IEC neutrality is a sine qua non for credible elections

The success of any general election is, in large part, dependent on the credibility and perceived independence of the body running it. The more an elections body is regarded as free of bias and outside influence, the more likely it is the outcome of an election it oversees will be accepted by all.

Over the past three decades, the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) has played a sterling role in running the country’s elections machinery — winning itself wide applause from within and outside our borders.

Most people would rate the commission as one of the top three bodies running elections in Africa’s 54 countries.

This is not because we are Nelson Mandela’s country, a “rainbow nation” that “miraculously” came into being when the outside world was expecting it to explode into an orgy of racial violence and civil strife.

It is because, from its very inception, the IEC worked hard to assert its independence. Even at a time when the country was run by Madiba, a universally celebrated and loved leader, the body never made the mistake of ingratiating itself to him or his party.

Our continent is awash with stories of nascent democracies being deformed at the very beginning just because institutions set up to impartially administer the democratic competition between rival parties were run by people who saw themselves as loyalists to either the incumbents or parties that were about to replace them.

South Africa seems to have drawn important lessons from such mistakes and, as one of the last countries to gain freedom and democracy, was determined not to repeat them.

Much has gone right since our transition from apartheid rule. But it is also true that a lot is now going wrong.

Elections, however, should never be allowed to be one of those areas in which the country is found wanting. The standards that have been upheld since 1994 should never be allowed to drop.

To ensure this, the image and credibility of the IEC should be jealously guarded, not just by its commissioners, employees and volunteers, but by society at large.

By all indications, May 29 will be the most hotly contested general election since the birth of democracy. For the first time in the country’s fairly short history, the ruling ANC will be going to the polls unsure of whether it will win an absolute majority.

The two most populous provinces, Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal — which, along with the Western Cape, are the dynamos of the country’s economy — appear to be there for the taking by an opposition-led coalition government.

To make the situation potentially more explosive, a former head of state and ex-leader of the ruling party has established a rival political platform that threatens to further weaken the ANC’s electoral dominance.

With the stakes this high, all eyes are bound to be on the IEC as the impartial referee. Various political parties will be watching it closely, looking for any telltale signs of bias.

It is therefore important for the IEC to tread carefully and to make moves only when satisfied that doing so would not give anyone reason to doubt its impartiality.

Of course there will be those who have long made up their minds and, even without a shred of evidence, will seek to impugn the body’s actions and motives.

But, as has been the case in the past, the vast majority of citizens would see through them.

However, it would not be an exaggeration to say a sizeable number of citizens are growing concerned over the ongoing legal battle between the IEC and former president Jacob Zuma’s MK Party.

The IEC is well within its rights to approach the Constitutional Court to seek clarity following an Electoral Court ruling that overturned its decision that Zuma is ineligible to run as a candidate for parliament.

Zuma and his legal team, equally, have a right to oppose the move by the IEC.

But what should not be allowed is for the legal dispute to degenerate into a political football where the integrity and credibility of the IEC could be tarnished.

The electoral court has made matters complicated by announcing its ruling without releasing the full judgment, which would have explained why it believes Zuma should be allowed to run as a candidate. Therefore it is hard to say whether the IEC is justified in taking the matter further to the Constitutional Court.

In this vacuum, the IEC becomes susceptible to all manner of accusations from the former president’s supporters. In fact relations have deteriorated to such an extent that the MK Party is now said to be calling for the resignation of one of the commissioners, Janet Love, for what it calls “blatant bias”.

Her alleged crime? Responding to a question during a media conference in January, she told reporters that the constitution disqualified a candidate who had been sentenced to more than 12 months without the option of a fine. The MK Party deemed her remarks as having prejudged the Zuma case even before it was officially brought to the IEC.

Given her history with the ANC and President Cyril Ramaphosa, it is a matter of time before Love’s detractors start engaging in that truly South African political game of “connecting the dots”.

But what is urgently required from all sides is deescalation. A fight to the death between the electoral body and a political party is in nobody’s interest.

Millions of South Africans take to the polls on May 29 and we all want to welcome the outcome as a true democratic expression of the electorate’s voice, without anyone doubting the impartiality of the body that ran it.