Fiery Iran debate makes clowns of Parliament

The National Assembly degenerated into a circus on 19 March during a debate on Iran. The Democratic Alliance (DA) spokesperson on international relations and cooperation, Ryan Smith, was repeatedly heckled by members of Parliament (MPs) from the left – the African National Congress (ANC), Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), and the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party. 

Smith was interrupted again and again by spurious “points of order”, forcing him to sit down almost a dozen times. Deputy Speaker Dr Annelie Lotriet struggled to control an unruly house that accused her of bias. Scant respect was shown for any speaker opposing Iran. This unbecoming conduct threatened to stifle a rare parliamentary discussion of South African foreign policy. 

Smith told the SA Jewish Report, “The debate was so heated because the DA rightly pointed out that the ANC, in its very public support for Iran, wasn’t only violating constitutional principles but acting contrary to its own political history. Claims from the likes of Fikile Mbalula that Iran was a friend to the ANC during the struggle are imaginary. Iran traded oil for apartheid weapons throughout the 1980s, thus helping to prop up the regime when both countries were sanctioned. Any onlooker can only conclude that the ANC has sold its principles to the highest bidder and is willing to rewrite history when given a bit of money. 

“The fact that they reacted so rabidly to the DA’s speeches shows that their cognitive dissonance on Iran is easily disrupted when you speak the truth. The ANC is a dying liberation movement and failed governing party that has now resorted, in desperation, to maligned and outdated international alliances to keep itself afloat,” Smith said. 

This would further sour relations with South Africa’s largest trading partners and allies. 

The debate was requested urgently by Mmusi Maimane, head of Build One South Africa (a party with two MPs) and former DA leader. He told the SA Jewish Report that their mission in the debate was to hold the government accountable for its response to the Iran war, and the dire economic consequences. A key issue was safe repatriation of citizens caught up in the conflict (including some of his own family). 

“My summation of the debate”, Maimane said, “is you can make it about political parties choosing a side in the conflict, you can make it about old ideological issues. I’m making it about the choice of politics rather than the people of South Africa.” 

Parks Tau, the minister of trade, industry and competition, had launched the discussions by warning of the economic risks to South Africa: a rocketing fuel price, disruptions of supply and shipping routes, and inevitable inflation and food insecurity. 

International Relations and Cooperation Minister Ronald Lamola slammed the DA’s viewpoint and called South Africa’s position “consistent and rooted in non-alignment”. He said Pretoria had supported peaceful protests in Iran. He questioned whether a foreign policy that selectively condemns actors could claim moral consistency (except, apparently, when it comes to Israel). Lamola said South Africa’s foreign policy was “not anti-American but anti-imperialist”, grounded in the United Nations Charter and sovereignty. 

Lamola wasn’t shy in taking on the DA as supposed puppets of the West. He said, “You accuse us of one-eyed foreign policy, yet it’s your vision that is blinkered. Standing at this podium and peddling discredited and unproven conspiracies from think tanks in Washington is cheap political point scoring, Honourable Smith.” 

To no-one’s surprise, the EFF supported Iran and condemned Israel and the US. 

Hussein Solomon, professor at the University of the Free State’s Centre for Gender and African Studies, said, “If the allegations of the ANC taking money from Iran are true, then it has a vested interest in defending the regime in Tehran.” 

The noisy debate was a rare public discussion of foreign policy. Independent political analyst Sara Gon said, “Holding the parliamentary debate was important because the ANC has kept foreign policy close to its chest. The Government of National Unity [GNU] has had no input in what our foreign policy and relationships should look like. In this respect, the debate was necessary for a range of honest views, and contradictory ones, to be aired publicly.” 

International relations researcher at the Southern African Liaison Office, Lwazi Somya, said, “The ANC portrayed the debate as a means of reporting how it is effectively trying to deal with the crisis”, citing Tau’s speech on measures to ameliorate economic shocks from the conflict. “The DA pushed the human rights angle”. 

“In this instance, they were speaking past each other,” Somya said. He said the DA wants more influence on foreign policy, an issue from the birth of the GNU. “I suspect that the ANC will try to consolidate its foreign policy approach around itself heading into the next elections” and exclude the DA as much as possible, Somya said. 

Political economy analyst Daniel Silke said the debate also sent a message that South Africa would not bow down to the wishes of the US, and that Washington’s pressure on domestic policies was having no effect. This would not win it any friends in the US. 

Silke said, “This debate was an example of how the ANC needed to reassert its leadership on foreign policy. It regards total control of foreign policy as an absolute priority. It really doesn’t want to relinquish any aspect of its historical ideological stance to the DA or anyone else.” 

For an institution valuing free speech and respect for different views, there was precious little on display in Parliament.