Publications
Partners
In the almost 22 years of democracy, the ANC in Parliament has had 11 chief whips – an average of two years in the hot seat. Recently, Stone Sizani resigned from his position to take an ambassadorial post.
Andisiwe Makinana asked Ben Turok, Zizi Kodwa and Lawson Naidoo why this job has become such a revolving door.
Ben Turok , former ANC MP who also served as a whip in charge of questions to the president:
The job of the chief whip is a very stressful one because you are answerable and accountable to more than one person. You are accountable, firstly, to Luthuli House (ANC headquarters), which is monitoring your activities all the time.
The ANC keeps an eye on you daily and that is quite stressful. You are also accountable to the caucus.
All the ANC MPs meet every Thursday in the Old Assembly and the chief whip chairs that meeting and is in charge. That means you have 300 ANC people in a room who can question you about anything, and that is stressful.
Most important of all is that you meet the other chief whips of the other parties once a week in the chief whips’ forum.
That is very difficult because there is party haggling, negotiations and bargaining, and you have to come to some sort of working agreement. If you don’t, Parliament can’t work.
If there isn’t a degree of cooperation between the chief whips of the opposition and the ruling party, Parliament in fact shuts down.
Because every committee and plenary is dependent on a quorum … the chief whip is in fact a kind of shop steward.
He or she is looking after the quorum of the House and that is not easy because the opposition these days is very hostile and it is often united.
It requires a great deal of experience and wisdom, and not every chief whip has these qualities.
The position requires a superman or a superwoman. The pressure is enormous. I know chief whips who worked very hard, but it’s a very hot seat and people get tired.
Zizi Kodwa, ANC national spokesperson:
The assumption is that there is one reason people leave the position of chief whip, but obviously there are various reasons.
In the ANC, the issue of institutional memory does not lie with a particular leader. The point I am making is about changes in leadership and whether that has an effect on the system.
The system is such that it allows for anybody to participate. If you come in tomorrow as the chief whip, you will find a system.
Parliament works, regardless of who is there, because there is a system in place. The problem is that the media has a narrative about why chief whips are leaving.
Part of the reason this may be difficult for people outside the ANC to understand is that the ANC has the right to exercise its authority over its deployees.
It is not interruption when we redeploy someone. The ANC observes all its deployees, their capacities and their performances and, if there is an opportunity for a deployment, it won’t look at someone who is not yet deployed or who is not working. It can look among those who are working and say “this fits this person”. That’s what happens most of the time.
Many of our chief whips have done well. If one of them leaves, we will find a good chief whip who will not only be trusted in terms of the ANC, but who we know will do well in Parliament on behalf of the people of South Africa.
One person leaving is not an interruption of the system, because the system is not based on one person.
Lawson Naidoo, executive secretary of the Council for the Advancement of the SA Constitution:
The turnover of ANC chief whips is probably high, and it’s because it’s a unique job.
It is a complex and difficult task because there are so many demands and so many things happening in Parliament that the chief whip has to keep a handle on to make sure that everything works.
If the majority party does not perform, Parliament does not perform. If their members are not there, Parliament can’t do its work.
Given how difficult and complex it is, it would normally take someone a while before they come to grips with the job and you would expect that the majority party would keep somebody there for a while, because it’s a senior position. You would expect a level of stability and a clear succession plan.
You would also think that, in such a critical job, in such a key institution, the chief whip’s appointment would be dealt with differently. You might expect him or her to be kept there for the long haul once he or she understands how the system works.
It’s a technical job. On one level, it involves managing the running of Parliament – because the chief whip plays a key role in that – but he or she also has to mediate the political demands that are placed on members of Parliament.
He or she must ensure that the political message is maintained by the members of the party, as well as that the institution continues to function.
There needs to be communication between head office and the head of the party in Parliament, the whip. If the work of Parliament is not considered critical by the hierarchy, the chief whip is placed in a difficult position.
TALK TO US
Is it good for democracy that the majority party changes whips in Parliament as often as it does?
SMS us on 35697 using the keyword WHIP and tell us what you think. Please include your name and province. SMSes cost R1.50
