‘Democracy puzzle now complete’
Constitutional Court declares that independent candidates can stand for elections
THE New Nation Movement (NNM) says the Constitutional Court’s ruling declaring the Electoral Act unconstitutional, as it prohibits independent candidates from standing for national and provincial elections, completes the country’s “democratic puzzle”.
The organisation was behind the challenge to the current electoral system to enable South Africans to both vote for, and stand as, independent candidates.
The country’s apex court yesterday ruled in their favour, declaring that independent candidates who desire to stand for election – whether it be for provisional or national seats – are permitted by law to do so.
The court gave Parliament 24 months to amend the legislation.
South Africa currently operates on a proportional representation voting system, meaning citizens vote for a political party, not individuals.
A political party gets a share of seats in Parliament in direct proportion to the number of votes it got in the elections, and each party decides on members to fill the seats it has won.
NNM co-ordinator, Bulelani Mkohliswa, said they were elated and there was a move towards a “new political landscape”.
“This ruling is not about the NNM but is about the democracy that South Africa has been craving for such a long time. There have been missing pieces in our democratic puzzle but with this ruling, we are completing that puzzle,” said Mkohliswa.
In the judgment, penned by Judge Mbuyiseli Madlanga and concurred by seven judges, the Constitutional Court held that the Electoral Act was unconstitutional to the extent that it required that adult citizens be elected to the National Assembly and Provincial Legislatures only through their membership of political parties.
Judge Madlanga noted: “If the content of section 19(3)(b) entails that an adult citizen desirous of standing for and holding political office may not be able to do so without forming or joining a political party, that pits section 19(3) (b) against section 18. That immediately becomes a weighty consideration in determining the content of the section 19(3)(b) right. Therein lies the relevance of the right to freedom of association.
“In its traditional sense, this right is associated more with the positive than the negative element. The positive element is about the right of an individual to be free to form an association with whomsoever she or he wishes for whatever purpose… the negative element is
about the freedom not to associate at all, if that be the individual’s choice,” the judgment read.
Parliament, which was party in the case, said it had noted and respected the Constitutional Court judgment.
“We will study its practical implications in relation to its obligations to the legislature,” the House said in a statement.
The National Assembly said: “Parliament had filed a notice to abide by the court’s decision, together with an explanatory memorandum. The explanatory memorandum addressed, amongst others, the time required for processing legislation, if amendments to the existing Electoral Act were required, and requested the court’s consideration in this regard.”
The Independent Electoral Commission, which was also a party in the matter, said they were ready to assist Parliament.
Commission chairperson, Glen Mashinini, said: “The Electoral Commission welcomes the clarity the court has provided to the interpretation of the rights of citizens to stand for public office.
“We will study the judgment in detail to reflect on its full implications for the current electoral system and legislative framework governing national and provincial elections.”