Threats of violence have no place in our elections

The forthcoming elections will present the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) with its toughest test since it started conducting polls. Apart from greater complexity wrought by changes in electoral laws, and ever larger numbers of voters and contestants, it will have to contend with a growing threat posed by new communication technologies that enable the spreading of fake news by the unscrupulous. And those with nefarious political agendas. But the more potent threat to an orderly election and its aftermath is the talk of violence by former president Jacob Zuma’s MK Party if the elections do not go their way. The threats are, in effect, aimed at intimidating not only the IEC but voters too.

It is the expectation of law-abiding citizens that the state, which has a duty to guarantee the safety of all and to protect citizens’ right to freely choose a government, will do its job in dealing with such threats — and any illegal action. Fresh in the public mind is the violence and mayhem that followed the imprisonment of Zuma three years ago. The plotters have yet to be brought to book.

The government has pledged that those who engage in violence over the elections will face consequences. It must prepare to make good on that promise, and not repeat its costly security failures of July 2021.

The second threat comes from political parties that have cast doubt on the credibility of the elections unless, apparently, given the green light by Western governments.

Here we are talking about members of the multiparty charter, together with the DA, which appealed for support from US secretary of state

Antony Blinken.

The appeal to foreign states, none of whom can claim to have perfect electoral systems, nor to be unbiased observers in international affairs, will only serve to cast doubt on the ability of the IEC to act impartially and on the election outcome itself.

All of this without a shred of evidence.

The truth is that the IEC has acquitted itself outstandingly well in running free and fair elections. It has numerous mechanisms that enable participation by all parties in the monitoring of elections and avenues through which complaints can be addressed.

There can, therefore, be no basis for anyone to impugn the credibility of the IEC’s work and the election results. Nor to resort to threats of violence.

The effect of such actions can only be to diminish the public standing of the IEC as a trusted institution, as well as trust in the process it is charged with running.

For the record, our view is not that the IEC should be above scrutiny by contesting parties or the public generally.

The commission’s credibility rests in large measure on the transparency of its work. It was moved to declare that it welcomed the participation of outside observers, as it has done in previous elections. Its head, Sy Mamabolo, had to place on public record that “as a general principle, the commission believes that elections must be observed because [it] gives us ... credibility”.

The state must deal resolutely with those who act illegally to express their grievances. The IEC, for its part, must take steps to mitigate the obvious and looming risks to the poll. In addition, leaders who cry wolf over the elections must seriously consider the likely consequences of their loose talk for our democracy and the country, including possible violence and the loss of lives.

The interests of the country and its people would be better served if politicians used existing electoral protocols, including the electoral court, to address any concerns they may have before and after the elections.

Fresh in the public mind is the violence and mayhem that followed the imprisonment of Zuma three years ago