Referendum on land reform in SA? Brexit suggests not

THERE are many valid reasons for calling for a deepening of democracy in South Africa, despite the fact that it has regular free elections and constitutional mechanisms designed to promote public participation in lawmaking.

The major flaw in its system of government is often said to be the manner in which the electoral system – uninhibited open list proportional representation – has shaped its party system.

The usual complaint is that individual members of Parliament or provincial legislatures are accountable to party bosses, rather than to the electors. Accordingly, there are often demands that the electoral system should be reformed via the introduction of constituencies.

But the call for electoral reform has constantly stalled, largely because list system proportional representation has guaranteed the ANC – which has governed the country since 1994 – majorities at national and most provincial levels. Thus, it is not in the party’s interests to change the system.

One danger of this is that there may be a populist call for the introduction of referenda. For instance, if down the road, the Constitutional Court was to rule that any proposed amendment to the Constitution regarding the expropriation of land without compensation was unconstitutional, there might be a demand that the issue be put directly to the people. And, there are many within the governing ANC who might agree.

Britain got into the Brexit mess because of a long-standing division about membership of the EU within Wits professor the ruling Conservative Party. Then Prime Minister David Cameron made the fateful decision in 2016 to hold a national referendum on continuing membership of the EU, on the presumption that a “Yes” vote would win, and that this would silence his right wing for a generation.

His plan went terribly wrong. For a host of reasons, the electorate chose to give the political establishment a bloody nose by voting “No”, albeit narrowly: some 52% of those who voted, voted to leave the EU, 48% to stay.

Humiliated, Cameron resigned: Theresa May took over as Prime Minister and committed to negotiating Britain’s exit. Fatefully, she held an election to strengthen her hand, but lost her majority in parliament. After two years, the chickens are coming home to roost.

There are four lessons South Africans can learn from the Brexit fiasco. One, resort to referenda on highly contentious issues is as likely to deepen political polarisation as to resolve it.

Two, if referenda are to become part of a country’s democratic machinery, it is vital that their constitutional status is established prior to their use. In Britain, the constitutional status of referenda has never been established.

Three, it is vital to establish the rules for the game before referenda are used.

Fourth, should the results of referenda be considered final? What happens if it appears that voters want to change their minds? Would a repeat referendum be a negation (the overturning of a democratic result) or a reassertion of democracy (a going back to the people)?

Referenda could have their place under South Africa’s Constitution, but only if they deepen constitutional democracy, and don’t undermine it. Southall is Professor of Sociology, University of the Witwatersrand

Resort to referenda on highly contentious issues is likely to deepen political polarisation