GOOD: We will defend the choice of the voters

4 August 2023

Elections are a contestation of ideas. The right to vote for a political party of your choice is enshrined in the Constitution.

While some see the absence of a clear majority in a legislature, or a council, as an obstacle to their ascending to power – and thus a nuisance – we see this as a legitimate outcome of the voters exercising their choice.

Political parties are required to compete as equals, on a fair and free playing field, for the choice of the voter.

The voters make their choices and in return expect to see, and hear, their representatives reflecting the ideas that earned them that support.

They expect their choice to be represented by those of us elected.

It was in the 1998 judgment of De Lille vs the Speaker that the Western Cape High Court articulated the concept of representation.

The Court remarked that… “the electorate who voted for that party…are entitled to be represented in the Assembly by their proportional number of representatives”.

Sec 19(1) of the Bill of Rights gives every citizen the right to make political choices and Sec 19(2) gives every citizen the right to free, fair and regular elections.

Sec 46(1) (d) also prescribes that our electoral system will result, in general, in proportional representation.

The fact that the “old” parties are fragmenting and that there is a proliferation of young parties, who of course start out smaller, is a legitimate development of a democratic society, protected by the Constitution.

A National Dialogue on Coalitions must embrace that our constitutional democracy gives voters an abundance of choice when it comes to their political rights.

Any dialogue that seeks to limit that choice undermines the foundations on which our democracy was built in the first place.

We remember our leaders, like Nelson Mandela, Mangoliso Sobukwe, Steve Biko and many others who fought and died for this democracy, that we all enjoy today.

There are some parties in this room who have enjoyed the right to vote alone, based on race, for many decades, but now we all have this fundamental right.

Strengthening Our Democracy:

The outcomes of this National Dialogue, and everything that follows this, must protect the political rights of the citizens and we must not be seduced into creating comfort and convenience for old political parties.

Amongst the founding provisions of our Constitution, at section 1(d), is the guarantee of:

“Universal adult suffrage, a national common voters roll, regular elections and           a multi-party system of democratic government, to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness.”

As GOOD we are supporting 5 out of the 6 foundational principles proposed for coalitions.

Some of the proposals, like thresholds, contained in the “Discussion Paper”, or proposed by other parties, do not strengthen an open democracy where every voter’s choice counts.

On the contrary, the proposals seek to shut down or reduce the democratic space for contestation.

This proposal, of thresholds, should be rejected because our democracy was never intended to produce a two-party state for the convenience of those who are losing dominance.

A dialogue on coalitions should happen without in any way trampling on the rights of citizens to choose to support the party of their choice and without giving life to the myth that there are wasted votes.

In fact, when you introduce thresholds, research has shown that this leads to wasted votes. So, we should stay within the Constitutional provisions that provide for proportional representation and no one should tamper with this.

When citizens exercise their political rights to start a political party, as contained in Section 19 of the Bill of Rights, we must be encouraged that our democracy is alive and well. New parties must be welcomed with fresh ideas to strengthen our democracy.

It is our legal and democratic duty to protect those rights – not to collude with each other to constrain them.

Thresholds:

Our proportional representation system, like all PR electoral systems, has a natural or de facto threshold, which arises mathematically. Some call this an “effective” threshold which is based on the number of seats to be filled and the number of votes cast.

Our “effective” or natural threshold gives full expression to the founding constitutional provision of a “multi-party democracy”.

Proportionality has also expanded the democratic space by allowing new political ideas, represented through new political parties.

The rights in Sec 19 (1) (a) of our Constitution must be protected. “Every citizen is free to make political choices.”

This proposal, of thresholds, goes against these constitutional rights.

Introducing a legally imposed threshold, arbitrarily suggested at 1% or 2% of the vote, threatens to close down the democratic space some of us in this room fought so hard for.

The proposal to introduce a legal threshold must be rejected with the contempt it deserves.

It infringes on the rights of a citizen to start a political party and compete as an equal in a free and fair election;

It infringes on the rights of a citizen to make a free choice in an election;

It introduces a restriction to that choice because in some cases the voter will factor in whether their real choice will be able to meet the threshold;

It will introduce wasted votes;

It will remove full proportional representation of our diverse nation in legislatures and councils as enshrined in the Constitution.

According to ACE Electoral Knowledge Network – the world’s largest online repository of electoral knowledge - the existence of a formal threshold tends to increase the overall level of disproportionality, because votes for those parties who would otherwise have gained representation are wasted.

In Poland in 1993, even with a comparatively low threshold of five percent, over 34 percent of the votes were cast for parties which did not meet the threshold.

The proposal to introduce an arbitrary number as a threshold will undermine proportionality as provided for in our Constitution.

Our electoral process is already grappling with diminishing participation, because the voters are sick and tired of hearing the same old promises from the same old parties and therefore their right to choose a new political party of their choice should not be interfered with.

We propose that the natural threshold be maintained as it is and we give notice that we will challenge any attempt to interfere with our constitutional rights to proportional representation.

This system is the most democratic expression of our electoral process.   It should not be interfered with because some parties do not like the outcome of the elections.

Coalition Agreements:

The proposal to create binding coalition agreements must be considered with great caution.

No agreement, or contract, is ever permanently binding and contracts between political parties to co-govern after an election should not be binding to the extent that it undermines democracy.

This demonstrates that every vote counts even if you only have one or two seats in that coalition.

Democracy is undermined when political parties, whose public office bearers are elected to represent the choice of voters, are locked into a co-governing arrangement which turns out to be unworkable or not to give effect to one or more of the parties’ electoral mandate.

In the interests of transparency and legitimacy, we agree that coalition agreements should be published.

Making coalitions work:

You are forced to form a coalition when no party received 50%+1 of the vote because the legislation requires that you must govern, and pass budgets and adopt an Integrated Development Plan, with a majority vote.

For the most part, and listening to lessons from other parts of the world, coalitions work not because of draconian and undemocratic regulation designed to protect old parties who are losing electoral support and who cannot navigate partnership and cooperation.

Coalitions work when there is political maturity and trust.

Coalitions that are cobbled together to grab power and access tenders – for corrupt and unethical purposes – will not succeed.

Coalitions will succeed when the parties, who agree to co-govern, accept the results of the election as a legitimate expression of the voters’ choices and understand that co-governing requires compromise.

There are some measures that we think are worth exploring in the interest of creating the most enabling environment for stable coalitions.

We agree that one of those measures is:

Increasing the time for a government to be formed:

Currently the time frame for the election of a government is too short for parties to properly negotiate the terms upon which they will co-govern.

This can be fixed by:

extending the time frame for the first sitting of the legislatures and councils, or

creating a fixed term of office, separate from the date of the election, so that there is no absence of government after the election.

As GOOD we support coalitions and we are part of coalitions and our experience informed us that we must respect the coalition partners, and their ideas on which they were elected.

Arrogance, hypocrisy and baaskap mentality, of some political parties, is the greatest danger to stable coalitions. And now they want to restrict proportional representation.

We will never allow old parties to bully young parties into submission and silence the voice of the voters.

Issued by Samantha Jackson, GOOD: Acting Media Manager, 4 August 2023