The Constitutional Assembly has spent millions of rands encouraging people to involve themselves in the writing of a new fundamental law for our country. Often this campaign has looked like no more than an advertising agency empowerment exercise, and there is little evidence that anyone in the CA gave more than a cursory glance to the millions of submissions received.
But now Cosatu is taking the CA at its word on public participation, and threatening a strike on Tuesday in pursuit of its goals in the new constitution. The result has been dire warnings from the South African Chamber of Business and business organisations about the likely damage to the economy and our fragile currency.
You cannot ask people to participate and then whinge when they do. Nor can you, in a healthy democracy, limit their input to bits of paper.
It is true that a strike is the last thing we need as our economy stutters along, and predictions of growth for the coming year become less optimistic. But the way to avoid a strike is not to suggest that Cosatu should discourage its members from participating in the constitution-making process. The appropriate way is to get into a negotiating chamber and find a solution.
That is going to have to happen eventually. How much better it would be if both sides recognised that it would be better for it to happen in the next few days.
While on matters constitutional, we must express our dismay not just at the lack of commitment at the CA to moving towards a constituency-based system for electing MPs, but at the way this has been done.
The experience of the last two years has confirmed fears that a purely proportional representation (PR) system undermines democracy in that it gives too much power to party leaders and creates an unhealthy distance between MPs and voters. Some mixture of constituencies and PR seemed highly desirable. But public debate about how this should be dealt with in the final constitution was stymied when the November draft of the constitution contained no reference to party lists for a PR system. And when the Arniston bosberaad introduced a provision which stuck with pure PR just a week before publication of the draft Bill, the public voice was effectively silenced.
Now an amendment, affected in the early hours of last week’s all-night negotiations, keeps the existing system in place for the 1999 election, but leaves it open for debate.
Why should the old system with its proven flaws be perpetuated for another five years? The electoral system adopted for the first election was a product of its time, but now responsiveness and accountability to voters should be paramount.