South Africans have a high opinion of the voting system, but are less enthusiastic about their elected representatives in Parliament and provincial legislatures, according to research before the Electoral Task Team, currently reviewing the electoral law.
Of the 2 760 people interviewed, 74% were satisfied with the way that the government is elected, 81% believed the system ensured the wide-ranging representation of different political parties and 78% believed that an election could change the party in power.
But a significantly smaller 68% believe their vote holds political parties accountable for their actions. Only 60% said individual elected public representatives were accountable, while a quarter of respondents believed they were not.
In addition, 64% of respondents across races wanted their MPs to live nearby. The proportions ranged from 66% for black respondents to 60% for whites, 59% for coloureds and 60% for Indians.
South Africans in 1994 and 1999 elected public representatives according to their political party –based on closed party lists compiled ahead of the election by the parties.
However, Parliament instituted a constituency system — which required political parties to allocate their MPs to certain areas. Although Parliament allocated regular time for such MP constituency work, there has been frequent criticism that parliamentarians are not contactable during this time.
Only one in 10 South African voters could name who their MP was. Whether this was correct could not be confirmed because of lack of information from political parties as to who their local MP was, according to further research to be included in the final report of the task team.
This response stands in stark contrast to the situation in Southern African countries with constituency-based election systems: 73% of Botswanans could correctly name their MP as could 45% of Zimbabweans, 33% of Zambians and 84% of Malawians.
The question of MPs’ and MPLs’ accountability — measured against the other three core values of inclusiveness, fairness and simplicity identified by the task team — proved to be a sticking point between the ruling African National Congress and opposition parties during discussions hosted by the task team this week.
But from the sometimes heated discussions emerged several perspectives of accountability: whether it meant the personal accountability of a politician, a case of citizens wanting “an interlocutor in matters of officialdom” or, as the ANC argued, finding other means such as raising issues through party structures.
Electoral Task Team chairperson Frederick van Zyl Slabbert said a list of political concerns that emerged from the review, but fell outside its scope would be submitted for further consideration by relevant parties.
Slabbert added that the team was not prepared to sacrifice the core values of inclusiveness, fairness and simplicity for “a complicated system of accountable politics”.
But he also warned it would be wrong to dismiss the review as a waste of time, that “it doesn’t mean a damn thing what you say or what you come up with, we, whoever we is, have made up our minds”.
The two-day meeting was part of the review process by the task team. Recommendations on whether to suggest changes or retain the previous system will be submitted together with a draft Bill to the Minister of Home Affairs, Mangosuthu Buthelezi, on November 11.