Voting is our chance to make voices heard on parties’ progress

WE previously talked about the right to vote in general perhaps too straightforwardly. This was necessary as a background to a more specific discussion.

Today, my last article before the elections, the focus is on two issues recently raised in the public arena.

The first is the question of what I call the tactical vote. This is not a wholly new idea. It has often been suggested by minority parties that the electorate should vote for them only to prevent the governing party from getting two-thirds of the vote. Now others suggest a slightly broadened approach that includes the spoiling of ballot papers as a way of conveying a message of disapproval to the ruling party — which, it is assumed, will return to power.

I believe that this so-called tactical vote is really unconstitutional, immoral and even cowardly. Millions of compatriots have sacrificed, suffered, been subjected to indignity, torture and even died in horrific circumstances for the right to vote. It is wrong and an abuse of this hardfought and truly fundamental right to be used merely as a tactical weapon, tool or toy.

I urge that it is necessary and constitutionally incumbent on all South Africans to exercise their right to vote sincerely and honestly.

There are many political parties in South Africa. It is the duty of all citizens to examine and evaluate each political party to decide whom they will vote for. If citizens then decide that no party is worth their vote, the spoiling of the ballot paper is a realistic and honest option.

However, we should not get there too easily.

Before this happens, we must look at all political parties to see whether we prefer one over another and why.

The factors to carefully weigh in this evaluation might include:

The history of the political party and its contribution to the achievement of our constitutional order;

The contribution of the party after 1994 to the process of achieving our full democracy;

The approach of the party to reconstructing our society;

Whether we agree with the party’s conception of nonracialism;

How the party’s understanding of, and commitment to, affirmative action would ultimately meet our expectations;

Whether the party is significantly corrupt and inefficient in its delivery of service; and

Whether, if the party is corrupt and inefficient, it has, bearing in mind its membership and leadership, the capacity to change and reconstruct itself into an efficient party relatively free of corruption and nepotism.

This is a difficult and delicate exercise. As we know, all parties have strengths and weaknesses. It will not be appropriate to reject a party because it is wrong or has failed in one or two respects in this early stage of our democracy.

Importantly, a factor to be considered is the quality and credibility of the candidates put up for elections by a political party.

What weight must a voter attach to the fact that one or other person on a list is reasonably suspected of having been immoral, corrupt or unethical? One political party, through a senior official, has said unequivocally that all people who have not been convicted of offences and sentenced to imprisonment are, according to that party, entitled to stand for election.

This means that all people, however strong the suspicion may be of their having been corrupt, should be elected unless they have been convicted.

This is too low a threshold — embarrassing and unjustifiable.

We, as the electorate, must ensure that people suspected of corruption are kept out of the upper level of any parliamentary list. This, too, is a factor we must bear in mind.

Let us strongly, confidently and openly express our views on these issues now. We cannot think in secret that some political parties are wrong.

We have two options. The first is to spoil our ballot paper and keep quiet, and the second, what I call the effective option, is to say that a party of our choice is wrong in certain respects, such as corruption.

We must strongly and openly say that we are very concerned about negative moral positions of the party we want to vote for, but we will nevertheless vote for that party because we believe that, despite its flaws and troubles, it has the capacity to turn itself around, change and deliver.

Yacoob is a former Constitutional Court judge