Quote of the week

Mr Zuma is no ordinary litigant. He is the former President of the Republic, who remains a public figure and continues to wield significant political influence, while acting as an example to his supporters… He has a great deal of power to incite others to similarly defy court orders because his actions and any consequences, or lack thereof, are being closely observed by the public. If his conduct is met with impunity, he will do significant damage to the rule of law. As this Court noted in Mamabolo, “[n]o one familiar with our history can be unaware of the very special need to preserve the integrity of the rule of law”. Mr Zuma is subject to the laws of the Republic. No person enjoys exclusion or exemption from the sovereignty of our laws… It would be antithetical to the value of accountability if those who once held high office are not bound by the law.

Khampepe j
Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector including Organs of State v Zuma and Others (CCT 52/21) [2021] ZACC 18
22 April 2009

Why the long queues?

I voted today in Sea Point. It took fifteen minutes from the time I arrived at the polling station to the time I had cast my vote. Most of the voters in my voting district (I assume, based on previous election results) were DA voters. On television I see that there have been long queues in especially poor areas (which, past results suggest, would be ANC strongholds). Queues of three or four hours seemed to have been standard in some areas.

My question is: why the long queues in some areas? Why the lack of ballot papers? Why not more polling stations in poor areas?

I would have imagined that the IEC would make sure that ALL voters – rich and poor, black and white – would have been treated the same.

Anecdotal evidence suggest that voters in especially poor areas were often required to stand in queues much longer than voters in the affluent areas. Why?

The Constitution guarantees the right to equality for everyone. But, unless media reports are wrong, poor people often had a far more onerous task in order to ensure that they cast their ballot. Why?

Is this part of the inherent bias of state institutions towards the middle and upper classes or merely bad planning on the part of the IEC? Who knows? Either way, the IEC should do better to ensure that ALL are treated more or less the same on election day.

The fact that many people still stood in queues for many hours to cast their vote is a good sign. It means people still believe that voting really matters. While one vote cannot change anything, if every person decided not to vote because of that fact, it would completely sabotage democracy.

One vote cannot get anyone into Parliament, but voting is always a collective matter. Election day is a day in which we are reminded that we are all in this together. If many persons thought their vote would not count, this could lead to the election of an unpopular party. This happened in Zimbabwe in the election before the referendum in 2000 where the vast majority of voters did not bother to vote, giving Zanu-PF an 80% majority despite the fact that only about 40% of voters actually cast their ballots.

And in 2000, All Gore lost the election because of a 300 ballot margin in Florida. And the poor people of Iraq and the USA had to live with the consequences.

Every vote DOES count. Saying that it does not seems to me astonishingly narrow minded and takes individualism to absurd heights.

But now it is too late to convince anyone to vote. We are all awaiting the results.

SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest