The madness of the floor-crossing period for municipal government councillors is over and once again the ruling African National Congress has snatched up swathes of support from the opposition.
In the period of September 1 to 15, it reaped 326 councillors and only lost four to the opposition — two of them to Patricia de Lille’s Independent Democrats, the only party to have done ”well” out of the floor-crossing exercise. The ID gained 39 councillors.
As a party created only last year, it did not have councillors before and was, therefore, unable to lose any.
In the 2002 window period from October 8 to 23 of that year, the ANC gained 104 councillors through the proportional representation section of the ballot and a further 24 ward seats. Since the 2000 municipal election, it has therefore gained 454 councillors across the country.
In 2002, the Democratic Alliance was ”disproportionately affected” — to use the words of Institute for Democracy in South Africa researcher Jonathan Faull — having lost 417 councillors to the New National Party, 51 to the ANC, 19 to independents, two to the Sport Party, one to the Inkatha Freedom Party and four to various other groups.
The NNP at that point gained the most councillors with 354 councillors, all but 14 from the DA. Technically, it was a rearrangement of the opposition after the NNP of Marthinus van Schalkwyk left the DA and sat in ”opposition” but with a close working relationship with the ANC.
The ANC/NNP snatched power in scores of municipalities, particularly in the Western Cape and most notably in the only city previously in opposition hands, Cape Town.
It has been argued that the floor-crossing legislation was necessary in order to normalise politics after the DA fell apart. But opposition voters — who were told that they were voting against the ANC — may cogently argue that they were betrayed.
This time, the NNP lost 283 councillors, indicating that 71 councillors remained with that party — although it has clearly indicated that it will not be fighting the next municipal election under its own banner. That means that the bulk of these have opted either to switch parties shortly before that election — expected late next year — or to opt for retirement.
The ID has boasted that it had ”come second” after the ANC. This is true. Although the DA gained 66 councillors, it lost 46 — having lost 10 more than its own records reflected and having gained three less than it had thought. This is a net gain of just 20.
The floor-crossing exercise was not good news for the official opposition DA and it is generally not such good news for the combined opposition. It is therefore, understandable that the DA took the stance at its weekend federal council meeting to make a determined effort to amend the relevant floor-crossing legislation and if necessary, the Constitution, ”to end the worst excesses and imbalances in the current system”.
A party that was hit most severely — if one excludes the NNP, which aimed to throw in its lot with the ANC — was General Bantu Holomisa’s United Democratic Movement, which gained one seat but lost 54. This follows on the heels of its losing the Umtata municipality to the ANC through genuine by-election losses.
While the floor-crossing period at parliamentary level last year broadly reflected the pattern of change that took place in the April election this year — including the loss by the IFP of KwaZulu-Natal — it is predicted that the opposition will fight tooth and nail for the end of the system as there is a tendency among public representatives to shift to the loci of power — held in most municipalities by the ANC.
It is sobering for the DA in particular, as it would have lost a further three seats if the councillors concerned — all from Durban — had constituted a combined 10% of the caucus of the DA in that council.
The system is skewered in favour of bigger parties and has protected the ANC in particular and the DA to some degree. The system is already alienating supporters of smaller parties.
As Faull notes, dissatisfaction among the voting public was underlined by the Washington Post/Kaiser Foundation survey released on the eve of the 2004 general election. At that stage, 42% of voters in a sample strongly disapproved of floor-crossing. Altogether 63% of voters indicated some disapproval to strong disapproval.
In the longer term, the system has the danger of alienating opposition voters in great numbers if their public representatives are able to chop and change allegiance.
Although the ID has done well this time, there is the danger that now that it has established a base, the 10% threshold will not protect it in the future as it has a thin spread — and small caucuses — across the country.
Individualist politicians, mavericks and political opportunists can have a field day during floor-crossing window periods if they happen to belong to a small party. — I-Net Bridge