ANC election has no room for ‘margin of litigation’

Multiple legal spats around provincial conferences are a cause for concern

AS THE ANC election campaign comes to its final stretch, it has been encouraging to hear both front runners, Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma and Cyril Ramaphosa, pledging to accept the national conference election outcomes. The former has accepted the possibility of having to serve under a new president, the latter is accepting of the results, indicating that he will serve in public office and CR will go back to corporate South Africa.

Neither has thus far reserved their right to challenge the results in the event that there is a perceived gross violation of process.

But what happens when the results are so tight (as many predict they will be) as to be within what US columnist John Fund called the “margin of litigation”?

Historically, many ANC leaders have chosen not to litigate, but others have chosen to challenge election results in court, in the process putting the country on a knife edge.

Past experiences have taught us that when leaders pledge to accept outcomes of elections, they do so with an unspoken condition – if I win. As soon as the results do not favour them, they start questioning the legitimacy of the process.

Will Dlamini Zuma and Ramaphosa accept the election outcomes, irrespective of the results?

The multiple litigations around provincial conferences, which are directly linked to supporters of both candidates, gives us a reason to concerned.

In 1876, a Democratic presidential nominee was one vote shy of the 185 Electoral College votes needed to secure the highest office in the US. Samuel Jones Tilden had swept the popular vote, winning 247 448 more ballots than his opponent, Rutherford B Hayes, who also lagged behind in Electoral College votes with 165. But 20 votes had not been counted: one from Oregon, four from Florida, eight from Louisiana and seven from South Carolina.

Republicans still maintained control of the state electoral boards so they could throw out votes to secure Hayes a win.

On March 5, 1877, an electoral commission established by Congress confirmed that Hayes would be America’s 19th president.

Naturally this resulted in political upheaval across the country. During this period there was talk of civil unrest and fears of a second Civil War, or the election being rigged to favour a candidate who better served the interests of the party in power.

But Tilden, who had a pretty good reason to think he was cheated, did not question the legitimacy of the results and conceded the election (Julia Craven, Civil Rights Reporter, HuffPost). And America moved on. Political historian Allan Lichtman says: “Our democracy has depended upon the peaceful transfer of power and the idea of an opposition – but a loyal opposition.”

What Tilden understood was that refusing to accept results of elections is against democratic principles, whatever your grievances may be.

The consequences of not accepting results always outweigh whatever benefits there may be. More often than not, it leads to violence.

The inability to accept election results in the ANC has brought a level of violence in ANC meetings and conferences that casts a long and dark shadow on the work of this glorious movement.

The scenes of the ANC Eastern Cape conference were heartbreaking as comrade turned on comrade, leaving many seriously injured and lying in a pool of blood.

Ramaphosa’s “festival of chairs” comment was also uncalled for.

The violence in KwaZulu-Natal, with councillors and conference delegates getting killed almost every week, could all be linked to this inability to accept voting results at branches – nomination results that lead to others being voted-in as councillors and, ultimately, a desire to usurp the ANC national conference by frustrating local elections.

Every province that has thus far refused to accept election results has experienced some measure of upheaval and unrest – all led by people who put their interests above those of the organisation.

Let us be very clear: it’s the people that elect leaders and the idea that leaders would choose not to accept election results is offensive and arrogant.

Irrespective of the reasons for one’s loss, whether by gross violation of process or blatant manipulation, it’s not up to the leaders to reject election results.

The people will decide this conference with their vote, and where there is gross violation of process or manipulation, the people will decide the next step.

No leader must decide for the people, the people are capable of choosing their own leaders and must be allowed to do so.