Several people have asked me whether it is true that South Africans who find themselves outside the country on election day next year will be prevented from voting and whether this does not infringe on their right to vote entrenched in section 19 of the Constitution. Many South Africans live and work abroad and in 1993 legislation was drafted to cater for them, only to be hastily amended, apparently on instructions from the ANC Executive.
In South Africa as a general rule one can only vote at the voting station where one is registered on election day. However, section 33 of the the Electoral Act states that the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) must allow a person to apply for a special vote if that person cannot vote at a voting station in the voting district in which the person is registered as a voter, if that person is:
- physical infirm or disabled, or pregnant;
- absent from the Republic on Government service or is a member of the household of that person;
- absent from that voting district while serving as an officer in the election concerned;
- on duty as a member of the security services in connection with the election; or
- temporarily absent from the Republic for purposes of a holiday, business trip, attendance of a tertiary institution or an educational visit or participation in an international sports event, if the person notifies the Commission within 15 days after the proclamation of the date of the election of his or her intended absence from the Republic, his or her intention to vote, and the place where he or she will cast his or her vote.
The IEC may also prescribe other categories of persons who may apply for special votes, but has not done so. This means that South African citizens who are working and living abroad cannot vote in the election, but government officials and those on holiday outside the country during the election can vote – the latter only if they make special arrangements to do so before they leave.
This means that South African citizens who do not live in South Africa – a majority of whom are probably white and perhaps not ardent supporters of the ANC – are denied their right to vote. The Constitutional Court has said that the right to vote is fundamental to democracy and that this requires proper arrangements to be made for its effective exercise. This is the task of the legislature and the executive which have the responsibility of providing the legal framework, and the infrastructure and resources necessary for the holding of free and fair elections.
South African citizens who live abroad can therefore argue that their constitutional right to vote is being infringed because the Electoral Act in effect denies them a right to vote. If such an application is brought, the government will have to provide solid reasons why these citizens are being denied their right to vote as they will have to show that the limitation of this right is justified in terms of the limitation clause in the Bill of Rights.
In the Nicro case the Department of Home Affairs argued that some categories of prisoners are being denied their right to vote and justified this by saying that special voting procedures involve risks for the integrity of the voting process. As there is a danger that special votes (in this case, cast in foreign countries) may be tampered with, special measures will have to be taken that could be cumbersome and costly. Moreover, the provision of special arrangements of this nature puts a strain on the logistical and financial resources available to the Commission for the purpose of conducting the elections and this too has to be taken into account.
But I am not sure this argument would be accepted by the Constitutional Court and those who wish to challenge the legislation may well have a reasonably strong case. In the Nicro case the Constitutional Court stated:
In the light of our history where denial of the right to vote was used to entrench white supremacy and to marginalise the great majority of the people of our country, it is for us a precious right which must be vigilantly respected and protected. Resources cannot be ignored in assessing whether reasonable arrangements have been made for enabling citizens to vote. There is a difference, however, between a decision by Parliament or the Commission as to what is reasonable in that regard, and legislation that effectively disenfranchises a category of citizens.
Given the fact that South African foreign missions already make arrangements for government personel and their families to vote abroad, the IEC and the Department of Home Affairs will have to produce plausible evidence to show that allowing South African citizens who work and live abroad to vote would entail sizable extra cost and a great increase in the possibility of election fraud. If they fail to provide such evidence the Constitutional Court will probably not agree that this limitation of the right to vote is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.
In most democracies citizens who live abroad are allowed to vote. I cannot see why the IEC do not make arrangements for South African citizens who live abroad to vote as well. Of course most of these votes would not go to the governing party but that is not a valid excuse to deny some of our citizens the right to exercise one of their most important duties as a citizen.
Maybe Hugh Glennister has some extra cash lying around and can launch a court application in this regard. This time he will actually have a fair chance of succeeding with his application.
Pierre
Explain why my taxes should fund the accommodation of excesses by people who left the country because they claimed it was going down the drain, just because a black government is in power?
Anyone who wants to see change must first be amongst us.
Khosi
It does not follow from the fact that a person is living outside the Republic that that person left for the racist reasons you suggest above. There are a myriad of reasons why people, of all races, leave.
Also, a person’s reasons for leaving are irrelevant to a discussion of whether they are entitled to exercise their constitutional right to vote. What is relevant are the reasons offered by the government for denying some of its citizens this right, of which there have been none convincing enough. Surely you wouldn’t also deny such persons their constitutional rights to dignity, to life, on the mere basis that they are living outside the Republic?
Brilliant idea for my “skripsie” next year!!!!
Flow from unconstitutional to politics … Prof Duvenhage will enjoy this!!
What is the difference between black exile and now white exile?
Yes persecution maybe?
oh wait … not yet ….
S 19(3) of the Constitution:
“Every adult citizen (emphasis on ‘citizen’) has the right -
(a) to vote in elections for any legislative body established in terms of the Constitution, and to do so in secret; and
(b) to stand for public office and, if elected, to hold office.”
THUS: The diaspora of SA, who still hold citizenship, has the RIGHT (read – ‘HUMAN RIGHT’) to vote in SA’s elections, UNLESS, it can be argued (and will be accepted by the CC) that such right is limited in terms of s 36 of the Constitution. I do not think the CC will uphold such an argument.
Khosi – Remember that, while the majority of the diaspora living and working abroad might be white, there are many black SA citizens working abroad, simply because bussiness opportunities there are so much better. But they have not given up their “citizenship” (this goes for the white daspora as well), nor have they given up their right in terms of s 19(3) to vote. Neither has the State taken away their citizenship. Moreover, not all white citizens that live and work abroad are there because of the fact that there is now a black government in power in SA, and not all of them support a predominantly white party. It is thus not a question of whether you (and other tax payers) are willing to have their money spent on affording the diaspora the right to vote, but for the CC to determine, in terms of the Constitution, whether they have an inviolable right to vote.
And I say: “THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE!”
jem,
I am saying that anyone who is living outside the country and wants to vote, should come back, vote and they are free to do as they please afterward. Period. The polls in this country are funded by taxpayers in this country. Why should I, fund people who pay their taxes elsewhere?
I do believe that disenfranchising South African citizens who are overseas was a sinister Mbeki plot to get the required majority so that he could amend the constitution to get a third Presidential term. No other reason is plausible.
Zuma will do so too because of the Shikota threat.
Prof, what do you suggest South Africans overseas do to get recourse?
Khosi
i am in these United States on a temporary work permit. My house is in South Africa and I pay taxes both in these USA and in SA.
So by your own criterion, why should I not be allowed to vote?
Dumisani Mkhize
Well, come back, vote then go back to the US. Simple.
Dumisani Mkhize // Nov 11, 2008 at 8:35 pm
I am a bit ignorant here. What taxes do expats pay? Are you not confusing taxes with rates? I have never lived overseas but I do not see why you would pay taxes in SA when you do not derive your income in SA.
Khosi,
My case is exactly like that of Dumisani Mkhize. We are definitely both Black Africans. I also know that both of us came this way not for your stated nefarious reason but for better opportunities and a better life for our families. But that point is moot on this argument. What are you afraid of? Even if all the whites who are abroad got to vote, they still don’t have enough numbers to come close to beating the ANC. Right now the ANC needs to be concerned about the new People’s Congress. For your information, I certainly welcome this party because it is poised to neutralise the political playing fields and bring some peopl in the ANC down to mother Earth and back from the plane of Arrogance. What I find interesting about this is that we have become oppressor during our freedom! Let the people vote!
Khosi,
Income taxes are not the only taxes that people pay. VAT (among others) is tax too.
Don’t you think it would be easier (let alone cheaper) if they allow me to vote at the nearest SA Embassy or Consulate where government employees cast their votes?
Khosi, are you suggesting, seriously, that your average London-living (say) South African should fork out something like R20 000 to enjoy the right of voting? When South Africa House is probably half an hour’s walk away? Where the South African citizens who work there will vote anyway?
Many people go overseas for (gasp!) non-political reasons like, say, earning more than is possible here, or studying, or have a family emergency, or whatever. There are South Africans of all colours living overseas, or who might be overseas unavoidably during election time.
I really fail to see why overseas South Africans can’t simply register at their local embassy.
Frank – Exactly!
some people live overseas because their families got butchered in their own homes, and many other because they dont want their families to get butchered in their homes. When tethered to fear by one of the highest crime rates in the world, it sometimes just doesnt seem worth it stay around. I dont feel that these citizens shouldnt be awarded an opportunity to cast their vote and so doing voice their opinion on who they want to govern the country
check out this link
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/Politics/0,,2-7-12_2424663,00.html
HA HA HA …Whiped by Zuma…
Frank Shearar // Nov 11, 2008 at 9:18 pm
That is exactly what I am suggesting. Why should I pay for them to be accommodated when they saw it fit to leave the country for what ever reason? Because if we use your theory of ‘South Africa House is probably half an hour’s walk away’, what about the guys who live in say Alaska or a rural province in China?
I firmly think that remote control voting should not be allowed.
@ Khosi,
Well then government officials should also be excluded because by your own statement anyone who “saw it fit to leave the country for whatever reason” should not be entitled to vote. Those abroad on official business CHOSE to accept those positions and therefore are in precisely the same position as other expats.
My brother-in-law is on contract in Dubai and my uncle is on contract in Saudi because there were no work opportunities for them here, being white males. Why should they be excluded from voting in the country of which they are citizens by virtue of the fact that their own country’s policies makes it impossible for them to find work here?
My issue with regard to this is that those who have been forced to leave the country to find employment to support their families are excluded from voting by virtue of their geographical location. And yet, prisoners, who have broken laws of the country are given the opportunity to vote. For me, a prisoner is less qualified to vote than an individual who is out of the country for work or safety reasons. Anybody who has so little disregard for compliance with the laws of a country should not be entitled to citizenship rights until the debt to society has been paid.
Khosi’s argument is specious – people of voting age are not enfranchised because they pay tax, own property or earn above a certain amount. That would meaning qualified voting which is not truly democratic.
We all have the vote. That’s what countless struggled, resisted and fought for. Khosi should not be so quick in dismissing a person’s right to vote.
@khosi
You do not think your tax money should be used to enable good people who live overseas to vote, yet you don’t mind that people who live in jail can vote.
(remember: they are removed from society) To enable them to vote your tax money is also used. Your tax money is also used to feed these criminals.
Double standards or what ?
Are embassies not considered ‘South African Territory’?
So if I go to the local embassy to vote, the minute I walk through the door am I not in a part of South Africa?
You now have the dubious privilege of being published on this site…
http://censorbugbear-reports.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-can-safricans-abroad-vote.html
@khosi
Khosi, what would you say to the suggestion that anybody who doesn’t pay income tax (ie anyone with an income below R43,000(?) p.a.) should not be allowed to vote?
Khosi – and please do remember that those South African citizens working abroad, with their families remaining in good ol’ RSA, also make a sizeable contribution to the coffers of SARS, and they sometimes bring in valuable foreign investments.
Once again s 33 of the Electoral Act will not pass constitutional muster under s 36 of the Constitution if challenged, because it imposes an unfair limitation on the right to vote as guaranteed in s 19 of the Constitution, which I have quoted above. The law (s 33 of the Electoral Act is not “reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom” as required in s 36 of the Constitution, even taking into account all the factors mentioned in paragraphs (a) – (e) of s 36(1). I would support a constitutional challenge brought by anyone.
Khosi, section 19 of the Constitution guarantees for every SOUTH AFRICAN CITIZEN, the right to vote and, as the CC has made clear, places a positive duty on the state to ensure people have the ability to exercise this right. This is therefore a human rights issue. Human rights by its very nature cannot be afforded to some and denied others merely because one does not like the attitudes of some citizens – that would make a mockery of the Bill of Rights. You seem to argue that some South Africans do not deserve the right to vote but that is a moral and not a legal argument. The CC has said even prisoners who have murdered and raped fellow South Africans have this right, so why deny it to some citizens who find themselves abroad? Where arrangements are already made for some South Africans to vote at diplomatic missions across the world, there seems no constitutional justification for extending this right to everyone. The more I think about it the more I am convinced that a constitutional challenge will be successful.
Pierre, If these expatriates care so much about their right to vote, they must simply co-ordinate their holiday trips to RSA with election dates. Let’s not make a crisis out of a non-issue.
Prof de Vos: “Where arrangements are already made for some South Africans to vote at diplomatic missions across the world, there seems no constitutional justification for extending this right to everyone.”
I guess a “not” has to be added between “for” and “extending”? Otherwise, I agree.
Vuyo // Nov 12, 2008 at 10:29 am
………………………………………………………………………………..
Why then may holiday-makers who are not “expatriates” vote at the different diplomatic missions abroad during their absence? Your argument is nonsensical.
Dumisani Mkhize // Nov 11, 2008 at 8:35 pm
khosi // Nov 11, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Hi Khosi, South Africa uses a residence basis of taxation so the question of where income is derived is not conclusive. However you are correct in that Section 10(1)(o) of the ITA exempts from the tax any form of remuneration received by or accrued to any employee by way of any salary, leave pay, wage, overtime pay, bonus, gratuity, commission, fee, emolument or allowance, etc, in respect of services rendered outside the South Africa for or on behalf of any employer, if that employee was outside the Republic for a period or periods exceeding 183 full days in aggregate during any period of 12 months; and for a continuous period exceeding 60 full days during that period of 12 months.
I therefore question Dumisani’s suggestion that he pays South African taxes (but for rates and taxes, which are for the benefit of HIS properties).
Anonymouse // Nov 12, 2008 at 10:38 am
If you truly value the franchise, board SAA at Heathrow (pay the five thousand odd rands for a return ticket) and vote. People died for teh right to vote, so I am not convinced that paying 5000-10000 every five years is much of a sacrifise (just amortise that amount over the period, if needs be).
Vuyo, you make it sound so simple, it doesnt work like that, I know a number of South Africans of all colours who work on rotation, their families are in SA and they cannot pick and choose when to go back to SA. Its not like these guys are on the gravy train, they actually work for a living and are accountable to the firms they work for.
Most of these guys are working outside the country for economic reasons or career opportunities, as we are, if we could make the same money and have the same opportunity in SA we wouldnt be doing this. There are still people in SA who understand the one basic fact of life, you have to work for a living, you cannot sit around on your hands waiting for someone to give you something.
Furthermore it would not be that difficult to arrange voting in each country at least at the relevant Embassy, that would make things cheaper all around.
Prof, Was it so difficult for you to argue your point fairly and perfectly academically as you did without contaminating your article without these race-related assumptions. I mean, can you give us statistics how many whites, africans, indians, coloureds, etc are abroad- while your at it also tell us how many whites will vote which party and withwhat yardstick are you coming to these regrettable assumptions??? …To me your article assumes that most whites will never vote ANC and, with due respect, that is a racist and unfortunate comment given the current incidents we still see in S.A. Who would ve thought whites would overwhelmingly vote for a black president in the U.S? obviously not you Prof! Please dont contaminate your argument unneccesarily next time.
Joey, o dear, that website is a bit scary looking….
Vuyo – “If you truly value the franchise, board SAA at Heathrow (pay the five thousand odd rands for a return ticket) and vote. People died for teh right to vote, so I am not convinced that paying 5000-10000 every five years is much of a sacrifise (just amortise that amount over the period, if needs be).”
Then the same should go for those who are “temporarily absent from the Republic for purposes of a holiday, business trip, attendance of a tertiary institution or an educational visit or participation in an international sports event”, who are provided for in terms of s 33 of the Electotral Act to vote abroad during their absence. If they truly value the franchise, they could postytpone their holiday, business or study trips, no? Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.
Khosi – “Explain why my taxes should fund the accommodation of excesses by people who left the country because they claimed it was going down the drain, just because a black government is in power?”
I engaged you on this point above – “Khosi – Remember that, while the majority of the diaspora living and working abroad might be white, there are many black SA citizens working abroad, simply because bussiness opportunities there are so much better. …” spuy has now again touched on the subject by criticising Prof de Vos (I would not go so far) on this score. Would you care to explain why you base the right to vote on (predominantly racist) assumptions that those South African citizens abroad are necessarily white and not supportive of the ANC and that, therefore, taxpayers’ money should not be wasted on granting them the right to vote? And then you still need to respond to the argument that, if prisoners may vote at the taxpayers’ expense, why not citizens living and working abroad?
Is it even possible for a South African citizen living abroad to fly back to vote? As I understand it you can only vote if you’re registered to vote, and you can only register in the voting district in which you are ordinarily resident.
Spuy,
I think the reason why we are not allowed to vote has very little to do with expense because there are voting centres in place already for government officials (Vuyo take note).
We were disenfranchised because the ANC – especially Thabo Mbeki – wanted a right majority to be able to amend the constitution. By their assumption, the people abroad are mostly whites (racists in their minds) who would not vote for the ANC.
This is a political issue.
Zuma supporters should know better because Zuma has spent multi-millions of the taxpayers money fighting against what they tell us are “violations of Zuma’s rights in a politically motivated trial”.
How many millions of taxpayer’s money will be spent on us for voting at the centres where government officials will be voting anyway? None, if you ask me.
Khosi and Vuyo – let’s just look at the SA citizens living in London. A few hundred thousand eligible to vote I guess. You say that all those who want to vote should fly over here? Be realistic. Apart from what it would mean to each individual in terms of lost income, time wasted, etc, think about the logistics. And how about thinking about the environment? We’re meant to be cutting down on unnecessary flights. Apart from your argument being constitutionally unsound – as pointed out above by other bloggers and Pierre – they’re sheer nonsense. And you know it.
What if one of you won a scholarship to study in the US during 2009? It covers the flights and all costs while there and you have to work really intensively at your studies while there. You’re not earning. But, oh shit, you want to vote in the elections. After all, you’ll be back in the country in 2010 and you’d like a say in who is running the place since you’re paying their salaries and they’ll be deciding a whole lot of things which will affect the future of the country you’ll be living in.
So, do you say no to the scholarship?
Do you stump up a fortune to fly back to vote and also sacrifice valuable research time?
Or do sit there saying ‘why can’t I cast my ballot from here? it’s only fair and it’d be really easy to arrange.’
spuy – I agree with you that Prof shouldn’t have dragged race into his argument. But I think you have misread his reason for doing so. I think he meant that the ANC Executive amended the legislation because they were worried that most of the overseas voters would vote against them. I.e. the racism was in their eyes not his. But perhaps I am putting words in your mouth, Prof, so correct me if I’m wrong.
Prof, Mbeki has lost his bid to challenge the decision of Nicholson in CC. Do you have the judgment already. I no longer have a friend legal researcher at the CC to obtain Judgments soon after delivery.
I guess some one has access to judgment or the reasons will be furnished later(reserved) ?
Prof. has crafted a good argument on the amendment of the legislation. Glenister is a bid exhausted financially to challenge the State. The man must be very rich. He should have build houses for the poor or provided anti retro-virals to the HIV & AIDS sickly people in thew villages.
His efforts have not been fruitless nonetheless, the jurisprudence on Trias Politica has been nourished.
ardent supporters of democracy voters must not exclude flighing back to SA, it will boost our economy. A lawsuit could also serve some purpose. I imagine the whole Nigerias and Zimbabweans voting with fraudulently obtained ID’s at the South African Embassy in USA and home land. Very interesting.
Thank you Prof, for answering my question. This I think is the final nail in the coffin in the ANC’s comment of respecting the Constitution.
Clearly they have no regard for Chapter 2 of the Constitution at all; I mean who cares about trivial things like rights… The sooner we (or rather those that are allowed to) vote the ANC out of power the better.
Living in London, I do look upon my Australian, Kiwi and even American friends with quite a lot of envy, seeing as they are allowed to partake in their country’s democracy, whereas South Africans are not.
The UK takes voting rights even further, extending it to resident Commonwealth citizens.
So let me point out the irony, a constitutional monarchy with a long history of democracy, without a written constitution allows me (a South African citizen on a work permit) to not only vote, but stand for parliament and local government elections. On the other side, a republic with a young democracy and a progressive liberal written constitution does not allow me (again a South African citizen) to even vote and at the same time claims that democratic rights is something that people died for…
“If you truly value the franchise, board SAA at Heathrow (pay the five thousand odd rands for a return ticket”
R5000 for a return ticket to JHB???
Ha, do you live in a dream world. more like R10,000 (or £600)
Ishmael Malale – The judgment should be available here http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/ by tomorrow latest, otherwise you could go to the CC’s website http://www.constitutionalcourt.org.za and lift the judgment there. As I understand it, their judgment merely stated that it would not be prudent for the Court to hear his appeal application AT THIS STAGE, due to the NPA’s pending appeal in the SCA. However, he has not totally lost his bid.
sarah palin – “spuy – I agree with you that Prof shouldn’t have dragged race into his argument. But I think you have misread his reason for doing so. I think he meant that the ANC Executive amended the legislation because they were worried that most of the overseas voters would vote against them. I.e. the racism was in their eyes not his. But perhaps I am putting words in your mouth, Prof, so correct me if I’m wrong.”
I agree with you on this one. I think Dumisani Mkhize above alos has it right by saying: ” We were disenfranchised because the ANC – especially Thabo Mbeki – wanted a right majority to be able to amend the constitution. By their assumption, the people abroad are mostly whites (racists in their minds) who would not vote for the ANC.” It is perhaps the doodling hand of Thabo Mbeki in all this (and the failure of someone acting on behalf of the diaspora abroad to challenge the legislation in the CC until now) that had Khosi so quickly “op sy agterpote” in defence of the legislation excluding SA citizens living and working abroad from voting (and that under the guise of wasting taxes).
The cases which have dealt with the exclusion of voters (or in the Stilbaai case, the refusal to create a polling station that was to the liking of the white people who didn’t want to go and vote in the poor areas) have made it clear that the IEC will not be allowed to claim that costs are prohibitive to allow special votes, unless actual figures are presented to the Court and substantiated.
However, I think the claim by Pierre that other countries allow overseas votes and so it shouldn’t be a big deal for South Africa does not take into account the really quite convoluted electoral process here. Other countries allow postal votes, have permanent voters rolls which the voter can amend at any time, etc.,etc. I’m not saying the problems are insurmountable, but I think that we must be very careful not to assume it is easy to afford South Africans living overseas the vote if a particular country allows it.
I’m actually ambivalent towards ex-pats getting the vote. It’s not because I know that some of them are overseas for the reason Khosi ascribes. He is right, some people are there for that. But as has been drawn out in the posts, there are a myriad of other reasons which include our black professionals and academics now being internationally respected and in demand from other countries.
My issue relates to the accountability of the voter and the corresponding responsibility towards them on the part of the State. I’ve long believed that residence (or lets say connectivity) is a far better test than citizenship for elections. People directly affected by the sphere of Government should have a say in the formation of that Government. I don’t see where the direct effect of the majority of Government services lies towards expats.
Mpho – I agree, only problem is that s 19 of the Constitution affords “citizens” the right to vote, not people on basis of residence. A constitutional change would therefopore be required – and then there is the problem of foreign residents in RSA – must they have an equal right to vote?
All SA’s diplomatic missions abroad are perfectly competent and positioned to take special (early) votes from people that are tempporarily outside of SA on voting day (and it is not always required that special votes must be submitted in SA before one departs. Therefore, citizens that live and work abroad on a slightly more permanent basis can easily be accomodated at such missions, say, up to two weeks before voting day?
Anonymouse // Nov 12, 2008 at 2:21 pm
For the past 4.5 years, the ANC and Mbeki, have had two thirds electoral majority. Neither has changed one word on the constitution. Hence Dumisani Mkhize’s argument, which you support, does not hold. You have no evidence of what you are accusing Mbeki of doing.
I think its pathetic for people to create unjustifiable falsehood about a person, just because they harbor hate for him. There is nothing intelligent about that, it just an age old witch hunt.
Constitutionally thinking and constitutionally speaking Prof has hit the nail on the head in this post. Lets not screw around with the unconstitutional thinkers and speakers and wait for this next post.
Khosi – It is exactly because the ANC (doesn’t matter under which President!) has written the Electoral Act in the way it reads, that a two-thirds majority could be obtained – simply because many citizens were denied their right to vote. Whilst it may be beyond reach (financially and logistically wise) for one or two citizens living and working abroad to bring an application in the High Court / Constitutional Court to have s 33 of the Electoral Act declared unconstitutional; and, while, in the past it was not worth it for political parties other than the ANC to bring similar applications, the tide has now turned with the COP (or Cope, or whatever) having been formed. Now, it might become a very real issue for different political parties (even the ANC, who knows?) to lobby in foreign states amongst RSA citizens to get a vote here and there to gain on previous performances or to cut their losses. Any political party or person can bring such an action on behalf of the potential voters – and perhaps with the funding available to the Glenisters and Von Abo’s (and even the Ruperts – who have been very outspoken about the political situation in RSA in recent years), such an action may just be possible within the next few weeks. The challenge would however be to get the RSA citizens abroad to register as voters, so as to eliminate possibility that people without citizenship may vote, and the IEC to make it possible. But I agree with Prof de Vos – a constitutional challenge might well succeed. It would be very interesting indeed if the ANC could still muster a majority (say 48% of the popular vote – the COP bound to take 20% plus of the current support according to Dr L Schlemmer), with the rest shared amongst opposition parties (52% of the popular vote) – and, with talk of coalitions and so forth, who knows, we might even see a non-ANC President (note that I do not say ‘white President’) ruling the country.
a
Anonymouse // Nov 12, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Whatever you mumble on your last post had nothing to do with what I said here: – khosi // Nov 12, 2008 at 4:25 pm
You people are liars and when you get caught out, you try and obfuscate and deviate from the issue. The point is the ANC and Thabo Mbeki had the constitutional right to change the constitution, but they did not. After their respect for the constitution, you then accuse them of doing things that will ensure that they can do the things that they clearly had no intention of doing.
Spare us, please.
Anonymouse
Whatever you mumble on your last post had nothing to do with what I said here: – khosi // Nov 12, 2008 at 4:25 pm
You people are liars and when you get caught out, you try and obfuscate and deviate from the issue. The point is the ANC and Thabo Mbeki had the constitutional right to change the constitution, but they did not. After their respect for the constitution, you then accuse them of doing things that will ensure that they can do the things that they clearly had no intention of doing.
Khosi – And all the borderchanges (and other subtle changes to the Constitution bulldozed trough under TM’s enlightened leadership)???? Stront man!!
I am a South African living and teaching South Korea for the time being. I travel and work because it is a value of mine. I call South Africa home, and return twice a year and spend my dollars there. It will be sad not to be able to vote in the next election. What is even more scary is what that decision says about the future of the country.
If you have not travelled you might not realise that the world is changing and we are entering an era of the global citizen. People of all races are not going to stop leaving South Africa. Like our ancestors (all of our ancestors, unless you are a descendant of the San people) we will migrate.
However, in 2009, while I hold an SA passport and while my family is sitting in SA – I’d like to vote please, I dont think that’s too much to ask, I will even pay the postage of the ballad – R21 …a few cents!
Anonymouse // Nov 12, 2008 at 6:34 pm
That’s a pathetic attempt to delegitimize the electoral support of the ANC! The DA et alle (who Pierre and the liberal cabal assume would be the primary beneficiaries of the expatriate vote) have not seriously raised this matter (a clear example of its irrelevence).
Poor South Africans travel long distances (regardless of the trying circumstances) to exercise their right to vote (even broken old men and women!).
Lastly, its interesting how the liberal cabal (including Pierre) make race based assumptions to amplify their arguments when it suits them! On what basis do you conclude that because the majority of expatriates are white that they would therefore vote against the ANC? It’s as pathetic a conclusion as to state that because over 70% of South Africans are black, therefore over 70% of South Africans will vote against the opposition! Mbeki was quite correct about the racialist instincts of many of those who profess benevolent liberalism (while in act being patronizing paternalists.
Vuyo, I am not a liberal. Moreover, I do not understand your outburst. You seem to suggest that because I stated that most white South Africans living abroad “would PERHAPS not be ardent supporters of the ANC”, I suddenly have “racialist instincts” and am therefore a “patronizing paternalist”. The logic of this statement (if any) escapes me. I can only refer you to every survey of South African voters ever conducted over the past 15 years in South Africa, all showing that the vast majority of white people do not vote for the ANC (just as the vast majority of black people do not vote for the DA). Moreover, if you have spent some time with white expats in the UK (god forbid) you would have ample anecdotal evidence that many of them are not raving progressives. My carefully qualified statement was therefore based on FACT. Am I not allowed to make such statements based on fact? If that is your submission, please explain why it would be a problem to make such a statement of fact and why it would be paternalistic because I really and honestly do not understand the logic involved. Or are you – like Mbeki – inclined to deny reality when it does not suit your prejudices? The reason why South Africans living abroad was denied the right to vote in a last minute change of the legislation speaks for itself – the ANC assumed, just like I am assuming, that most of those votes would not have gone to them.
Khosi and Vuyo
i live in london and have done so for several years. firstly i have no intention of living in the uk forever and have every intention of coming back to south africa. secondly i did not leave south africa for political reasons but to broaden my horizons and see the rest of the world. (i suggest you should consider doing the same to experience how differently the rest of the world works). i can’t believe you think it is fair i am not able to vote in south africa’s up coming elections just because i am not in south africa at the time of the elections? and your suggestion to fly back to sa if i would like to vote? you say you have never been overseas? well do you know it would cost roughly R10 000 to fly to south african and back to London. That would not make it a FREE nor a FAIR election for all. which i doubt i need to remind you is what everyone in the struggle fought so hard for.
vuyo – how do you get around the problem we have to register 6 months before the election. should we fly back for that too?
[...] court as their right to vote is effectively being denied. I recommend reading the entire post (Why can’t South Africans abroad vote?) as it gives a good legal overview of the issues, in plain [...]
Why does race have to enter into every single argument in this country? Can we all just grow up a bit, or is that too much to ask?
It _does_not_matter_ if a South African citizen living overseas is black or white or indian or part of any other ethnic group. It _does_not_matter_ whether they fled the country in fear of the Swart Gevaar, or to make some money, or study.
The Constitution guarantees their right to vote, yet the Electoral Act takes away that right. This despite the fact that every embassy HAS TO have a voting station so that the embassy staff can vote. Clearly it’s not too expensive to allow expats to vote, since these voting stations have to be staffed _anyway_.
Why then deny the vote to certain citizens? It’s certainly not for financial reasons.
I refer you to my post of Nov 12, 2008 at 4:38 pm (see above)
“Constitutionally thinking and constitutionally speaking Prof has hit the nail on the head in this post. Lets not screw around with the unconstitutional thinkers and speakers and wait for this next post.”
Can someone define “temporary” period
I work for a South African Company which sends me abroad at least once a month. The periods of absence from SA vary from 4 days to 10 days. If I am away on one of these business trips in 2009, my vote will be taken away from me. In 1994, I voted in the election in New York. This right was subsequently removed by the ANC. I am a SA citizen who lives in SA, and pays taxes here. Why should I not be allowed to vote wherever I am? It would be a relatively simple thing to arrange for postal votes for people like myself, but the ANC is terrified of doing so. Some democracy this.
Would it maybe be possible to raise funds from South Africans living abroad, who wish to vote, and use these funds to challenge this legislation in the Constitutional Court? If 5 000 people each gave R 500, that would be R 2 500 000. Just a thought…
NM – Well thought. There are reportedly Millions of SA citizens living and working abroad, so it might be much cheaper than R500 to enforce one’s right to vote – any case, much cheaper than the R10,000 plus for a return ticket to come and register first, and R10,000 plus for a return ticket to come and vote on election day as suggested by some other bloggers should happen if one values his/right to vote so highly. And, I’m quite sure the CC will rule in favour of such a group. But, time is of the essence as the IEC is already trying to finalize its bout of registrations and preparations for the forthcoming election.
Mouse, you said something to me a long time ago, sorry just saw it now. Are you aware that Municipal elections in the UK allow for anyone from a Commonwealth country who is resident to register and vote? That relates to my connectivity issue.
Rather than expanding the franchise, I think my point was more along the lines of not granting special votes to genuine ex-pats as part of a limitations enquiry on the basis of their lack of relevance. I understand that many other African countries insist that the Diaspora pay income tax on money they earn overseas when they are permanently living there. (I’m told it’s the highest tax generator for some countries) and so in those cases, taxation should permit one to demand representation.
But if some Saffa living in London (not contributing to the economy, not living here at at all) is getting uptight because they don’t have a vote, I think it’s unreasonable. They really don’t have any reason to demand a say.
Oscar // Nov 15, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Oscar, I genuinely believe that the take up rate for the elections is so high with the electoral who are allowed to vote that no one can accuse the country of being undemocratic.
And I think that therein lies the problem, there is no need to bolster the voter numbers as everyone makes the effort. I think we should bear in mind that no other country has to budget for almost every resident citizen taking the time to vote. I’d rather that they concentrated on the house bound and prisoners vote, as they definitely will be living in the Republic!
George Gildenhuys // Nov 12, 2008 at 2:13 pm
The UK are lucky if they hit 30% turn out for their elections. That is why they can be so generous.
Mpho // Nov 17, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Indeed, one merely has to live in London to be allowed to vote in the local elections – and for good reason, given that that Saffa would be directly affected by the outcome of that election.
South Africans living overseas can be strongly affected by laws passed back home though. Certainly, this is true of Belgians: at one stage Belgians were not allowed to have dual citizenship; my boss, being Belgian, could help vote in a party that changed the legislation.
Given that expats may be affected by legislation passed in South Africa, they too should have a say in the elections.
Mpho – “But if some Saffa living in London (not contributing to the economy, not living here at at all) is getting uptight because they don’t have a vote, I think it’s unreasonable. They really don’t have any reason to demand a say.”
That might be true (and sound reasonable), but the Constitution still allows such people the right to vote. I do not think of leaving the country, and none of my children ever will, as we feel that we have a positive role to play here in good Ol’ RSA. So I can’t speak for the reasons other citizens have left this country – for the money, because they were denied a right to equal employment, because they became so shit-scared of the escalating crime rate, because their employer (be they national or international companies) expect them to live and work abroad, whether it is only temporary (which has not yet been defined – a few weeks, a few months, a few years?) or more or less permanent, … Nevertheless, it seems to me that such people, who are desiring to exercise their right to vote (for change or for confirmation of regime or current trends in RSA), should be allowed to do so. Not allowing them to vote is unfair and unreasonable (it would be very hard to define ‘genuine ex-pats’ like you suggest), unless their right to citizenship is taken away (which would also be unfair and unreasonable) or, unless the Constitution is changed. One must always remember that there are many citizens living and working abroad whilst they did (do) not really have any choice in the matter.
@Pierre,
You have hit the big time. This post has just been lifted and posted at
http://www.zasucks.com/?p=387
They of course take their own disgusting spin on the story.
Who are these people
Prof – this is something which others have raised on your website many months ago. Why is it that we leave this to the last minute when it is a cornerstone of our democracy.
I was disenfranchised when my company, which is South African, sent me to the USA for 6 years to help run their business there. I earned good money which I brought home and invested here. My comapany, which pays tax in South Africa on its worldwide income benfitted, and yet the ANC showed me the middle finger so that they could tamper with our voting numbers.
The ANC should hang its head in shame for undermining the very conrnerstone of democracy, the very principle from which almost all else flows in a democratic society.
Why does the IEC/Government give students, the odd tourist and government servants a greater democratic right than it gives me? On what basis did I suddenly become a non-citizen, and a tourist and a government servant did?
Government wants more skilled South Africans to return home. They tell them that they will be appreciated when they return. How about making them feel like South Africans when they are living abroad gaining valuable experience which we so desperately need here? Wouldn’t giving them the right to vote be the first step to getting them home. After all…you feel better returning to your home when you have a hand in shaping its future yourself!
Not to put too finer point on it…but the first move on the “democratic chess board” that the ANC made was to disenfranchise the very people who voted for it in the 1994 elections!
Why was it fine for South African’s abroad to vote the ANC into power during our first elections, but all of a sudden after they were voted into power the first thing they do is rescind that right. It just goes to show…the ANC tolerate democracy, they definitely do not embrace it!
Those who were around at the time may remember the ANC fumbling this one saying…”this will be too expensive”. A few months later they spend R50bln buying useless weapons that are under-utilised and didn’t conform to the initial requirments set out by the military.
For those who talk about tax money ask what is more important…R50bnl nworth of arms lying in a harbour, or a countries’ citizens right to (and in my opinion obligation) to vote.
I will never forgive the ANC and its supporters for disenfranchising me in the New South Africa.
YOu cannot defend the indefensible. The right to vote is not based on geography or how much tax you pay. If it wasn’t for many of these returning South African’s new businesses wouldn’t be getting started with the capital they bring home when they return…and return they do!
One final point…: The National Party allowed South Africans abroad to vote…knowing full well at the time that most of those who had left at the time and moved to London were not exactly its biggest fans…yet vote they they did because they were allowed to.
Even the NP wasn’t that stupid enough to tamper with the right to vote of its citizens who were entitled to vote.
Never thought I’d see the day that I could with hindsight say that the NP were more principled on a constituional issue than the ANC are!
Funny that!
I’ve been living in London for nearly 10 years since I left school. Why? Because I love it, BUT South Africa will always be home and I will definitely go back and live there in the next 5 years. I love SA, the people, the country, the weather and am very positive and upbeat about the future of South Africa (which is more than most). I’ve invested in SA and plan to do a lot more…so Mpho, Khosi & whoever else, please give me a good legitimate reason why I cannot vote now in the UK, for South Africa’s and my future in that country?
I find it really strange why you are against people’s rights, if I hold an SA passport then surely it’s my right to vote?
Well that is a pretty shortsighted comment!
I for instance have never left SA, though I am a technical consultant whos clients are European based. This means that I spend significant time abroad. Should that be enough to deprive me of my right to vote?
This time I am going to fly back to SA specifically to vote. It is very unfair that I have to go to these lengths to excercise my democratic right. It’s the equivalent of me having to ‘pay to vote’.
Disgusting
sorry, but my comment above was aimed @khosi
Below is the text which I sent in an e-mail to the IEC on 6 November. Needless to say I never received a response…
Dear Adv. Tlakula,
As a publically funded independent commission, I trust you will formally raise my concern for action.
I am a South African citizen, and my work as a banking systems consultant requires me to spend significant amounts of time abroad, as my clients are mainly European banks.
I earn foreign revenue which is transferred into the South African banking system. Over many years I have gained considerable business experience and skills in a highly technical feld. These factors are highly beneficial to the South African economy, but as a result of my efforts I am deprived of any facility to excercise my democratic right to vote whilst consulting abroad.
While South Africa as a nation is developing, it is of critical importance for the country to be positioned as an active player in the international business
spectrum. In order for the country to progress with it’s economic objectives, it is required that people like myself make themselves available to consult in
the foreign marketplace. However, by doing so, I have lost the opportunity to vote. Losing the ability to vote is an extremely high price to pay.
In the spirit of democracy, should the government not make every effort to provide facility so that all of it’s eligible citizens have the opportunity to vote? Electronic facilities have been succesfully implemented by several democratic coutries, such as India, who endeavour to provide ALL of their eligible
citizens with the opportunity to vote. Surely South Africa could learn from this and procure similar technology.
Failing a technologically based solution, it is surely reasonable that our diplomatic missions abroad could provide the physical facilities to vote.
Is this a deliberate political ploy by the ANC government? This question is certainly feasible as this element of the voting population is considered a
demographic that may not be ANC supporters.
Rather impressively, the USA ensured that their two astronauts, who were in space at the time of their elections, had the opportunity to cast their vote! While we do not have to go to those extremes, it is imperative that all eligible South Africans are given the facilitiy to vote as a matter of democratic government responsibility.
It would be unrealistic in the modern era for all economically active people to be statically placed, both for registration and for the election itself, and it is a traversty for our democracy that no effort is made to acommodate this, especially that the technology exists to implement such solutions.
I propose that the lack of facility provided purposely by the ANC government is unconstitutional and that this matter be raised formally with the relevant authorities.
Yours Truly,
Craig
Mpho: “But if some Saffa living in London (not contributing to the economy, not living here at at all) is getting uptight because they don’t have a vote, I think it’s unreasonable. They really don’t have any reason to demand a say.”
Mpho, again I ask – if the vote is only going to be given to those contributing to the economy, then on what basis do prisoners and the unemployed qualify for the vote?
The whole debate surrounding the constitution is moot. The ANC regime pays only lip service to the constitution, it is not seriously concerned with adhering to it.
Criminals have the right to vote because they are mostly black and will support the regime.
South Africans living abroad are mostly white, and will not support the regime.
Those are the simple reasons why criminals can vote and Saffers living abroad cannot.
It has nothing to do with rights. Anyone who thinks for a moment that the regime is concerned with rights, is fooling themself.
its only fair to allow all SA passport holders to vote regardless where they might live.
Basically, at the end of the day, people fought and died for universal suffrage, regardless of colour, creed or class.
Then once we got that, it got taken away? That’s what happens when you exclude a class of citizens from voting based on a single factor (i.e working abroad on a permit).
I’m white, and proudly South African. I love my country, and miss it greatly. I live and work overseas in order to save a few dollars, and see the big wide world for a few years. However, I will be back…with my professional qualification, and international experience, and I will (hopefully) benefit the South African economy in whatever way I’m able.
So why am I denied the opportunity to have my say in who runs my country? The Constitution says I should be allowed to vote…the ANC says no. I’m white, but really, as mentioned, who cares, the point is I want to be involved in the future of South Africa. I want to contribute to democracy.
Imagine if the DA won these elections (through some sort of miracle), and suddenly decided that people who didn’t matriculate couldn’t vote, because education is important when making an objective decision such as who to vote for. This would exclude a large percentage of our people who, being older and black, were denied an education under apartheid (who, statistically, would also be more likely to vote for the ANC or IFP than the DA). Immediately there would be outcry, and rightfully so – irrespective of the logic of the argument (which, on paper, is fairly strong), it violates the rights of South African citizens.
So why now do some people feel it is fine to exclude people from the vote because they live overseas?
Again, the country I love has kicked me in the arse, and made me sad.
South African democracy is not really something to brag about. It still disenfranchises people.
For people to argue that because other countries have a low turnout they can afford to allow their citizens abroad to vote is a cop out and shows how some South African’s still have no democratic ideals.
Denying a citizen to vote is barbaric and violation of their human rights. Simple as that. The fact that its legal, means that the South African Constitution is still a 2nd rate document which does not measure up to other democracies.
I think that Khosi and co may have hooked some of you by saying things like fly home to vote. I say this right is protected by the constitution, therefore lets get all of the expats to “club” together and bring a case before the CC. We need to test this right in the highest court of the land.
As has been pointed out by many the government is going to have tough time defending their action.
This move will bring a good number of voters into the mix and while this might not upset the power that the ANC currently holds, it will certainly upset their majority and mean that we will have a truly democratic state.
What is clear is that there is passion around this topic, but what is required is some action
@ H Smith
You say “Never thought I’d see the day that I could with hindsight say that the NP were more principled on a constituional issue than the ANC are!”
Well well well – blow me down with a feather.
Afraid your comparison is a little sick. Yes the Nats did allow oveseas voting EXCEPT the vast majority of the people were not allowed to vote overseas or even in their own country.
What make s a constitution criminal?
“NM // Nov 17, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Would it maybe be possible to raise funds from South Africans living abroad, who wish to vote, and use these funds to challenge this legislation in the Constitutional Court? If 5 000 people each gave R 500, that would be R 2 500 000. Just a thought…”
I would most certainly be willing to support such a challenge.
please keep me posted if something like this takes off! Great idea
Nobody Special, I could nt agree with you more…. Apartheid was in fact declared a crime against humanity.
[...] A discussion about this topic is also busy as we speak at Constitutionally speaking [...]
I left SA in 1989 because I refused to fight in the SA Army to support apartheid. In the first free and fair elections in SA I was living in Los Angeles and it is hard to describe the joy and shared optimism of the hundreds of people who queued around the block to cast their votes. On that day these people were not whites or blacks or liberals or conservatives, but South Africans who had endured the many years of apartheid rule and took great pleasure in being part of history. I will never forget that day.
If South Africa wants to be taken seriously as part of the international community then it also needs to understand how our constitution and economy are intrinsically linked. We want to trade with other countries. We want our representatives to be running South African companies overseas. We want to sit at the Big Table and be counted (im talking the UN, G20, IMF etc). To do this, many proud South Africans have left the country (or will be away doing the work that creates the jobs back home) and to deny them the right to vote is, from an international perspective, simply ‘backwards’ and, in my opinion an unfortunate reaction to the ‘chip on the shoulder’ still held by some of those who suffered so awfully under apartheid.
I already spend thousands of UK pounds every year when I come to visit. Through the work I do I have saved the lives of many people living with HIV both directly and by using my influence overseas. I dont feel like I should have to defend my right to vote, or come back when it suits the government.
I want to remain a proud South African, but I am losing respect for the ANC in the way I had no respect for the National Party I grew up with.
By the way, in Los Angeles I voted for the ANC.
NM, I agree wholeheartedly and am quite prepared to support such an action.
A citizen’s right to vote has absolutely nothing to do with where he or she is or why he or she is there. Furthermore it has nothing whatsoever to do with his or her race, education, beliefs, political affiliation or economic contribution. Your right to vote as a citizen is unassailable and any challenge to it on any basis whatsoever is absurd.
As much as I would like to vote for free as local South Africans can, I am also a pragmatist and am prepared to undertake some reasonable expenses in order to exercise my right to vote. Flying to the nearest embassy to cast my ballot makes a whole lot more sense than flying back to SA, so the “burden on the SA taxpayer” would be non-existent since embassies already cater for their staff’s voting.
So in most countries prisoners are NOT allowed to vote, with expats allowed to do so. In SA, it’s the other way around. Not much sense to that.
I am a student in Grenada (West Indies). Because of this, I will be able to vote, provided I manage to contact the IEC in my 15 day time slot. Hopefully I’ll make it. However, I will have to cast my vote in Jamaica. For those suggesting that people fly home to vote, get real. My ticket home is R28 000. My ticket to Jamaica is about R6000. For this reason, I am completely behind any move to raise funds and challenge the system. For a flourishing democracy, we’re lagging behind terribly. Living with US and Canadian students who voted by mail, I am a little embarrassed that my country doesn’t seem to care enough about me to allow me to send an envelope to an embassy. Voting should be simple. It should not be expensive. I know that people fought and died for my vote, and regardless of whatever some people believe, I will exercise that right, even if it means catching a boat to Jamaica or a plane to London.
Also, don’t be naive enough think all South Africans abroad have a vendetta against the current government. The rainbow nation does not become monochromatic when we cross borders. We are not black South Africans, white South Africans or coloured South Africans anymore. Anyone who plays the race card has no real sense of democracy. The bare facts are. South Africa is a democracy. That means that South Africans make the decisions, not some hot-headed lawyers or overpaid politicians. All South Africans should be allowed to exercise their right, end of story.
Legal counsel is being sought to reinstitute voting rights for South Africans living and travelling abroad during the 2009 election.
“My legal representatives have instructed a Senior Counsel experienced in political matters to give us an opinion on the chances of overturning The Electoral Laws Amendment Act passed through Parliament just before the 2004 election,” says Mr. A, chairman and leader of the A-Party, South Africa’s youngest party being registered with the Independent Electoral Council (IEC).
“This Act has robbed all South Africans working (Expats), studying or travelling abroad from a chance of voting during the last election. This is unfair and clearly a tactic by the government to block potential votes against them. The majority of South Africans Expats will certainly not vote for this government.
“This legal opinion has never been written and depending on the findings of the SC we might consider challenging the Government in the Constitutional Court. A ruling in our favour could force the government to postpone the elections to allow reasonable time for voter registration overseas,” says Mr. A.
http://www.aparty.org.za
Nobody Special and Prof…!
Are both of you dense, or do you just choose to read something selectively and interpret something that is rather clear and unambiguous in your own hysterical fashion?
I stated “…for those it chose to give the vote…” It doesn’t get clearer that that. I never said that part was right!
I also stated that those offshore were its political opponents i.e. “not fans of the incumbent government”. How much clearer do you need me to get? Do you want me to draw pictures here?
So…the NP gave the vote to those they dispised within the context of those whom they gave the vote. What is the problem with that statement of pure fact? Quite frankly, and we all know it is true…is that the ANC see all South African’s abroad as whites who do not support them (rightly or wrongly from their perspective). Yet the NP allowed their opponents (selectively yes…but opponents they still were) to cast their vote and vote against the government of the day!
The NP were too sh*t scared to tinker with who should get the vote WITHIN THE CONTEXT of those who were given the vote – it was too hot a potatoe which even they (yes Prof …the NP evil ones) were not prepared to mess with…and thousands overseas who did vote, no doubt voted AGAINST the government of the day! Have you got a problem with that statement?
I am confused…What part of those statements of fact did you find so offensive…or are you so blinkered in your thought processes that any reference to (and comparison with) the NP just clouds your intellectual judgement and doesn’t allow you to see comparatives for what they are!
Effectively you are telling me that you have so much confidence in the ANC that no-one should ever question the fact that some of their policies may mirror that of the evil ones who went before them? (Because this is most certainly exactly what their current policy of selective voting “allowance” is – essentially you are saying it is fine for the ANC to do it…but it most certainly wasn’t for the NP)…we can call the NP racist and their actions vindictive and crimes against humanity…but NEVER…NEVER shall we tar the ANC with the same sort of brush even when it policies are so similar on a certain matter that it’s enough to have any decent citizen in tears!
So…I await your apology for implying that I am racist for merely raising a comparative (which is what legal students/followers do) and drawing a comparison to the fact that the ANC, on this matter, are not much better than the NP when it comes to selectively applying the right to vote…!
I await your reply….Prof and Nobody Special…and expect a non-emotional, intellectual reply (and not a hysterical rant merely because somene has deigned to compare one party’s political policy on a certain matter) to another’s in history.
PS – If you can see anywhere in my two previous commentaries where I praised or implied support for the NP, I would like to see you raise that fact from a posting.
I think you are too emotional on this site Prof about certain issues and it clouds your judgement (and hence usefulness) to those who actually bother to think about these matters…and post their objective non-racist thoughts….or are you so wound up in the ANC’s web of history that it doesn’t allow you to see beyond their actions which (as with this matter) are a clear and present danger to our democracy and South Africans rights.
…And quite frankly, denying any citizen a right to vote, when it is enshrined in the Constitution, should also be called a crime against humanity and result in court sanction for those involved, and as far as I am concerned jail time…or are the ANC above the law and can do wrong Prof and Nobody Special?
I await your next rant based on fact and not emotion!
Regards,
H Smith
We, the tax payers, already fund a lot of curruption. I don’t mind if a few more million go towards giving citizens abroad their opportunity to vote!
http://www.mypetition.co.za/index.php?page=sign_petition&petition_id=77
H Smith, you are not alone in your frustrations with the double standards of the day.
H. Smith
Whether you are a raging racist or entirely colour-blind is beside the point. You chose to end a good post by making a comparison between the National Party and the ANC which is clearly an inflammatory one, thus undermining your entire argument.
You ask for facts and you ask for them to be stated in a non-emotional way. (You should, by the way, start by rereading your second post – quite an emotional outburst. Then read Nobody Special and Prof’s responses to your first post and see how unemotional they are. Neither Prof nor Nobody Special implied that you are racist. Your over-sensitivity on this point, though, makes one wonder.)
Fact one: the apartheid government (NP) disenfranchised the vast majority of South Africa’s population on the grounds exclusively of race. An indefensible policy.
Fact two: the ANC government allows and encourages all South Africans living within its borders, irrespective of race, religion, sex, etc to vote.
Fact three: the ANC has disenfranchised South Africans living outside of the country’s borders, but only while they are outside the country.
Fact four: those people thus disenfranchised are a tiny tiny minority of the country’s citizens and are being discriminated against only in terms of where they live: i.e. it does not matter what their race or religion is; or their political affiliations are.
Fact five: if those people retain their citizenship and come back to SA they may vote.
I am not defending the ANC’s not allowing overseas citizens to vote. Of course every citizen ought to be allowed to vote. But at least it is a discrimination based on reasonable grounds and applied across the board, whatever your race, sex or religion. By ‘reasonable’ I mean that there is an argument the ANC can put forward for its decision that would not be entirely illogical, 100% undemocratic and, to put it bluntly, evil.
Now, having read those facts listed above can you not understand that writing that the NP were ‘principled’ in any way at all is offensive to people? To argue that you qualified your statement by writing ‘who were entitled to vote’ and so made your comparison a valid one is disingenuous. How can there be any principle in a government not tampering with its citzens’ right to vote when that right is in itself entirely unprincipled? Or do you believe in relativism when it comes to morals and principles?
I would have to disagree with you entirely when you write ‘the ANC, on this matter, are not much better than the NP when it comes to selectively applying the right to vote’. There is clearly a vast difference: the one is an act created by a majority party in a democracy; the other is a policy of the criminal, undemocratic apartheid regime.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, Sarah Palin,
Thanks for pointing out the obvious – I am sure none who inhabit this site from time to time (or frequently)would ever have been aware of the facts you mention so eloquently – Jeez, best I go back to Constitutional Law 101 for a refresher…thanks for your help Mom…!
One mention of the comparsion with the NP and all hell breaks loose…!
Guess who recently said…”The ANC are not too dissimilar to the NP…?”
Apply your mind…do some reading…and tell us which JUDGE in South Africa recently said that in ruling…? He did say it in a certain context, but say it he did…!
You can’t argue with people like you who even attempt to justify selectively applying Constituional guarantees.
After all…for some like you…the ANC can do no wrong…no matter what the Constitution says or guarantees!
After all we are all equal before the law, it’s just that some in ANC (and their Sarah Palin followers) believe that some are more equal than others.
Don’t come crying when the ANC gradually erodes your rights over time…remember…the ANC embraces democracy only as long as it suits them…and that’s not too different to the NP…just look at their behaviour over the weekend towards Cope meetings in Alexandra.
Wake up and smell the coffee Sarah Palin, or are you one of those people who like volunteering to work in the refugee camps bceaus eit makes you feel good…you may just have to when the ANC and their supporters are finished dealing with COPE and it’s supporters the way they have been of late…!
I think I’ll just leave this debate to those who daren’t compare the ANC’s policies in selective instances to the policies of the NP…!
It’s tough trying to be logical and obective with those who go apoplectic at the very mention of the name NP…no matter context it is used in…!
Of COURSE there is no comparison between the NP and the ANC. The NP were a WHITE government that did as it pleased and the ANC is a BLACK government that does what it pleases!
This ‘rainbow nation’ of ours will never really live up to its ideals if we continue to see the current political parties as BLACK or WHITE. For me it’s that simple.
I agree wholeheartedly with H Smith.
For some reason my post left out the comment “for the uninitiated, this is called sarcasm” after my comment about the NP & ANC being incomparable.
Apologies for my lack of webblog skills
H. Smith. Such rage. Such apoplexy. Oh dear me. All those wild accusations thrown at me. First you request facts not emotion and ranting and then, when facts are given you in an unemotional way, you launch into a tirade.
It is interesting that you accuse others of not reading your comment closely, so failing to see the qualifications you made in your comment about the NP’s principles. Interesting, because you clearly failed to read my comment closely either. I wrote that I did not agree with the ANC’s changing of the law and that ‘of course every citizen ought to be allowed to fact’.
I’m particularly interested in what you seem to know about me or seem to have learnt about me from reading my comment:
- you can’t argue with people like me.
- I attempted to justify selectively applying constitutional guarantees.
- for me the ANC can do no wrong.
- I am a follower of the ANC and believe that some are more equal than others.
- I probably drink coffee (that’s a joke, H. Smith) and volunteer to help others in desperate straits only to ease my own conscience.
- I become apoplectic at the very mention of the name NP.
Well, in short, let me respond to your observations about me one by one:
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Oh dear, H. Smith, not too good. 0 out of 6. Forget Constitutional Law 101. Try Character Analysis 101, How to Argue Cogently 101 and How to Enjoy a Debate on a Blog without Losing Your Sense of Perspective and Sense of Humour 101.
The only point I was trying to make is that I believe one cannot argue that one selected thing is principled within a system that is fundamentally unprincipled.
It is an argument that I [underlined] find offensive. If you don’t that’s fine. But you don’t need to attack me so violently for holding that opinion. You are welcome to disagree with me; I disagree with myself often enough and am happy enough to argue with people like me.
“Such rage” you say Dear Sarah…?
Let me pose this question to you by way of attempting an answer…: Were you disenfranchised after voting “Yes” in a referendum to make this country a multi-racial society and a better country for all, and then voting in a National election…and were you then promptly disenfranchised…??? Were you???
Yes…I think “rage” is about right Dear Sarah Palin…and if it wasn’t utter rage I wouldn’t be taking my constitutional rights, privileges and duties seriously enough now would I?
So…sorry to upset you with my undignified rage at the whole Rainbow Nation story, and “we really do aim to make this a better country for all” pre 1994 election cr*p from the ANC, only to have my vote taken away from me the minute they assume power….!
Sorry you find it so offensive that people dare push back at the injustices done to them in a perceived democratic society…but clearly your idea of the worth of ones right to vote and mine carry two very different types of weight.
Clearly one of us sacrificed a little more during this whole process than the other, that one of us guards that right to vote more highly than the other…and dares rage against a supposedly democratic system which enforced such an injustice.
May I suggest that if your belief in the right to vote is so easily qualified, maybe you should just continue debating with yourself and “those like you”…maybe then when you debate the matter you won’t end up on the bleeding edge of the Constitutional sword…! It’s less painful that way isn’t it?
Sorry you found my rebuttle to your rant on a knit-picking point of principle so cutting…but you deserved it. Get yourself a glass of warm milk and honey and take yourself off to bed with your two page book of Character Analysis 101 & Philosophy for The Highly Principled Democrat 101.
Sorry my rage offends you so…but remember…”God only grants democracy to those who are prepared to guard and defend it…”
I trust that you will see from the above that I haven’t unlike your observation in your post, I haven’t entirely lost my sense of humour now at all have I…???
Don’t bother replying Sarah Palin…I’m bored of debating this non-issue with you now.
sorry read ‘vote’ for ‘fact’ in my 2nd para above!
H Smith
Since you ask me a question – albeit a rhetorical one, because you say don’t want to debate with me anymore – I’ll answer it:
Yes, I was disenfranchised. I left the country in 1995 and only returned this year. So this will be the first time I will be able to vote again since ‘94. You don’t ask, but I won’t be voting ANC and I actually do take my constitutional rights and duties very seriously. I am as angry as you about what the ANC is doing to this country, not only in disenfranchising some of its citizens but in many other ways. That doesn’t stop me being angrier about what the NP did.
And it was very generous of the Nats to extend the vote to all those exiles. They had such a choice of parties to vote for and were all so keen to legitimise the government by taking part in the elections.
Anyhow, I won’t waste any more words. One can’t really debate with someone who believes debating means shouting your point of view out as loudly as possible and then covering your ears and saying ‘don’t bother replying cos I’m not listening’.
Helen Zille has approached the IEC with a view to them amending the Act to allow SA citizens living abroad to register and vote.
The IEC have stated that they will consider this request, although what the outcome will be remains to be seen.
At least it has been addressed and is now under consideration. As Zille said, it is bizarre that prisoners are allowed to vote and certain citizens abroad are not.
Sarah Palin – the next time I see either Helen Suzman or Frederick van Zyl Slabbert, I’ll tell them your view and how you think they added nothing to democracy in this country, and merely served to perpetuate an illigitimate government.
In fact, I’ll go as far as to say that if it had not been for their political behaviour and efforts, democracy would have been forthcoming in South Africa so much sooner.
As for those who voted against the NP, their actions were also for nought, and merely served to perpetuate racism!
Hiya to all,
I love the fact that this debate is going on, I’m an Expat South African, I have not lived back home for the past 7 years, have no other nationality and haven’t thought to acquire any other…
I left South Africa to gain valuable work experience and initially it was meant to be for a MAXIMUM of 2 years, in that time both my parents became unemployed and have since not found jobs due to affirmative action… I came home in NOV 2003, and was unemployed for a period of 8 months until such time that I found a waitering job earning peanuts between a family of four and supporting my sister through college… I managed to get a Job overseas, which is tax free and living expense free and can now comfortably support my parents and sister and live my life without having to worry about where their next loaf of bread will be coming from…
There are more of us, you see no matter what race or backround we’re all here just trying to make ends meet, provide for our family and in doing so indirectly contribute to paying taxes… And did I mention that WE, did not once apply for a government grant, ie UIF….
Everytime I’m on holidays I’m bringing friends with me to visit and we’re spending huge amounts of money on things from car hire to a cable car ride up table mountain, and in doing so I’m paying VAT and supporting the tourism industry.
So Khosi, can you honestly say that South Africans abroad don’t pay their way? and because we don’t contribute to SARS that, thats the reason you will deny us our constitutional right to vote….
If thats the only reason…. I’m happy to pay the Mailing fee for my ballot! I contribute regularly to my political party, So why may I not Vote for them!
Either way, if foreign voting is approved or not I will be voting in next years election if that means a 10 hour flight or not!
I currently live in the UK, but intend on returning to SA. I have the right to have a vote!
March for your right to vote!
When: 6 December 2008, 12:15pm
Place Temple Station, London, UK
D – this is a great idea, we should make ourselves heard and have the right to vote.
But you would need to advertise. What about a facebook event or a mailer? Is this not too short notice?
It’s very simple……..if you are a south african citizen you should be allowed to vote – wherever you are based, if you are not a south african citizen – then you don’t get to vote.
Maybe the ANC are scared of getting voted out with the emergence of a possible threat like COPE? any additional votes from abroad – that could not be cast for the ANC….. gives them more to worry about?…….. No that would be dreaming!
Ben // Nov 25, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I think you should write children’s books with that fertile imagination you have going on there.
I left SA for what I thought would be a short time, but ended up feeling that I owed the good jobs I could fill to the previously disadvantaged (well, one time I did apply, and they ignored me and appointed a real foreigner). But in any case, I have maintained my citizenship, my long-term investments that are still in SA are taxed, and I spend money in the country on visits. I also pay close attention to SA politics. I don’t see why I should not be allowed to vote. As a supporter of the Greens in Australia, I reject the notion that expats should have to fly home to vote. That is a ridiculous idea. Maybe when I return, I’ll work on getting a strong Greens party going, since the ANC and opposition all appear to have sold out to mining interests.
This is not a negotiation. This was completed before 1994 and I now have rights as does every citizen of South Africa, which we are all in agreement about. I work in Saudi Arabia, I am a South African, I want my vote. The constitution says I can vote. ‘Cos I am not present in South Africa, all I want from the ruling government is to make arrangements that I, and the the other 30,000 South Africans, mostly black, coloured, Indian and some whites in Saudi can vote. All 1,500,000 South Africans not living in South Africa want to vote, which is their right.
I do not have to be tested again whether or not I am a South African, whether or not I pay tax, whether or not I own property, whether or not I visit my family and my parents, I have a SOUTH AFRICAN PASSPORT, I want my VOTE! It turns out I can even be a CRIMINAL, I still have the vote.
People, please, when is everyone that calls themselves a South African, going to get over the fact that there are many different colour skins living in South Africa, stop making everything into a racial battle, we are all the same in that we are South Africans!!!
1) If it’s too expensive for expats to vote why can South African embassy staff vote abroad?
Why can criminals vote? Criminals don’t pay any taxes. I don’t see the need to spend my tax payer money on people that have taken the life of other human beings.
2) IF a South African citizen abroad get deported which country will he be deported to?? South AFrica or America? Therefor the expats home is SOUTH AFRICA by Right not Choice.
3) The fact that people assume EXPATS should not vote because they only vote for certain parties are just that “ASSUMPTIONS.”
4) With the world becoming a “Global Village” more and more people can chose where they want to work. This doesn’t mean they have cut off all their ties with their homeland just because they are studying/ working/ travelling abroad.
5) Being born SOUTH AFRICAN you have the RIGHT (not privelage) to take part in the say of YOUR country. Nobody can deny you access to what is given to you at birth. The right of Citizenship and the Right to Vote. It’s a Human right not a choice.
6) I think giving the right to all citizens to vote will be to the better of All of South Africa. Remember it’s not only white people living abroad there are plenty Black South Africans too and they would like to vote. It should be open to ALL .
Bingo – the courts have spoken!
Get your voting pen’s ready…!
But what of those who were disenfranchised in the recentt past…on legislation that was clearly flawed and flew in the face of the Bill of Rights…? What recourse do they have…?
H Smith – “But what of those who were disenfranchised in the recentt past…on legislation that was clearly flawed and flew in the face of the Bill of Rights…? What recourse do they have…?”
That is water under the bridge. The thing with our Bill of Rights jurisprudence is that, whenever you feel challenged or disenfranchised as far as your rights are concerned, you have to positively assert your rights and, if necessary, obtain the necessary relief from a court of law with jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
The problem now would be for the IEC to register South African citizens living abroad as voters and to empower the different embassies and missions abroad to see to it that they are afforded the opportunity to vote. one should remember that such people would not necessarily be allowed to vote in the Provincial elections 9which, to my mind re, only for the National Assembly. One should further remember that the matter might still be overturned in the CC, a situation which I think the chances are slim of that happening. Lastly, one should remember that it would be for the potential voters living abroad to positively assert their right to vote – in other words, they will have to go to the relevant mission or contact the IEC with a view to register and they will have to do their bit of going to the relevant embassy or mission to vote when required, and they would not be entitled to sit back and wait for someone to visit them or for someone to post them a ballot.
H Smith – “But what of those who were disenfranchised in the recentt past…on legislation that was clearly flawed and flew in the face of the Bill of Rights…? What recourse do they have…?”
That is water under the bridge. The thing with our Bill of Rights jurisprudence is that, whenever you feel challenged or disenfranchised as far as your rights are concerned, you have to positively assert your rights and, if necessary, obtain the necessary relief from a court of law with jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
The problem now would be for the IEC to register South African citizens living abroad as voters and to empower the different embassies and missions abroad to see to it that they are afforded the opportunity to vote. one should remember that such people would not necessarily be allowed to vote in the Provincial elections (which, to my mind requires a degree of residence as would Local authority Elections – but I could be wrong), only for the National Assembly. One should further remember that the matter might still be overturned in the CC, a situation which I think the chances are slim of that happening. Lastly, one should remember that it would be for the potential voters living abroad to positively assert their right to vote – in other words, they will have to go to the relevant mission or contact the IEC with a view to register and they will have to do their bit of going to the relevant embassy or mission to vote when required, and they would not be entitled to sit back and wait for someone to visit them or for someone to post them a ballot.
Please ignore the 3:07 post – while proofing it (the Gremlins?) submitted itself as it were.
Sarah Palin,
Just a quick comment regarding your caustic view of Helen Suzman and Van Zyl Slabbert as opposition leaders.
If Helen Suzman had undermined the fight for freedom in South Africa by working within the system as oppostion, why is it then that so many in current government saw fit to pay their respects at her memorial?
You just haven’t got a clue have you…?