18/08/2007 14:46 - (SA)
Vote is not enough
Khathu Mamaila
THERE is a growing quest for the electoral system to be changed to give voters more powers. In terms of this suggestion, voters should vote for the president and members of Parliament directly and not through a party.
Advocates of this system argue that politicians would be more responsive to the needs of the people because they would be directly answerable to the voters and not to the party.
The current system gives a lot of power to the party. The party decides on the candidates, including the president, but ordinary voters who are not members of the party have no influence on who becomes the president.
The obsession around the ANC succession debate has its roots in the admission that the next president of the country will be elected at the ANC December conference. The 2009 national election will be a rubber stamp, a mere formality.
So, some among us believe that in order to stop the Jacob Zuma tsunami, to borrow from Cosatu boss Zwelinzima Vavi, the electoral system has to be changed to give power to the voter.
The assumption is that while Zuma is obviously popular within the ANC, he is unlikely to emerge as the country’s most popular leader should voters directly have their say on who should be president.
But I beg to differ. Zimbabweans directly vote for their president. Given the political and economic crisis in that country, it would be reckless to assume that Robert Mugabe is the most popular leader among the voters.
In fact, even in the so-called advanced democracy of the United States, George Bush was not the most popular leader when he was elected president. But Americans directly vote for their president.
South Africans are justified in feeling helpless. They watch in horror as the ANC tears itself apart in a process that may not produce the best leader for the country.
And because of this frustration, they begin to look for an alternative system that will give them real power.
The truth is that even if we voted for the president directly, parties would still be relevant. They would continue to campaign for their candidate, just as Zanu-PF and the Republicans do.
Perhaps the real problem is not with the system. It is more about how people relate to the system.
For instance, the media unwittingly contribute to the promotion of one-partyism in SA. Really? Absolutely.
The Democratic Alliance, despite being the biggest opposition party, continues to be characterised as racist in some of the media. While the DA sometimes does things that fit this label, the racist tag robs us of constructive engagement with its policies.
Two sections of the liberation movement, the Azanian People’s Organisation and the Pan Africanist Congress, hardly feature in the media. And when they do, they feature for wrong reasons. They are either purging some of their leaders or engaged in in-fighting. The media then rightly relegate them to small parties of no real consequence. So come election time, the perception is ingrained in the mind of the voter that a vote for these parties is a wasted vote.
In order to build democracy, the media and civil society can be more active in exposing the shortcomings of democracy.
Bourgeois democracy is essentially about money, not ideas. The playing field is uneven.
The ANC gets the lion’s share of the state funding channelled to political parties. Furthermore, as the ruling party, it gets huge donations from people who benefit from state tenders.
And because it is in power, it attracts all sorts of opportunists into its ranks. All these factors construct a monopoly that is almost impossible to dislodge from power.
And as they say in business, you should never rely on a monopoly for your supply. Monopolies can be abusive.
Democracy cannot mean merely that people vote free of intimidation. It should also mean that ideas contest in an even terrain.
Voting alone is not a sufficient measure for the vibrancy of democracy. Ask Zimbabweans.
Subscribe to the print edition of City Press
|
