Good public participation crucial for meaningful electoral reform
GOING to the polls every five years to (re)elect new political leadership is putatively and ineluctably associated with liberal democracies across the globe.
Nevertheless, going to the polls after every five years is not in itself an express guarantor of the liberal democratic principles. The previous assertions have paved the way for robust re-conceptualisation of liberal democratic principles and the way that illiberal democratic regimes have found expression.
Nevertheless, South Africa has been appraised and praised to be one of the most liberal democratic states in Africa. Moreover, the South African Constitution is putatively said to be one of the leading liberal constitutions in world notwithstanding that there have been disgruntled voices about our Electoral Act being dialectical opposition with our espoused most liberal Constitution for not making room for individual candidates to stand for either national or provincial elections.
Electoral system scrutiny would not be something new in South Africa. In 2002, the Van Zyl Slabbert Commission on Electoral Reform was established to imagine a new electoral system for the 2004 general elections and beyond. The commission report, in one way or another, and because of the lack of social cohesion in the country, was bound to find itself having to deal with political instrumentalism.
The political instrumentalism manifested itself in being concerned with the adherence to multiparty democratic principles.
The commission report, inclined to the notion of minorities’ voices and their interests being not overshadowed by the majority, therefore, recommended two electoral systems.
The first was a mixed system consisting of a constituency base and proportional representation.
The recommendation was informed by the notion of protecting minority group interests not to be overshadowed by majority group interests. Alas, to those who believed the rationale to be a true adherence to multiparty democracy and to give minority groups interests a voice, this recommendation was an expression of lack of social cohesion.
The report’s electoral systems recommendations were both the expression of failures of the commission exteriorising itself from political instrumentalism, as the voices of then political parties represented in Parliament reigned supreme in the final report. Moreover, the report recommendations were a further expression of lack of social cohesion in our country that certain people who call themselves “politicians” thrive off and make a political career.
Recently, the Constitutional Court ruled that the Electoral
Act is unconstitutional and gave Parliament 24 months to rectify it. Of course, for the parliamentary amendment of the Electoral Act the Constitution will be the primary source of reference; however, the Van Zyl Slabbert Commission report would also be one of the reports that will guide Parliament in amending the act.
Nonetheless, civic societies, and the public in general need to be more involved this time than before in the amendment of the Electoral
Act. This would ensure that political instrumentalists’ voices, using the lack of social cohesion in our country, won’t triumph over public interest.
The recent Constitutional Court ruling resuscitated the Van Zyl Slabbert report yet at the same time it would dismantle political party voters asymmetrical relationship with parties taking a position of being the big brother over the voters. However, to depose political parties from their big brother position would require a good public participation in the amendment of the Electoral Act and the demarcation of the constituencies lest the country experience the Vuwani municipal demarcation protests at a larger scale.
Mlambo is studying towards an Honours degree in sociology.