Why South Africa Needs a Hybrid Electoral System to Empower Voters
Few institutions reveal the nature of a society quite like its electoral system. In South Africa, where democracy is both precious and hard-won, our method of selecting leaders is not merely a procedural matter; it reflects deeper ideals about representation and accountability. Yet, almost three decades into our new democratic dispensation, the cracks in our current system are beginning to show. It seems that the broad consensus is not whether to reform, but how. Should we retain the broad inclusivity of proportional representation (PR) or adopt a more constituency-based approach that promises direct accountability? Perhaps, we need a bit of both.
Democracy, as a concept, is both ancient and ever-evolving. Its origins trace back to ancient Greece, where the first attempts were made to give ordinary people a say in their governance. Yet, the reality was that only a narrow segment of the population—property-owning men from certain families—enjoyed the privilege to vote. Universal suffrage, where all adult citizens have the right to participate in elections, is a far more recent development. In South Africa, for example, the road to full democracy was a long and staggered one: white women only gained the right to vote in 1930, while it took until 1994 for all citizens, regardless of race, to be afforded the right to cast their ballots. This hard-fought struggle for enfranchisement makes the question of how we use those votes all the more significant.
Today, South Africa employs a proportional representation (PR) system, where each vote carries equal weight, and seats in Parliament are allocated according to the percentage of the total vote each party receives. The system’s inclusivity ensures that smaller parties and diverse political voices can gain a foothold in the legislative process. As long as a party meets the minimum threshold, it is entitled to representation—even if it fails to capture more than a small share of votes in any particular region. This contrasts sharply with electoral systems elsewhere, revealing different democratic priorities shaped by distinct historical contexts.
For instance, in the United States, a winner-takes-all approach dominates in presidential elections. In New York State during the 2020 elections, nearly 8.5 million votes were cast, with Donald Trump securing 37.74% of the votes. Despite this significant share, he didn’t win a single one of New York’s 28 electoral votes; all went to Joe Biden. Under the Electoral College system, each state allocates a certain number of electoral votes based on its representation in Congress, and the candidate who wins the popular vote in a state typically claims all of its electoral votes. Many would argue that this arrangement effectively discards millions of votes, sidelining those who supported the losing candidate. However, the American system reflects a history of compromise and federalism, where electoral rules are designed to balance representation across a union of states rather than ensure proportionality in individual outcomes.
England’s electoral model offers a different approach. There, voters in general elections choose Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their specific constituencies. The candidate with the most votes wins, and the party that secures the majority of MPs typically forms the government. This constituency-based system creates a direct link between voters and their representatives but often leads to "safe seats," where certain districts are consistently won by the same party, limiting the competitiveness of elections.
Australia takes yet another path with its preferential voting system. Here, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate wins a majority on the first count, the one with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed to the second-choice preferences. This continues until a candidate achieves more than half the votes. The advantage of this system lies in its ability to ensure the winner has broad support, even if they were not the top choice for everyone initially.
Each of these systems underscores different values: inclusivity and representation in PR systems, direct accountability and simplicity in constituency-based elections, and consensus-building in preferential voting. The diversity in electoral models illustrates that democracy is not a one-size-fits-all concept; it adapts to the histories and aspirations of different societies.
What Would Work Best for South Africa?
Recent attempts to remedy South Africa’s electoral shortcomings have been, at best, half-measures. The Electoral Amendment Act, passed in 2023, ostensibly sought to expand representation by allowing independent candidates to run in national and provincial elections. Yet, instead of meaningfully integrating independents into the electoral framework, the Act essentially treated them like mini-parties, subjecting them to the same proportional vote calculations. This interim solution fell short of encouraging a surge in independently elected representatives, revealing the limits of merely tinkering with the existing system. It blurred the lines between independent representation and party politics.
This flawed approach dilutes the potential for meaningful electoral reform by creating the illusion of progress without fundamentally changing the system. A robust hybrid model would move beyond token gestures, implementing a structure where independent candidates and political parties contest side by side in constituencies, while retaining the fairness and diversity afforded by proportional representation.
Given South Africa’s own historical journey and the unique challenges that face the country today, a hybrid electoral model appears most suitable. The proportional representation system we currently employ has, at least in theory, served as a potential tool for ensuring that all voices find expression in the halls of power. Yet, it has come at a cost: the link between MPs and the electorate is tenuous at best, and party loyalty, and this pertains to all parties, often trumps individual accountability. It is fairly certain that the majority of South Africans would be unable to list the names of more than twelve serving MPs.
To address these shortcomings, a mixed electoral system, where half of the seats are allocated through proportional representation and the other half through direct constituency-based elections, is proposed. This would combine the benefits of broad representation with the accountability that comes from having MPs answerable to specific geographic communities.
There is precedent for this approach within South Africa’s own borders. Our local government elections already use a hybrid system that mixes ward-based elections with PR seats, allowing voters to elect representatives directly while still accommodating the diversity of smaller political parties. Extending this model to national and provincial elections would not only create a more accountable Parliament but also align our democratic practices more closely with local electoral experiences that many citizens already understand.
The lessons from other democracies and our own local government provide compelling evidence that a hybrid system could bridge the gap between representation and accountability. In the end, South Africa's democratic experiment must be more than just a product of history; it must also be a response to our contemporary challenges and aspirations. The next step in our democratic evolution should be a system that empowers citizens to have their say in a way that truly counts.
How would a mixed system look?
If South Africa is to evolve into a more accountable and effective democracy, it must embrace a constituency-based hybrid electoral model. Under such a system, 200 seats would be allocated through proportional representation and another 200 through constituency-based elections. This hybrid approach would combine the strengths of both PR and constituency-based systems, fostering inclusiveness while simultaneously increasing accountability.
A mixed electoral system would address the core weaknesses of the current arrangement while preserving its strengths. Here’s how:
i) A major criticism of South Africa's PR system is that it distances MPs from the people. Constituency-based elections, by contrast, create direct lines of accountability between voters and their representatives. Citizens would know precisely who to blame for poor performance or thank for good service, thus incentivizing MPs to be more attuned to their constituents’ needs. This dynamic also has the potential to rejuvenate voter engagement, with citizens more likely to participate when they feel their individual votes carry weight.
ii) The proportional representation element ensures that smaller parties and minority voices remain represented in Parliament. In a country as diverse as South Africa, this aspect is indispensable. While constituency-based systems, such as "First-Past-the-Post" (FPTP), often result in the overrepresentation of dominant parties, a mixed system would retain PR's safeguard against such an outcome. Smaller parties would still have a platform to voice their concerns, but MPs from the constituencies would be expected to deliver on promises and not merely toe the party line.
iii) Under the current system, MPs often owe their positions to party leaders, who control the closed party lists. This arrangement stifles independence and dissent, making MPs hesitant to challenge problematic policies or corruption within their own ranks. A hybrid system would dilute party control by allowing voters to choose constituency representatives directly, thereby incentivizing MPs to act as the voice of their constituents, not merely as a rubber stamp for party leadership.
Admittedly, there are practical considerations in transitioning to a hybrid system. Redrawing constituency boundaries and developing a framework for managing dual candidacies—where candidates could potentially contest both constituency and PR seats—would require thoughtful planning. Nonetheless, these obstacles are not insurmountable. Many countries have implemented hybrid electoral models successfully, and South Africa’s own local government experience offers valuable insights into the process.
By reforming our electoral system in this way, we would be taking a significant step towards a more vibrant democracy—one that gives the people a true say in shaping their future, while ensuring that elected officials are answerable to the electorate. It’s time for South Africa to have a meaningful say in how we have our say.
Back in 2003 the Van Zyl Slabbert Commission on Electoral Reform Report explored South Africa's PR electoral system and evaluated possible reforms. The commission found that while the PR system ensured broad inclusivity and representation, particularly beneficial for smaller parties, it had limitations in terms of accountability and direct connection between voters and their elected representatives. The lack of a constituency-based element led to concerns about MPs being more accountable to their parties than to the electorate. As a result, the commission emphasised the need for reforms that could improve this relationship without losing the advantages of proportional representation.
The report recommended a mixed electoral system that would combine elements of both proportional representation and a constituency-based system. This hybrid model would allow for direct representation through elected MPs in specific constituencies, while still retaining the proportional allocation of seats to ensure fairness to smaller parties. The goal was to create a more accountable system, fostering better links between voters and their representatives, while maintaining the inclusiveness that PR provides.
The Electoral Reform Consultation Panel
The establishment of the Electoral Reform Consultation Panel (ERCP) marks a significant step in South Africa’s democratic evolution. Born out of the Electoral Amendment Act of 2023, the panel has been tasked with the vital mission of reconsidering the country’s electoral framework. Its primary goal is to assess the system used for electing members to the National Assembly and provincial legislatures, consulting with the public and relevant stakeholders before making recommendations for reform.
The closing date for submissions is 31 October 2024, and all contributions must address whether and how the current electoral system should be reformed or replaced. By engaging in this process, South Africans can assert their democratic right to shape the laws and practices that govern them. Public participation is not just a procedural formality; it is an essential component of a healthy democracy. If citizens remain silent, the idea of public involvement risks being reduced to a hollow exercise, with no real impact on the decisions taken by government.
DearSA is facilitating public comment directly to the ERCP. Participate here.
