Phala Phala vote: result predictable

A political party’s parliamentary enforcer is known as the chief whip – from the English tradition that a whip was used to bring hunting hounds back into the pack if they looked like straying.

It’s a tradition continued in many democracies which followed the British system – so one cannot accuse the ANC of suddenly forcing its MPs to toe the line.

The reality is that there has never been a tradition of ANC members – or, indeed, MPs from any party in our legislature – speaking their minds and going against party policy.

That is why today’s vote in the National Assembly – about whether to accept or reject the Section 89 panel’s report into Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm burglary – is unlikely to see a deviation from the multiple previous times when MPs have circled the wagons to defend a sitting president.

ALSO READ: ‘Our worry is not the ANC, it’s the DA’: Malema on MPs voting for Ramaphosa’s impeachment

Jacob Zuma used the ANC’s strong sense of “discipline” – which most of us would translate as “knowing which side your bread is buttered on” – to ward off a number of parliamentary “no confidence” motions.

And, in doing so, the supportive ANC resisted any attempts to have the vote carried out in secret – because, in the full glare of public scrutiny, no one would have dared to break ranks.

So, it’s a bit rich to hear Zuma’s supporters now baying for a secret vote.

What does complicate matters, however, is that, when parliament gets to the Phala Phala voting, the ANC may still not have decided in its own national executive committee what should be done with Ramaphosa.

ALSO READ: Secret ballot for Phala Phala impeachment vote turned down

However, the reality is that, no matter how much the dogs bark, Ramaphosa has still amassed considerable support within the ANC and looks like winning the presidential nomination at Nasrec.

And, ANC MPs demonstrate better than most, how they love a winner.