Opening remarks on the occasion of the meeting between Parliament’s Presiding Officers, the South African National Editors Forum, the National Press Club and senior journalists by Deputy Chairperson: National Council of Provinces, Mr Raseriti Tau in Johannesburg
Speaker of the National Assembly
Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces
Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly
Deputy Chairperson of the South African National Editors’ Forum
Fellow Presiding Officers
Senior Journalists
Ladies and gentlemen
It is always easy to welcome a visitor. All one does is to say welcome to you all. Thereafter it isn’t your fault if you still feel unwelcome.
I am grateful for the opportunity to welcome you all to this seminal occasion – new and distinct in its own right – a meeting of Parliament’s Presiding Officers and senior members of the media.
Parliament and the media are two important and powerful institutions:
Parliament is a prime institution of democracy, a key site of power. It is elected into being by the people and carries a mandate from the voters. It is one of the arms of state – a key pillar of our democratic edifice. It is a custodian of our constitution. It is in Parliament where the quality of our democracy is continuously refined. A properly functioning Parliament fosters and deepens democracy. It is in this context that the role and responsibility of Parliament’s Presiding Officers should be understood.
The institution’s role notwithstanding, Parliament’s ability to influence what people see, talk and think about comes nowhere near what the media can do in this regard. Jim Morrison says “whoever controls the media, controls the mind.”
Now if this is so, could we say with justification that it is in the media where real power resides. I suppose so. In other words real power in this meeting encounter, in this room vests in our guests, namely South African National Editors’ Forum (Sanef), the National Press club and all our esteemed guest here.
This is not an exaggeration. It is justifiable, in part on the basis of the fact that most of the information about Parliament including its Presiding Officers, is mediated through the texts, images and reports that the media generate and or that we do not generate. To paraphrase Frank Zappa, consider this: if you ever had an idea that people (or institutions) were really terrible (or good), you could watch the news (or read newspapers) and know that you are right.
On any given day a thousand activities take place in Parliament – over twenty committee meetings take place and critical issues of national importance are discussed, there are plenary sessions, volumes of information circulate, Parties go about their business, there are Press conferences etc. The media report on these, sometimes they don’t. The media make very important decisions about which of these are newsworthy and which are not. They make decisions about those deemed to be newsworthy in terms of how they are reported, which aspects are left out and which are highlighted. It is a very powerful role. It determines what people get to hear about, how they get to hear about it. And thus what to think about it.
It is a role which assigns to the media the power to determine society’s awareness and understanding of what happens in the institution that they elected into existence.
Are we as media doing justice to this responsibility? Do we appreciate it and its implications?
Our media is an established entity which subscribe to refined professional standards and protocols. There is stringent monitoring mechanisms and avenues for recourse in case of deviation are there? They do not report lies, not always, at least. Where deviations occur, there is correction.
That is however not the end of the story. There many questions which we should consider.
Do the 1 – 3 minutes cameos on TV really help in reflecting the complex and nuanced Parliamentary reality and business?
Does the use of tried and tested analysts of everything really assist in adequately articulating the issues relating to Parliament business?
Parliament operates on the basis of rules, conventions, practice, standing orders. How much access do the analysts and editors who give daily analysis about Parliament have to these? Do some even ever come to Parliament? Some still make references to the “Speaker of Parliament” instead of “Speaker of the NA”.
How can one accumulate authoritative understanding of an institution like Parliament from a newsroom, a lecture hall, an office? Or from our mediated Parliamentary reality through TV cameos and news in brief.
There’s more to Parliament than the points of order and walkouts and recalcitrance about which much reportage has been recently. Attending a committee meeting and reading about the same meeting the next day can be very different experiences at times. The proliferation of 24 hour broadcast channels has brought about an opportunity but has not yet changed the situation in a major way. The reporting culture and modalities are still the same, we still rely on the same analysts etc.
Today, early on in the life of the Fifth Parliament, a conversation is about to start about how best we can serve our country and democracy. Our country is a product of talking and listening. This is what today is about – we have a story to tell and we would like to hear the ‘other side’.
This engagement is made much more significant and relevant by the fact that it takes place at the beginning of the fifth Parliament, and at a point when Parliament is busy considering information for the purposes of developing the strategic plan for the fifth Parliament. It is also made much more relevant by the fact that it takes place after a period of 20 years of the democratic dispensation.
This is part of a series of strategic interactive encounters between Parliament and different stakeholders in society. It is in order for Parliament to champion the notion of reframing, in a progressive manner, the concept of the South African Dialogue. It is a Parliament-sponsored social partnership concept to deepen solidarity and cooperation, to widen debate and to afford as many citizens as possible an opportunity to express themselves in the public consideration of issues affecting them as South Africans and in the interest of nation building, social cohesion and strengthening democracy.
The media in all its forms are critical instruments toward the attainment of this objective. Through their active involvement and creative utilisation, it is possible to create meaningful platforms for progressive debate and conversations on a wide scale, and to influence the national agenda.
We will use today’s encounter to reflect on two decades of our democratic Parliament, taking stock of our transformation from minority rule based on racial discrimination, to a democratic non-racial and non-sexist state where the Constitution is supreme. We will also reflect on the first 100 days of the fifth democratic Parliament.
The encounters with the media are not intended to create a scenario where the media “live in the pockets of people who are in power”. These are not meant to be complaint sessions. Rather, they are genuine efforts to cultivate understanding and contribution to building a developmental democratic state. The National Development Plan presupposes this in recognising the active efforts and participation of all South Africans in their own development, and leadership from all sectors in society, as some of the critical pillars or efforts around which to galvanise society.
We are looking forward to the opportunity for fruitful engagements. Once again, a very warm South African welcome to you all.
Thank you
