Tomorrow 400 members of the National Assembly will be sworn in and will take up their seats in Parliament. They will then elect a new President who – if everything goes according to plan (one never knows!) – will head the Executive for the next five years. These MP’s will swear (or solemnly affirm – accommodating the non-religious) that they will be faithful to the Republic of South Africa and will obey, respect and uphold the Constitution and all other law of the Republic. They will also solemnly promise to perform their functions as members of the National Assembly to the best of their ability.
But in reality the loyalty of these MP’s – regardless of which party they belong to – will not be first and foremost to the Constitution, or even to Parliament. Because they have been elected on the basis of a list system of pure proportional representation, their first loyalty will always be to the political party they belong to and especially the leadership of that political party. Their positions in Parliament are wholly dependent on their good standing within their respective political parties and if they upset the party leadership they might well be “redeployed” as Ambassadors to Tziki-Tzikistan or as second in command of the Putsonderwater sewerage plant.
This, it seems to me, is one of the great weaknesses of our constitutional system. The National Assembly is supposed to be the engine room of our democracy and has a constitutional duty to hold the executive to account and to ensure that the executive serve the people of South Africa and not their own ego’s or the whims of the bureaucrats staffing the various government Departments. Section 42(3) of the Constitution states that:
The National Assembly is elected to represent the people and to ensure government by the people under the Constitution. It does this by choosing the President, by providing a national forum for public consideration of issues, by passing legislation and by scrutinizing and overseeing executive action.
In the past the members of the National Assembly have not always represented the people effectively and have not fulfilled its oversight role in the manner envisaged by the Constitution. How many South Africans even know the name of the MP who is supposed to represent their interests in the National Assembly? How many have approached their MP to help them solve a problem with an often heartless and incompetent bureaucracy or to make their voices heard on the topical issues of the day?
When the arms deal scandal came to light, a majority of MP’s on SCOPA was browbeaten by Minister in the Presidency, Essops Fables, to stop their investigation and to endorsed the whitewash report by the Auditor-General, the Public Protector and the NDPP, which was “amended” (I would say, “doctored” was a better word) after a draft was submitted to President Mbeki.
When then President Thabo Mbeki – under the influence of Anthony Brink and other “dissident” scientists – developed eccentric and highly toxic views on HIV/AIDS, most MP’s remained silent as thousands of South Africans who had no money for medical aid and could not afford anti-retroviral drugs quietly succumbed to AIDS.
Those courageous and principled MP’s who did not agree with these developments – most notably Pregs Govender and Andrew Feinstein – resigned from Parliament because there was apparently no scope in the ANC caucus for expressing dissenting views. Some DA MPs have also quietly resigned after differences with Tony Leon and Helen Zille. Because of the list system of proportional representation they really had no other choice. If they had not resigned, they would have been fired.
That is why a mixed system, in which half the MP’s are elected directly in constituencies and the other half on a proportional representation basis to ensure proportional representation of parties in Parliament, stands a better chance of producing a far more active and responsive Parliament – and this would be good for especially the poor and marginalised South Africans who find themselves without a voice and feel the only way to make themselves heard is through violent protests and boycotts.
Some argue that this system has not produced a particularly responsive crop of local government councilors and that a change in the electoral system will not necessarily improve the way in which Parliament serve the people and the way it holds the Executive to account. They might have a point. Changing the electoral system will not miraculously make public representatives more hardworking and responsive to the needs of ordinary citizens.
After all, there are many reasons why public representatives are not more effective and robust. Many public representatives lack the skills, knowledge, independence of mind and courage to act as true representatives of the people – often through no fault of their own. Parliament should therefore do much more to educate and empower MP’s to do their job properly. Surely all new MP’s should receive intensive training preparing them for their role as servants of the people.
But a change in the electoral system will open a window of opportunity that might improve the performance of MP’s. The role of MP’s in the national parliament differs from that of councilors and MP’s are potentially far more powerful than their local government counterparts. For example, the committee system in the National Assembly provides a very powerful platform for MP’s to make a real difference by scrutinising draft legislation and by holding the Executive to account.
Even so, a real change will only occur when ordinary voters become active citizens who engage their MP’s and place pressure on their MP’s to do their job properly. South Africans tend to be either passive citizens or, when they do organise and resist heartless and unwise decisions, to do so outside the official channels by taking to the streets in service delivery protests. If at least some MP’s are directly elected, it would make it easier for ordinary citizens to engage their MP’s and to actively take part in the governance of the country.
Sadly, almost all political parties represented in Parliament are not keen to change the electoral system because it will take away some of the power of the party leadership and will devolve some of the power to the constituency level. Party leaders do not like MP’s with an own constituency and an independent bent because this will weaken the party discipline and will make it more difficult for party leaders to force MP’s to follow the Party line.
The system will only change if the self-styled champions of the people – COSATU, the SACP and the ANC Youth League – take up this issue and make a concerted effort to fight for the rights of ordinary citizens to be properly represented in Parliament. I sincerely hope that these members of the Alliance will take up this issue and that they will try and convince the ANC to change its policy when it meets for its next conference in 2012.
Such a move will be good for democracy and good for ordinary citizens. Come on Zwelenzima Vavi, Blade Nzimande and Julius Malema, I know you can…
Hi Pierre,
I fully agree with your article. It is very similar to the article written by Ken Owen in Noseweek (Issue # 115 – May 2009), “Aluta Continua”, which I recommend that you read. I would suggest that all those who wax lyrically about “democracy” and ignore the ominous mechanizations in our contemporary politics also should read this article.
Lastly, it is interesting to note that even the Stalinist constitution of the Soviet Union (1937) was a respectable and progressive document, for that era, yet it failed to stop rape and pillage as well as the purge of millions of innocent lives. I provide herewith a link containing the full text of this constitution, which was undermined by the conflation of party and state (and the supremacy of the party and security forces over state institutions):
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html
I am of the view that we live in perilous times, worsened by our willful indifference in the face of the onslaught on the rule of law by majoritarians (who emphasize only the “democracy” part of the word “constitution democracy”).
“Changing the electoral system will not miraculously make public representatives more hardworking and responsive to the needs of ordinary citizens.”
Perhaps the words ‘will not’ should be ‘may not’. However, I disagree with the ‘will not’. Such a system DOES make the sitting member of a constituency more effective, and significantly more on his/her toes to insure they are re-elected. And they must prove, even as back benchers that they struggle and work for their community in Parliament. It definitely insures they are more accessible to the public as isolation from their constituency gives opposition representatives more visibility, and thus lost future votes for the sitting member.
Such a system exists in Canada for example, a rather successful democracy. I believe South Africa will continue to suffer as long as the present system remains. Not quite a dictatorship (yet) but certainly a weak if not pseudo form of Democracy.
Any chance of a post on Selebi, as we all witness a repetitive and troubling pattern?
Prof, living in the UK with a pure constituency based system; I do see the advantages of constituency as opposed to proportional representation. MP’s clearly is more accountable to the voters than the leader.
In some cases like Michael Heseltine & Mrs Thatcher, they criticise each other in public even though they represent the same party, which to me says active politics and local issues taking preference to national issues. It brings democracy closer to the voters.
Parties still have a say as the party decide how the candidate is for a particular constituency. For instance if a Labour MP steps too far out of line it is unlikely they will represent the Labour party again in that constituency come next election as the party structures will have a different candidate for that constituency.
The MP then has an option to stand as an independent, but it takes quite a lot of loyalty for voters to elect the person instead of the party.
Prof
You are spot on on the need for electoral reform. A mixed constituency / proportional system is what we should evolve towards as our democracy evolves to few parties (two or three).
The other issue that has to be looked at is how the executive get into power. If the people elect the president directly and the president is unlimited as to where his cabinet comes from (not restricted to MP), then we brake any relationship between party and State. That gives more independence. Furthermore, budget allocation should then be passed through Parliament. Moreover, being an MP is no route to executive, as is the case now.
That way we have real separation of power and indepence (co-operative independence) between the three branches of Government.
If we look into our Constitution, the President has responsibility to develop policy. If you had a strong Parliament and an elected executive (President), the parties could easly hold the executive to account if he/she deviates from party line (party president) but the President has room to move as he/she has her own mandate directly from electorate.
I agree with your post, Pierre–and another reason is that if representatives (at least some) are constituency based, then they will be more closely tied to the voters, and, hopefully, will serve as conduits to ensure that the concerns of the voters are brought before the party bosses.
A good post. I think now that the hype of the elections is over, it is time for South Africans to take a hard look at what we have. A mixed system would be much more beneficial – if an MP knows that he is answerable to the people he lives and works amongst as opposed to some high and mighty committee (possibly on the other side of the country), he/she would have much more incentive to actually provide services to the people represented.
I think that as our democracy matures, changes and improvements should be forthcoming – and this is definitely something that we should be calling for. However, given the general apathy of South Africans when it comes to politics, it is unlikely that this will happen any time soon, in my humble opinion.
Of course, the downside of any constituency system is the ability of the ruling party to gerrymander constituencies to give it an advantage – as the National Party very effectively did and as the ANC has learned to do in the current ward system.
Way back in 2002, The Electoral Institute of Southern Africa concerned itself with finding alternatives to the PR system. I still have their report on my files, and all I can say is that it gets horribly complicated, and that I can understand why it is gathering dust on some government shelf to this day.
In my humble view, the PR system would be the simplest way to go IF MPs elected by PR would be assigned to ‘their’ constituencies in the true sense of the word, and to obey the Constitution (“the National Assembly is elected to represent the people”, rather than their party bosses.) This would mean a new rule would have to be established that MPs would vote according to their constituents’ wishes and NOT be fired for doing so. Would that be too much to ask for?
Prof, I share your concerns BUT the problem is the apathy of the masses! We need more public education on grassroots-never mind parliament! People need to hold ward councilors to account. We need regular meetings in respective wards for planning, budgets, priority areas, feedbacks etc. The PR system is not a problem for a population of less than half a billion people like RSA, in fact, it is the ideal one for now I d say. Rather get the people interested in politics of the day. We are all guilty of this apathy in politics, especially the media. With empowered and interested populace-any electrol system will make voters hold politicians to account!
A big question mark in my mind over constituency elected MPs in South Africa would be the quality of the MPs that get to be elected. At least with the party list system the party can select from the best available. The constituency system could result in an unholy festival of local warlords and gangsters vying for the top job in town.
The smaller parties could also be wiped out as simple majorities would hand most constituencies to the ANC.
Anyway, it ain’t gonna happen (until Jesus comes) because the ANC likes it just the way it is.
Haai Batho, Prof! I ve just made a shocking discovery a minute ago when I called my friend who works @ NEHAWU offices in the WC to tell him that you somehow praised COSATU today, of which NEHAWU is an affiliate. He actually told me that you, Pierre De Vos, you are a NEHAWU member, i.e, you are a COSATU member, i.e, you are an ALLIANCE member, i.e, NDR is your project!!! You are a true true revolutionary jy weet? I just want you to come out of the self-imposed exile My Comrade, you must openly use your wealth of academic expertise to empower the working class and in the process help us reach the NDS (National Democratic Society) through the NDR(National Democratic Revolution)- ag- i just want to make sure that Chris McDaniel understands this revolutionary abbr of ‘us’ Prof – dankie man!
With Prof’s permission (knowing that this post will go into moderation) here’s another idea to drop into the electoral reform discussion ring.
http://www.theforumsa.co.za/forums/showthread.php?t=4961
We certainly seem to have something of a witch’s brew at the moment.
I think the big challenges to any measure of electoral reform are already covered with the possible exception that politicians may not want to be held directly responsible by the electorate. Far cosier being able to point to the committee and absolve yourself of personal responsibility.
It really is going to take a strong lobby from outside of the comfortably elected to ever see this happen.
So prospects don’t look good – but if we don’t put forward the ideas, they stand no chance of ever happening.
Slim chances are better than none. Hopefully enough reasoned debate will lead to traction.
Spuy
I would like to call you to order. Prof de vos is no participant to this revolutionary process we invloved in. He is not part of the motive forces of the NDR. His actions speak louder than his affiliation which I doubt is true. For too long we had to endure the pain of counter revolutionary posts written by De vos against our revoluion, its leaders ( especialy JZ) its agenda and strategic objecive.
I submit that we should not reduce our revolution. For in the balance of forces it is one domain worth fighting for.
This of course does not close the door for De vos to change from this political confusion he has.
To all peddlers of lies and cheerleaders for Big Pharma, read and weep:-
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3086&art_id=vn20090506063722958C558919
George Gildenhuys // May 5, 2009 at 5:19 pm
“In some cases like Michael Heseltine & Mrs Thatcher, they criticise each other in public even though they represent the same party,”
In the 1980s!!!!!!!!!!
I think that we perhaps need to take stock of our Democracy. If the system is not working, does it need tweaking, or does it need a structural overhaul? No one seems to be able to draw their eyes away from the existing model. I fear for our lack of imagination.
Mpho // May 6, 2009 at 9:39 am
“I think that we perhaps need to take stock of our Democracy. If the system is not working, does it need tweaking, or does it need a structural overhaul? No one seems to be able to draw their eyes away from the existing model. I fear for our lack of imagination”
Mpho thats the point, youve hit the nail on the head. That is what democracy is about, it is not about being fixed to the same mundane system.
All democratic countries need a structural overhaul from time to time, its simply healthy.
and your right at the moment there is a lack of imagination. Democracy needs to constantly be evolving esp to put up with modern times and demands.
@spuy
the only revolutionary abbr i care about is making sexy magic in bed with my girl.
Here is a revolutionary concept for you why dont you take the “r” out of that word and rather focus on evolutionary for south africans
Disagree. Not strongly, but disagree.
The old constituency system worked in South Africa because the numbers were small. Now we have 120 000 citizens per MP; 250 000 if you make half the MPs constituency-based. Obviously, only a tiny handful (the rich handful) of those would get any access to the MPs. Therefore you would have a situation where a tiny minority would benefit while everybody else could toyi-toyi if they wanted.
Let’s not fantasise too much about the constituency system. (In Britain they keep MPs on a tight Party leash and anyone who accedes to the wrong demands gets deselected.) It might be better to have a constituency system in ourprovinces, if you expanded the provincial legislatures considerably. But, of course, this has not been mentioned by the proponents of changing the system — because the proponents of changing the system are Democratic Alliance supporters, and until this last election the DA had no provincial control. (Bit of a giveaway, that.)
The thing with electoral reform is that no system works perfectly, but I think that the system we have is the best now that the public involvement and relevance has been reduced to electionism. FPTP is absolute rubbish. 100% ANC MPs could be returned for 51% of the vote. How is that a fair system?
Constituencies with the difference being adjusted by means of a list to bring the proportions into effect sounds great, but it always leads to MPs with constituencies getting attitude over those without.
Our system gives too much power to the parties (which really could have been avoided by Parliamentary Rules and Constitutional Reform putting certain areas beyond the party politics – Speaker, Oversight Committee, etc).
I think forget changing the electoral system and actually look at whether we really want/need Parliament in the form the Constitutional drafters wanted us to have it.
Prof, what would happen if Kgalema Motlanthe was to be sworn in as MP today? Or is his swearing in going to take place on the 9th? Cos I d imagine he ceases to be Head of State if he s an MP and that would mean the Country is without the President till Saturday. On the flip side: Does Jacob Zuma become President today after his election by Nat Assembly OR on the 9th when he s inaguarated?
I agree with Mpho that our system gives too much power to the parties. We should rather have more reliance on the constitution and less on unschooled, unqualified people – whether they are of The People or the parties.
Spuy, all I can tell you is that JZ will become president of SA on the 9th. Unless, of course, the only other nominee – Mvume Dandala – is elected. Hahaha.
We know from several elections that a groundswell of South Africans are in favour of the machinations of Luthili House. If parliament were representative of the will of the people, then it too should reflect this massive consensus. Instead, Pierre (and others like him) want parliament to be a hotbed of dissent, even though it would have that anti-democratic consequence.
Moreover, it’s worth noting that they don’t want dissent for its own sake. They want an amplification of the dissenting voices that echo their own views. We never hear how important it is for Internationalist socialists, ultranationalists, muslim fundamentalists, aryan supremacists, luddites, libertarians, and anarchists to have a voice in parliament. Even though these groups are more capable than most of magnifying dissent. Rather, the problem is that they bring in voices that Pierre and his ilk aren’t interested in.
But there’s something else undesirous about their mistake. Asking parliament to speak for us really is asking other people to do our activism for us. By requiring that parliament be the epicenter of much-needed andersdenkendheid, we’re taking the focus off the various civil society institutions (like the press) whose job it really is.
I would feel quite comfortable with a system couched in the following terms:
NATIONAL LEGISLATURE AND GOVERNMENT
1.) 200/400 seats in the NA elected on a party-list (proportional representation) basis (where the ballot is marked only with the relevant parties’ names and insignia – no faces of party leaders – only political parties can compete and no so-called independent groupings may register for this part of the vote);
2.) 200/400 seats in the NA elected on a constituency basis (where the ballot is marked with the faces of the candidates and the political parties they would represent – here independent candidates may stand and marked as unafiliated or independent candidates);
3.) A National President to be elected by national voters (either on the same date or a year after the national vote) from the ranks of two or more candidates nominated by the NEC’s of all political parties that obtained more than 5% of the vote in the previous election and who want to nominate a (or more than one) presidential candidate. – If the President is elected a year later than the NA and the Provincial governments, the previous President will remain President until a new one has been elected.
(THREE ‘NATIONAL’ BALLOTS WILL BE REQUIRED if the latter vote happens on the same date, but only two will be required if it happens a year later)
PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES AND GOVERNMENT
To remain as is – a party-list system with proportional representation – no independents allowed. The NCOP to be elected and appointed according to the criteria and rules that currently exist.
(THE VOTE IS TO HAPPEN ON THE SAME DAY AS THE NATIONAL ELECTION – four ballots will be required if the President is voted for simultaneously – otherwise three ballots instead of the current two would be required.)
LOCAL (MUNICIPAL) LEGISLATURES AND GOVERNMENT
To remain as is – a constituency system – independents allowed.
(The elections are to be held between 18 months after the national/provincial election; and, if the President’s election does not happen simultaneously with the national one, the two elections can be synchronized for the same day so as to limit the strain on resources.)
The frequency of the different elections can remain as is. However, for the National and Provincial vote, it may be necessary to extend the vote over two days if the President is elected simultaneously, unless, of course, an electronic voting system can be implemented.
The above is not a very complicated system (as suggested by Clara); would provide balance and would not introduce an “unholy festival of local warlords and gangsters vying for the top job in town” (as suggested by Peter) – except perhaps at the local level (but here political parties’ integrity will hopefully play the whole thing down to fair democracy); would provide people who support the leading party with an alternative (albeit limited) choice who to vote for as President where they do not agree with the relevant NEC’s choice; and, so it is submitted, will be very good for democracy and accountability of government (a government elected BY the people FOR the people).
Having fun here – any other suggestions??
We could also introduce a system of rules whereby politicians who break the rules would be given the boot and sent to jail. We once had something like this I recall…a criminal code of sorts I think it was called…
We get what the majority deserves. Pity. The law is based on the Constitution, and only this protects us if the judiciary has the courage to defend it. I don’t think lots of folks understand that a Democracy is all about protection. Why do we need this protection? Because greed and power corrupt. If you doubt it, read the history books. Our system promotes obedience, not principles.
Prof,
There have been some media reports about the Jackie Selebi trial or something like that. You don’t seem to take much interest in it.
Have you, like me, adopted the “who cares what the NPA does anymore” attitude, or have I missed something?
Gosh, Anonymouse, you’ve obviously put a lot of thought into this. But – I’m thinking logistics here – 200/400 constituency ballot papers … with all those faces of candidates … wouldn’t that make for kilometre-long pieces of paper? Or do you mean different ballot papers for different constituencies?
As for other suggestions, how about abolishing flippen parliament altogether? Those salaries alone would save the country in the region of – uh – 300 million Rands. How many of those kak little RDP houses could be built with that kind of money? We wouldn’t need a president either, come to think of it. Instead, we’d just have a local government system, with municipalities running themselves, finish and klaar.
If we are really looking at trimming costs:
Do we need so many bums warming the benches in parliament? How many of them do we really need to perform the function? How many are frankly overpaid? Maybe we need to set performance criteria and pay according to delivery?
Make sure there are enough people to fill the parliamentary committees, but the rest just add atmosphere. Rather spend the money saved on a brains trust to review legislation for each party with a reasonable (10%+) shareholding?
If voting is down party lines anyway, just give each party their power % and let one person raise their hand to say Aye or Nay and have their vote weighted accordingly.
OK – some of that is tongue-in-cheek.
Clara – Of course different ballot papers for different constituencies – I mean, from Limpopo Makhudo Tha’maga Constituency I will surely not be able to vote for a candidate standing in Belville Western Cape?
Nah, I haven’t given it all much thought – just thought some balance might do – National (cross-breed proportional and constituent); Provincial (proportional); Local (constituent) – and then the President, a real people’s pleaser to attract at least 50% plus 1 of thye national vote.
But, your proposal to abolish Parliament altogether – it sounds reasonable and feasible (and attractive), I must say. Perhaps we should think about an electronic voting system where all acts are voted for by the people – but then again, who will draw up the acts and debate their purpose and reason? … Eish!?!