According to a survey of historical scholars published by US News and World Report, American President Warren G Harding (29th president 1921-1923) was rated the sixth worst since the office was established in 1789 by founding father George Washington (rated third best).

Harding had many strikes against him during his short tenure, but one of the most pointed critiques related to his empty rhetoric and speeches, which hid any coherent meaning.

One of his critics, Senator Willliam G McAdoo, said of Harding:

His speeches left the impression of an army of pompous phrases moving over the landscape in search of an idea. Sometimes these meandering words would actually capture a straggling thought and bear it triumphantly, a prisoner in their midst, until it died of servitude and overwork.

A century later, I don’t want to overburden Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni with another accolade. After all, only on the weekend, the Sunday Times bestowed on this GNU paladin its anticipated Mampara of the Week award. She won this for her infamous comment on underground zama zamas in Stilfontein, that government would “smoke them out” since it was “not sending help to criminals”.

Without interrogating her Ubuntu spirit or profound lack, she later attempted to walk back her virally sensational comment by insisting her words be understood metaphorically, not at face value. For other comments, though, I do think she is a worthy local winner of the McAdoo floating trophy for “an army of pompous phrases”, “straggling thoughts” and imprisoned ideas.

In this case, though, her words go to the heart of the issue of what precisely constitutes government policy and who decides it. And whether the GNU, much heralded as the panacea for our deep economic and social malaise, has more meaning and coherence than her pompous phrases.

When the minister for communications and digital technologies, Solly Malatsi, used his prerogative powers (much harped on by the ANC on matters related to the presidency) and withdrew the highly contentious SABC Bill, the motor mouth minister Ntshavheni revved her engines.

She said:

He had no authority to withdraw the bill. He can’t withdraw the bill, as it is an executive bill… so in terms of the law, he cannot withdraw it without coming to the Cabinet to agree to its withdrawal.

Just hold a moment here: so, no Cabinet minister, on her version, has any power (although Parliament’s rules explicitly provide for this) to withdraw legislation he or she deems problematic.

Why, the overburdened taxpayer might ask, do we fund 32 ministers if none of them are allowed to exercise their core responsibilities? Presumably, only the presidency sealed off from all parties bar the ANC will decide what’s allowed and what isn’t.

Wait a sec, though. It gets much better or worse, depending on your viewpoint.

Reports on the weekend suggest that at an internal ANC meeting, the same minister, who on the SABC Bill proclaimed protocols prevent a minister from withdrawing a bill he determines problematic, ignores the same processes regarding legislation which three parties to the GNU argue is seriously flawed.

The contentious Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Act, flagged by DA, FF+ and PA as imperilling the U of the GNU, was explicitly referred by Ntshavheni’s boss, President Cyril Ramaphosa, to the Cabinet clearing house for debate and reconciliation. This is the authority charged with such matters in terms of a statement of intent signed by all parties.

Apparently, the minister was having no truck with such niceties. According to a media report, she and other anti-GNU hawks in the ANC “argued that the BELA Act should NOT have been taken to the clearing house as it was a parliamentary matter that South Africa had assented to during the public participation process.”

Arbitrary and threatening 

The nub of the matter is this: whether this minister, without any legal or political basis, is going now and in the future to be a high executioner on what does or doesn’t pass the test on what proceeds or doesn’t? Has she been given the power to determine which items of legislation are in a line function minister’s remit? And that the body, or clearing house, established by the parties to the GNU to compromise on contentious laws, can be bypassed on her say so?

What of her boss, Cyril Ramaphposa? Whether he agrees with her or not, who knows? Likely, he will keep his counsel until the house is on fire, metaphorically speaking, of course.

A GNU insider told me recently that he found Ntshavheni’s demarcation on what is or is not government policy both arbitrary and threatening.

On the one hand, as he expressed it: “The SABC Bill is to be subject to the cabinet allowing for its withdrawal or not. On the other hand, when it comes to foreign policy there is no input by the cabinet as whole. It is simply ANC policy and impulses (such as ‘our good friend and ally’ Vladimir Putin recently given this imprimatur by President Ramaphosa) which applies in their self-sealed echo chamber. No other view or input tolerated.”

A journalist writing a feature on Ebrahim Rasool’s impending arrival in Washington DC, asked me to comment on Rasool’s depiction of his post as ambassador-designate to the United States; namely, that he regards himself as “an ambassador of the new GNU”.