SA’s current electoral system is flawed

PRESIDENT Zuma and other senior members of the ruling party claim those who voted for the removal of the president had, by implication, voted against the ANC and in support of regime change.

This assertion implies that those serving ANC members who had so voted are therefore principally no longer bona fide members of the party. Does this mean they should resign or that they no longer qualify for party membership?

The common understanding is that the vote was for the removal of Zuma, and not party-politically based.

Only the EFF seemed to get it. In his address, Malema made it clear that the ANC-led government was the choice of the electorate and that their wishes should be respected. The motion was therefore for the removal of Zuma, and nothing else.

It’s unfortunate that members of the ruling party seemed not to understand the motion, misconstruing it for the removal of the ANC .

However, the motives of the official opposition in this debate were rather ambiguous and seemed to weigh in favour of regime change.

Incidentally, what were the results of Mmusi Maimane’s fact-finding tour of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza?

Had Zuma been removed from office, the responsibility for the running of the country would have been shouldered by the Speaker of the House. She was then obliged to swear in an incumbent within 30 days, failing which, call for a general election.

In the interim, nothing stops her from reshuffling the cabinet and filling posts with Zuma supporters, thus ensuring the re-election of Zuma as president. The present electoral system is rather flawed and should be revisited and replaced by a constituency-based one. AL GAFOOR Retreat