What a turn-up for the books that proposals for serious electoral reform are on the table. If there is one thing, above all others, that has been bad for SA’s democracy it has been the proportional representation (PR) system, which has undermined the accountability of MPs to those who elected them and, in turn, undermined the will and ability of MPs to hold their party seniors in the executive to account.
A court challenge to the Electoral Act more than a year ago, in which the Constitutional Court ruled that allowance must be made for independent candidates to stand for election, has led to a process that could result in proper electoral reform. The judgment rests on the requirement in the constitution that all citizens be allowed to stand for election, something that cannot be accommodated in a pure party list arrangement. To comply with the judgment earlier this year home affairs minister Aaron Motsoaledi established a ministerial advisory committee to provide him with recommendations on what to do next.
As the ANC has tended to be opposed to electoral reform — the PR system works well for party bosses, who can use it to control and manipulate internal power dynamics — it was therefore a bit of a surprise that Motsoaledi asked the committee not just to make the law compliant with the ruling, but also to “facilitate the development of a new electoral system for the next phase of SA’s democracy”.
It is absolutely fitting that he did so. The simple PR electoral system was never intended to last beyond the 1999 election. In 1994 electoral arrangements were decided under pressure, with a need for the simplest solution. The constitution, adopted in 1996, stated that an electoral system must be prescribed by national legislation.
It was this requirement that led to the report in 2003 by an officially appointed electoral task team headed by former opposition leader Frederik van Zyl Slabbert. The report recommended a hybrid system of constituency-based elections combined with and balanced by a party list. The constitution also requires that representation in parliament be proportional to the votes cast, hence the need to retain the list.
The Van Zyl Slabbert commission envisaged 69 district-based constituencies that which would elect 300 representatives — so for example, an entire city could be a constituency but with multiple representatives — balanced out by a party list of 100.
While the PR system has not been good for accountability, it has had the positive outcome of allowing a far greater minority representation in parliament than would a pure constituency system, where those votes cast for a losing candidate are “lost” in the final outcome.
Motsoaledi’s committee is chaired by Valli Moosa, a former constitutional negotiator for the ANC and a former cabinet minister. Moosa is now retired but is still active in politics, having also shepherded, from behind the scenes, the Political Party Funding Act, which came into law in April.
As the court has given parliament until June 2022 to change the Electoral Act, Moosa is working fast, and though only appointed in February he wants to present a report by June 2021. After interactions with stakeholders and political parties his committee is looking at three options: minimal change to the act, but just enough to enable individuals to stand for election; a Van Zyl Slabbert-type option with a national list and provincial lists divided into multimember constituencies; and direct constituency elections for 300 representatives balanced by party lists of 100.
As electoral reform is critical for their future, and as the proportional list system does suit the narrow interests of political parties (even smaller ones), it is vital that momentum for change be built by civil society. It is only insistent and clear preferences by the public that will make it difficult for the ANC, where the decision ultimately lies, to put the cause of a stronger democracy above the unfettered ability to manage its own cadres.
A survey published two weeks ago by the Inclusive Society Institute (ISI), a lobby group that advocates for electoral reform, found that while the vast majority of people (85%) thought local representation would improve accountability there wasn’t overwhelming support (only 58%) for directly elected representatives. (It should be noted the ISI is advocating the multimember constituency Van Zyl Slabbert option, which would fit comfortably with the survey findings.)
Wider and more urgent debate is now really important, so the pros and cons can be seriously discussed. This is a rare opportunity for reform that is not likely to come around again soon.
• Paton is editor-at-large.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.