports and exacerbates the acrimony? It appeared as if the PP, in typical Lady Di style, played with the public around the Nkandla report. Some conveniently forget she made statements to the effect of "you will be surprised with my findings" - we still are not sure who the "you" is that the PP was referring to. Even better, we do not know why the public relations exercise was necessary when all the office had to do was to receive a complaint, assess the credibility of such and investigate the veracity of such and report on such to Parliament. Another question is: whose report is it after the PP had made her findings, recommendations etc? It appears some reports are personalised. Any and every time Nkandla is mentioned the PP must respond. Why? One simply does not know since her report stands by itself. The incumbent was recently captured saying she was soft on Zuma. These loose statements simply do not help this office. This is where the claims of a political agenda are given life. Every day in SA the judiciary makes findings and legal professionals and the public - however defined - pronounce in disagreement on these findings yet the judiciary does not respond. Yet our public protector responds to everything all the time. The SA auditor-generals have over time made grave findings against the government in all its tiers and expressed not just reservations but even named municipalities that are guilty of a litany of bad practices. What Nkandla has afforded us, perhaps unconsciously, is an opportunity to reflect on how the PP office functions. The PP is on record for her most recent utterances "I appeal we stop personalising matters". Herein lies for me the key: is this a concession that our PP herself has personalised Nkandla and her report? If so, why? In conclusion, South Africa deserves a public protector office that firstly is, and remains, respected. One in which the personality of the incumbent cannot be the epicentre of the functionality of the office. . Clyde NS Ramalaine is a public commentator, author and writer From: http://tnaepaper.co.za/ -- -- You are subscribed. This footer can help you. Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this message. You can visit the group WEB SITE at http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options, pages, files and membership. To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this address (repeat): [email protected] . --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "YCLSA Discussion Forum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
