/ 4 May 2006

SA’s party list electoral system ‘stifles dissent’

South Africa’s party list electoral system is stifling dissent and ensuring accountability to parties, rather than citizens, according to a submission contained in the working draft of South Africa’s Country Self Assessment Report.

The report, which will be discussed at the second African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) conference in Soweto, is designed to help countries in Africa improve their governance, according to a system introduced by the African Union and its development programme, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development.

”A wide variety of submissions noted the unintended problems of the nation’s party list electoral system, which stifles dissent and ensures accountability to parties rather than citizens,” said an extract.

”Misa [the Media Institute of SA] noted that power is concentrated in the presidency and because of his control of the ruling party and ability to appoint premiers, directors-general, mayors and party lists, he can end the career of anyone seen to

have embarrassed or disagreed with party policy.”

Misa and the SA Institute for International Affairs (SAIIA) suggested reconsideration of recommendations by the Van Zyl Slabbert commission to increase accountability with a hybrid party list and district-based electoral system at all levels of government.

A submission from the organisation Business Unity SA said, ”…there is a problematic blurring of party and state”.

Busa said that the centralisation of power in the executive and an ”increasing propensity” to remove the substance of legislation from bills and place them in regulations where ministers and officials can exercise ”unfettered discretion”, diminished the accountability and transparency principles of a parliamentary

democracy.

The politicisation of local government officials had contributed to a ”worrying” centralisation of functions and power and a growing lack of transparency, the report said.

A number of submissions noted that South Africa is in violation of African Union codes and global best practice by not regulating political party financing.

”The absence of regulation of private payments to political parties is thus a grave weakness in South Africa’s anti-corruption architecture.”

It continued: ”Submissions noted that a number of key cases have damaged trust in public institutions, particularly Parliament, which was seen not as protecting the interests of the people but acting to protect the ruling party.”

Submissions from Misa, Busa, SAIIA cited Parliament’s ”partisan conduct” in the arms deal investigation, the ”slow pace” of investigations into the Travelgate scandal involving the abuse of travel vouchers and the lack of action by Parliament’s ethics committee over the non-disclosure of assets and business interests by senior politicians.

Also cited was a failure to ”meaningfully investigate” the diversion of company funds to the African National Congress election campaign in the Oilgate affair.

There was overall consensus that the management of public finances had improved significantly since 1994.

”However, there is a common theme in the submissions that South Africa has generally sound laws but has serious problems in implementation/compliance.”

There is an acute lack of capacity [especially financial expertise] particularly in the provinces and in municipalities.

Large sums of money were not spent because of capacity problems but tended to be transferred between various levels of government.

”The presidency, Parliament and other submissions noted that delivery problems are particularly acute at provincial and local levels, which are responsible for managing the majority of social programme spending.”

Local Government Minister Sydney Mufamadi noted that the 2004/05 Municipal Demarcations Board Capacity Assessment found 61% of municipalities were unable to perform half of their constitutionally mandated functions.

The Public Protector found there were problems related to the general compliance with the government’s customer service principles and the management of discipline in the public service.

The conference continues on Friday. – Sapa