Diverse voters participating in the 2024 national elections captured in and around Johannesburg in the most hotly contested, with many surprises, elections in South Africa's 30 year democracy.
Delwyn Verasamy, Mail & Guardian, 29 May 2024
The results of the election held on 29 May 2024 have undoubtedly clouded the country’s political landscape, because for the first time in our history, no political party was able to achieve an outright majority nationally.
Developments around the formation of the so-called government of national unity over the past weeks are an indication of how uncertain the next few months and years are set to become.
What was made clear in this election, though, is that an increasing number of South Africans are choosing to opt out from the formal democratic process, with many not bothering to register to vote, and of those that were registered, a fewer number of them decided to turn up at the polls than before.
A survey conducted by the Institute of Justice and Reconciliation gives us some sense of why voter apathy has increased. Of those surveyed, 81% expressed the opinion that their leaders were not concerned about what happens to ordinary people, up from 57% in 2003, while 79% held the belief that their leaders cannot be trusted to do what is right.
Essentially, these findings point to a significant trust deficit between citizens and their political leaders. That politicians have eroded their trust with the public to this extent is concerning and does not bode well for general satisfaction towards our nascent democracy.
This negative sentiment is to be expected, considering that, over the years, a large segment of our politicians have prioritised internal party factional battles and their individual interests over the well-being of citizens. Voters have had very few options to hold them directly accountable, particularly because our electoral system of pure proportional representation only allows them to vote for a particular party, not an individual.
An unintended consequence of this is that elected representatives, all of whom are placed in their positions by their parties, are incentivised to principally account to their party leaders, giving very little of their time to voters.
The ministerial advisory committee report tabled in parliament three years ago made this same observation, and as a remedy to the identified problem, proposed the introduction of a mixed-member proportional system. This would see a specified number of seats being elected through single-member districts to the National Assembly and provincial legislatures, and the remainder to be allocated proportionally to political parties.
Despite this majority recommendation by members of the ministerial advisory committee, parliament heeded to the minister of home affairs’ advice to support the minority view and chose to adopt the Electoral Amendment Act with only minimal changes made to the electoral system that permitted independent candidates to contest in the recently held election.
This decision was taken on the premise that a clause – now section 23 in the Act – would be added to the then bill, obligating the minister to establish an electoral reform consultation panel that would look into broader electoral reform prior to the 2029 election.
The minister did perform his obligation, and shortly thereafter parliament adopted the names of the individuals to serve on the panel, with a report on its findings expected to be submitted in May next year.
There are various matters the panel will have to look into but, due to their complexities, only two will be covered. The first is how candidates are to be elected.
Given that enhancing political accountability has to be at the centre of any proposed reform, a certain portion of seats will have to be set-aside for direct election by voters. The question then will inevitably be how many.
Here, the panel has the benefit of looking at proposals made in the reports submitted by the ministerial advisory committee and Electoral Task Team that was appointed in 2002 and headed by the late Dr Frederik van Zyl Slabbert. The former suggested that 200 of the 400 seats in the National Assembly be set aside for election through single-member districts and the remainder to be allocated proportionally, whereas the latter went further and recommended that 300 seats be put up for direct election.
Whatever configuration is decided upon must be in line with the constitutional principle of producing a proportional election result and must also be easily understood by voters for ease of voting.
Second, the panel will have to consider whether the mandate of the Municipal Demarcation Board should be expanded for the demarcation of constituencies for election to the National Assembly and provincial legislatures, as well as the number of seats that will have to be allocated in each, or whether a separate entity should be established.
Whilst this process is ongoing, a separate and immediate discussion must take place in the cabinet on how to best ensure that the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) receives the necessary attention and support to sufficiently carry out its critical mandate of conducting and managing free and fair elections.
Going forward, this will become more critical because, as we are seeing now, in a climate of greater competition between political parties lies an increased risk of election outcomes being challenged. Also, taking into account the IEC’s own shortcomings in conducting this year’s election, it is not misguided to believe that confidence in its credibility could decline over time if its needs are not prioritised.
Giving it the required attention under the department of home affairs will not be possible as its other functions, such as border security, will continue to hold greater national prominence. As such, this writer proposes that thought be put to removing the IEC from home affairs and placing it under a standalone department and ministry of constitutional development, alongside the other chapter nine institutions.
Splitting the function of constitutional development from the department of justice will enable the appointed minister to adequately focus on the institution’s organisational needs and better lobby in cabinet for a larger budget.
Certainly, the country finds itself in uncharted waters. Not only do citizens distrust their politicians, they also distrust the very institutions that anchor their hard-earned democracy. It is important then that our political leaders take charge of this moment and make sure that the consultation process on electoral reform is broadened far enough so that the public is able to meaningfully contribute to the discussions both in this period before the panel’s report is handed over to the minister and once the eventual bill is tabled in parliament.
Mokheseng Moema is a writer on matters related to politics, public policy and governance.