When it was announced earlier this year that the ANC has had a change of heart about the much maligned floor crossing legislation and that it will now support the abolition of floor crossing, many people were pleasantly surprised. Since floor crossing was introduced after the marriage of the Democratic Party and the National Party, the ANC has been by far the biggest benefactor of this system.
The legislation was devised to protect the ANC from floor crossing while exposing smaller parties to its vagaries. Thus it only provided for legal floor crossing if at least 10% of the members of a particular party in a particular legislature crossed the floor within the window period every two years.
For the National Assembly that meant that the ANC with almost 300 MP’s was for all intense and purposes immune from floor crossing because it would require between 25 and 30 MP’s to jump ship for the floor crossing from the ANC to be valid. For smaller parties with less than 10 members in the National Assembly (like the Independent Democrats or the UDM) floor crossing could be disasterous because even if one member defected it would be legally valid as long as it was done during the window period provided for by the legislation.
Over the years the ANC gained many new members of the various legislatures through floor crossing. It was therefore quite surprising when the ANC decided to abolish a system that served it so well. One argument put forward was that some ANC members were also upset with floor crossing because in order to provide “encouragement” to floor crossers, the ANC promised them positions high up on the election lists. This meant floor crossers were in effect jumping the queue and people who had been diligently working for the ANC and expected to be rewarded with positions in the various legislatures were kept out.
But I wonder whether there might not have been another reason for the ANC to have had a change of heart about floor crossing. If it is true, as Blade Nzimande said yesterday, that the ANC had been aware of Lekota’s intention to form a breakaway party from the beginning of the year, then one might wonder whether there is not a more cynical explanation for the ANC’s sudden attack of principles.
Because while it would be difficult (if not impossible) for any existing opposition party to convince between 25 or 30 ANC MPs to cross the floor to their party, it would not be impossible to get that number of MP’s to cross the floor to a break away party formed by Lekota or by others in the future.
In a political climate in which the ANC was less assured of absolute unity, floor crossing had become a threat to its fortunes as well. No wonder the legislation is now being launched through Parliament.
One wonders whether the threat of a breakaway party will not make the ANC reconsider its opposition to the pure list system of proportional representation as well. As many people have pointed out tbefore, he representative nature of our democracy has been impoverished by this system because legislators are selected by party bosses (by the “deployment committee” in the case of the ANC) and are therefore beholden to party leaders instead of to the electorate that they are supposed to serve.
Maybe real competition at the polls might convince ANC leaders that they need to give up some control over their MPs so that they can demonstrate a closer link with an ever more restless electorate. If that happens, the split would already have been worth it.
Intesting times indeed… Seems like the break-away is inevitable. ANC die-hards may try to blind us from it but the truth is that it would be a disaster for the ANC indeed. People felt powerless when ANC NEC removed Mbeki from power regardless of whether they were members of the ANC or any opposition party. The possibility of a split now procures the possibility of a party more accountable to the electorate and sensitive, to a certain extent, to the needs and the voice of the electorate. Let us hope the proposed new party will not forget the lesson it is about to teach the (once or then?) mighty ANC that we are not the Nazi (Hitler) Germany, Fascist (Mussolini) Italy, etc. but a democratic country…
The resolutions for foor crossing, to the best of my recollection, arose, firstly, in the Policy Conference of the ANC, during July 2007. It could therefore not have been possible for the ANC to base its decision against floor crossing on some anticipated split by Lekota et alle (unless the Mbeki led ANC also foresaw such a split, in the likeyhood of a Mbeki victory).
I have a feeling that scrapping the floor-crossing will have a positive effect on a fair number of voters in the upcoming election. Many people believe that it is pointless to vote for a party (obviously other than the ANC) when there is every likelihood that the representative placed in Parliament by the party might defect to a different party.
I have never understood how it was possible for anyone to justify the floor-crossing issue, when it represents a total disregard for the voice of the electorate. As the Prof says, we are forced to vote for a party, not individuals, and yet the individual assigned to Parliament by the party then has the freedom to take his “seat” with him to another party, which means that the vote cast to get that person there has, in essence, now been cast for another party entirely.
To me, that is completely un-democratic and against the wishes of the people.
Vuyo – the fact that during July 2007 faction-forming in the ANC was already well under way, clearly indicates that this ‘change of heart’ (a modified terminology to that employed by Prof De Vos perhaps – ‘attack of principleitis’ / ‘attack of principleosis’ more or less in the face of a victory in the CC that floor-crossing is reconcilable with constitutional principles) was brought about by exactly fears of a split in the party.
Anyway – good post Prof. It shows that someone up there in the ANC cadrehood is (or are?) actually thinking, and that he/she/they is (or are) actually scared of losing too much support through which the train could be kept filled with gravy, which is actually a good thing.
The abolition of floor crossing can only be a good thing but I doubt it has been proposed because of the splinter group – where would the disaffected ANC MP’s go – the DA ?- hardly likley. Then again, why abolish FC as it has worked so well for the ANC? It is surprising to me that they are going to do it.
Saw this in today’s Burger, not sure if it’s to do with floor-crossing:
“Die Burger verneem ‘n oorweging is dat só ‘n party eers gestig sal word op die dag dat die verkiesingsdatum aangekondig word, sodat parlementariërs hulle by die nuwe party kan aansluit sonder om hul geldvoordele te verloor.”
Please Clara, translate that to English.
Dumisani
I will take the liberty here for you: “The new party will only be formed officially on the day that the election date is announced as to ensure MPs do not lose their salaries etc when joining the party publicly”
I thank you, AB.
Interesting!
wwwDOTmgDOTcoDOTza/article/2008-10-09-are-concourt-judges-on-fast-track-toward-impeachment
Hey Prof, did you see Paul Ngobeni’s response to his critics. He headlines it with a different line, but it’s awfully clear that it’s a response to you and some of his other critics.
Ray // Oct 10, 2008 at 10:26 am
“Even Hlophe’s highly competent lawyers were not safe from the self-anointed “constitutional experts”, who launched vitriolic personal attacks on them simply because they are black.”
………………………………………………………………………………..
This quote above is from the article by Paul Ngobeni that you have referred us to; It is a very regrettable quote indeed.
I yearn for a day in South Africa where an argument can be finalised without any referrence to the skin colour of the proponents or opponents of such argument. Regardless of how balanced the article may have been (which is not for the reason that will follow), this quote above would be enough to give its proponents enough grounds to evade the facts in the article and focus on the racialisation thereof.
The reasons I opine that this article is not balanced is firstly that the author’s reliance on freedom of speech is tainted with ignorance of the law. We all know about the comments in respect of a matter which is before a court of law. Not only was the matter alleged to have been a feature in the conversation before the highest court in the land but it was also before the judge in question. Judge Hlophe is not a member of that court that means that this argument of freedom of speech is out of context. In my view it would also be improper for a Constitutional Court judge to converse about a case before the Constitutional Court if that particular judge will not preside over that case.
The author quotes of guideline 19 of the Judicial Ethics for South African judges. Paul Ngobeni has given a frightengly wide interpretation of the said guidelines. His quote of the said guidelines as authority for his proposition that Judge Hlophe was entitled to have the so-called private conversation about Zuma’s case because Guideline 19 “states that judge should respect the “confidences of colleagues” and expressly recognises that “private consultations and debate are inherent in the functioning of a judge…” is lamentably misplaced.
Paul Ngobeni goes on to say that; “Hlophe had every right to expect that the other judges would abide by these rules and would welcome his “debate” with them and respect the confidential nature of such discussions. Moreover, there is no proof that Hlophe has any supervisory authority over the judges he allegedly targeted to influence.” This means that the author has misconstrued the guideline. The author fails to comprehend that the confidentiality principle falls short of illegality or unlawfulness. The judge was not compelled to respect or abide by the principle of confidentiality when the intention of the conversation and the conversation itself were to induce the judge to commit, or omit to perform, an unlawful act or conduct. The author’s reliance on this guideline for confidentiality, therefore, is misguided. Secondly, the claim of lack of superiority of Judge Hlophe over the judges he allegedly tried to influence holds no water. It is normally a person of superiority who influences another person but this general rule has got its own exceptions and each case will therefore depend on its own merits.
“And finally, the JSC is bound by the ruling of the high court.” This quote means that the author did not properly read and grasp the judgment. He needs to read it again and realise that Judge Majapelo held that this ruling is merely on the procedure employed by the Constitutional Court judges and had nothing to do with merits of the allegations. The judge went on to say that the ruling will not stop or hinder the process in front of the JSC as that forum is the one most suitable to deal with the merits of the case.
Paul Ngobeni should adhere to being “a deputy registrar of legal services at UCT…” and go and study LLB to make legally convincing arguments on legal matters…
Sne, I have not read Ngobeni’s article. My only limited question is this: didn’t Mojapelo DJP specifically mention that JSC would be bound by his finding that Hlophe JP’s constitutional rights have been violated by Concourt judges? At least to this extent we should acknowledge the binding effect of Mojapelo’s judgment on the JSC.
Bongs // Oct 10, 2008 at 1:53 pm
…………………………………………………..
Definately, in fact paras 105-107, headed “Effect on the applicant’s complaint” affirm your submission. Therefore, yes! the judgment will be binding in that respect.
However, Paul Ngobeni misconstrues this binding effect of the judgment to support a conclusion which is unjustified, i.e. that the complaint against Judge Hlophe should be quashed based on that judgment…
Let them form their party. how sweet?
Sne , I want you and other bloggers to see this new party for what it is. This is a party based on bitterness and vengeance. For that reason , and of course , the fact that it is formed by people who are perceived to be representing the interests of the “elite” of this country , it is not going to survive. As one blogger correctly pinted out, the people behind this party have always been accused of being aloof and insensitive to the needs of the masses.Unfortunately for Mr Lekota and company the elite is always in the minority. We all know that you need the majority in order to win the elections.
I can put my head on the block for this. The Lekota “s will never win the hearts of this important section of our community. Therefore , I think it is important for those who are close to the lekota’s to whisper in their ears not to follow “the disastrous path ” followed by others before them.
Thembisa // Oct 10, 2008 at 2:39 pm
…………………………………………………………
It is enough for me for ANC to be divided or split so that their majority in or hold on National Assembly and therefore on the Government as a whole can be subjected to democratic checks and balances. I did not say that the new party, if it will be formed to start of with, will win or defeat the ANC in the elections but that its existence will strengthen democracy in South Africa. I am in favour of a democratic South Africa regardless of whether it is under ANC, ID, UDM, etc. as long as it is democratic so that I maybe assured that my kids (though I do not have any now) will be born into democracy and live as free South Africans if they so choose…
Et al
Have you heard the new phrase that’s doing rounds?
‘blue-light revolutionaries’
From the genius of Julius.
Thanks, AB, for saving me from having to translate that bit from Die Burger. I was actually wondering if the day on which the election date is announced might be a floor-crossing “window of opportunity” for MPs. Anybody know when they will announce the flippin’ election date?
‘Blue-light revolutionaries’? Is Baby Julius referring to the “ANC Plus”?
@ Khosi
‘blue-light revolutionaries’ nice one there. I rather think political prostitutes will fit in this case.
@ Prof
This is bothering me and wanted to highlight it.
When reading that Lekota’s bodyguard kidnapped (10 Oct) I remembered that Thabo Mbeki’s bodyguard was murdered (19 Sept)
I think it is worth investigating whether there is a connection between the murder of Mbeki’s bodyguard in and the kidnapping of Lekota’s bodyguard this week.
If this were to be the case, it could mean that the threats and outbursts of those saying they are prepared to kill for their political leaders, may already crossed over from inciteful words to deadly actions.
Should both crimes have been committed by the same people, they may be acting on their own OR they may be directed to do this by others. I am merely pointing out that it seems a very odd coincidence!
I am pasting the two articles below.
—
Article 1:
—-
Sept. 19 (Bloomberg) – Thabo Mbeki’s bodyguard murdered
South African President Thabo Mbeki’s bodyguard was shot and killed last night while he slept at his home in Shoshanguve, a township north of Pretoria, according to a news broadcast on ETV.
Captain Francois Ramashile, who was Mbeki’s “close protection officer” for 13 years, was shot three times, the Johannesburg-based television channel reported today. Ramashile’s wife was unharmed and most of his possessions left untouched, ETV said. Police are investigating a case of murder but could not rule out assassination, according to ETV.
—
Article 2:
—
Oct. 10 – (702 Radio)– Lekota’s personal bodyguard kidnapped
Eyewitness News has learnt former defence minister Mosiuoa Lekotas’s personal bodyguard was kidnapped on Friday in Pretoria.
The man was held at gunpoint for over three hours before being released.
Lekota has told Eyewitness News he suspects the incident was linked to the announcement he made this week that he’s served divorce papers on the ANC.
He says the abductors warned his bodyguard that Lekota was planning to form a breakaway party.
The former ANC chairperson says the matter has been reported to the police.
—
Is this the face of an enemy?
By Setumo Stone
South African politics are fats moving from acts of irresponsible mudslinging to those of mischief.
It has been reported that the bodyguard of former ANC chairperson Patrick Lekota, was abducted (according to the general media) and/or kidnapped (according to Radio 702).
My first reaction after going through the report was that some aspects did not make sense. It was therefore difficult to either discard or accept the veracity of the report.
First of all, as a bodyguard, I believe that Mr Sello Mpyaatona (the bodyguard) is trained (by the nature of his job) to be suspicious of even a fly on his shoulder. One can only assume (without facts of course), that the decision to stop at the indication of “flickering lights” by strangers could probably have been just a lapse in his professional judgment.
Secondly, it is not clear as to why the kidnappers/abductors/robbers felt that it was necessary to inform Mpyaatona that they disapprove of Lekota’s ambitions of starting a new party. Could a maverick like Patrick Lekota really be threatened by anyone? I doubt.
It seems however, that the kidnappers/abductors/robbers were very much successful in convincing Lekota that this incident was a result of his “criticism” of the ANC. It was precisely at this point that I summarized the story in my head: Lekota’s bodyguard was kidnapped or abducted and robbed, to send a message to Lekota that his ambition of a new party is unwelcome.
It also seems like a huge “Divine” intervention that the bodyguard found his keys just when he was about to go find a lift, an act which could have provided an additional person to corroborate the event.
It is nonetheless very much regrettable, if indeed the incident did happen, more so since Thabo Mbeki’s bodyguard was also shot dead just a couple of weeks ago.
The second report I came across was an article by David Cherry titled “A Slow-Motion British Coup in South Africa”. Among many other things, the author makes a claim about a plot by the “British gamemasters” to have Tokyo Sexwale or Cyril Ramaphosa as South Africa’s next president.
The author paints a very impressive picture about Thabo Mbeki being the main obstacle in Britain’s ambitions of taking over South Africa and the African continent, and that his removal from office might just be a blow to the country and the continent. He also successfully manages to plant seeds of doubt around Sexwale and Ramaphosa.
Whereas the author elaborated on what he perceived to be links between the senior politicians and Britain, he goes on to connect the SACP in the link of “British influence”, without providing any reasons for the particular proposition.
Three issues stand out from both reports as mentioned above. 1) They are clearly intended to create uncertainty about South African politics, 2) they are intended to plant an element of distrust on the ANC leaders, members and by extension the general public, 3) they are clearly intended to stir emotions for or against particular individuals.
All these three issues provide a fertile ground for events which might eventually destabilize the country, which I believe to be the ultimate objective behind all this mischief. This particular objective will FAIL, because South Africans are politically mature enough not to be dragged into a “fictitious” bloodbath.
Setumo
Great posting and spot on!
Democracy is not an end in itself. An uninformed electorate, or one that is diverted from the crucial issues (such as the global economic crisis that is now dealing SA a body blow), can go to the bottom while rearranging the constitutional deck chairs on the Titanic.
As for my intent in ‘Slow-Motion British Coup in South Africa’ (Executive Intelligence Review, July 11), mentioned by Setume Stone (Oct. 11 posting) I refer readers to this paragraph in my followup article in the Nov. 14 issue of Executive Intelligence Review: ‘In the rapid onrush of economic collapse, however, the outcome is uncertain. The [British political] managers may move too fast and expose themselves. Elder statesmen of the liberation struggle may come to recognize what is at stake and start a fight for a policy in the interests of the country. Alliances may shift or dissolve. Individuals may change course. Doing the dirty work of empire need not be a lifetime commitment.’
As for the issue of British influence through the SACP, I amplified this point in the Nov. 14 article: ‘Is there, in fact, an independent left? When the SACP in KwaZulu Natal held a provincial council July 25-27, the first of three major speakers was Patrick Bond, director of the Centre for Civil Society in Durban. Bond and his closest associates draw funding and resources from megaspeculator and drug pusher [that is, promoter of legalization] George Soros’s Open Society Institute and the Ford Foundation. Hedge-fund manager Soros is a close associate of Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, Minister of State in the Foreign Office for Africa, Asia, and the UN. Malloch-Brown was, until recently, vice president of Soros’s Quantum Fund and vice chairman of his Open Society Institute. Despite his “vices,” Malloch-Brown, who overthrows governments, is more senior than Soros in the British empire. The SACP’s Foreign Office communism is low on the food chain, but useful.’
The Nov. 14 article focusses on London influences on the Lekota side, including the willingness of Lekota and his following to ally with the DA, and Wendy Luhabe’s British connections and membership in the Club of Rome.
The British oligarchs, following the old Venetian method, control a polity by influencing as many of its contending forces as possible. Always look at the picture from the top down. If you were sitting in London, and wanted to control SA, how would you do it?
And the question to ask, in response to that threat, is: What national policy will provide the most efficient path to the material, moral, and cognitive improvement of the entire people. Beware of political jousting that evades that bedrock.
Floor crossing has watered down the tenets of democracy in many a country in Africa. The vice has to be stopped at all costs. The AU should consider this provision seriously and made a ruling binding on all members on the continent.