National Assembly Cape Town: Thursday, 20 September 2007  

The original twin bills were opposed by the IFP when last presented to this house in 2005, and we do not believe that circumstances are such that we should reverse our position now. 

The fact that the Constitutional Court struck the bills down on procedural grounds constituted an ideal opportunity for the government to re-think its stance on the matter. However, it was clear from the start that nothing would change and that the same provisions would be re-enacted with sufficient public engagement this time around to pass constitutional muster.

Indeed, just after the Constitutional Court decision, and in response to an IFP statement, the deputy minister of Justice told this house effectively that in respect of the political content of the re-introduced bills, nothing would change.  

Clearly then, government had no intention of reconsidering its original position. Likewise the ANC. The fact of the matter is that the government and ANC agree that whatever the consultation to take place, this was to be a procedural formality rather than a real engagement.  

The objections to the inclusion of Matatiele in the Eastern Cape were varied, but could be included within the following broad themes: 

-Poor service delivery from the Eastern Cape,  

-Distance from Eastern Cape economic and political centres,  

-Strong economic, educational and other ties with KwaZulu Natal, and   

-A general sense of identity with KwaZulu Natal. 

It was clear from the start that the ANC would latch onto the service delivery issue to the exclusion of the others, and in acknowledging certain historic delivery difficulties, argue that in tackling this more effectively, the desirability of maintaining the status quo was satisfactorily addressed.  

The IFP believes that notwithstanding service delivery difficulties, this was never the central issue in the debate, and that it is therefore fallacious to argue that if you address complaints over service delivery you have addressed the issue of Matatiele's location. That is not correct. We oppose the bill. 

Madam Speaker,  

The real issue underlying Matatiele's discontent is centred in issues of identity, not service delivery. In other words, people are saying that at the level of identity, they associate themselves with KwaZulu Natal rather than the Eastern Cape, or visa versa. This is an argument centred on emotion. It is an argument where people are saying they have a preference for where they want to live because they have positive associations with one province over another. They feel more connected with a specific province, and all things being equal, would prefer to live in the province of their choice.  

This is complete anathema to the ANC. The ANC refuses to acknowledge that such feelings have any merit. In fact, the ANC denies the validity and even the legitimacy of such arguments, stating - as if this has any relevance at all - that we are all South Africans. Yes, of course we are all South Africans, but what has that got to do with the fact that within one country, one can have additional loyalties? The ANC feels very uncomfortable with this. It is so centrist in its mindset, so unitarist in its approach to governance, that it fails to comprehend that regional and local identities can legitimately exist within the country alongside a common national identity.  

This is false thinking, and it is this type of false thinking that has the ANC dismissing all arguments centred on identity, acknowledging only arguments based on delivery, and then promptly saying this can be addressed by improving delivery from the Eastern Cape. 

I have just got back from a study tour in Germany, which, like South Africa, is engaged in a review of the federal system. It is striking how differently they deal with things there. There, they really consult the people and do not rely on Micky-Mouse consultation where you say to people that their arguments are stupid, or invalid, or the result of false consciousness, or are counter-revolutionary, or whatever. In Germany, there is a debate on merging certain provinces, and in the case I am citing, merging Berlin and Brandenberg. Berlin sits as an island within Brandenberg, and all sorts of arguments were advocated by the various governments at the national and provincial level in favour of a merge. But, as is required by law, the matter had to be tested by way of a referendum, and government lost. The people decided otherwise, and that is that. 

Now it is true in our case that there is no constitutional obligation to test the will of the people, but the IFP says it again - conduct a referendum and let this be the test of where Matatiele should be placed.

There may be times when populism can produce an undesirable outcome - on certain moral issues this is inevitable - but this argument cannot be sustained in relation to the matter before us. We say, let the people be heard, and then, please listen. That is democracy in action. The IFP opposes the bill.