It's both a moment of promise and a critical juncture for South Africa as we begin to navigate the intricate landscape of coalition politics. The potential loss of majorities by the ANC in the national and provincial elections in 2024 has ushered in a new era, where the dominance of a single party is no longer guaranteed.
This shift requires us to grapple with the complexities of coalition governance, not only in the context of the impending elections but as an integral aspect of our political future. Yet the discourse surrounding coalition talks over the past few months has been distressingly myopic, fixated on power-sharing dynamics and neglecting the crucial need for a people-centred agenda.
Central to this debate is the proportionality clause in section 46 of the constitution, meaning our political system was bound eventually to converge on multiparty government as the norm rather than the exception. Anyone aspiring to lead must recognise and embrace this reality. Unfortunately, the current wave of coalition talks has almost wholly been preoccupied with how the spoils of political power will be divided.
This focus on governmental positions, personalities and identities perpetuates the status quo of power struggles rather than addressing the substantive concerns of governance. A tangible programme of action aimed at improving the lives of the people — which should be central to these discussions — is glaringly absent from the conversation.
When policy and draft legislation have been broached during these coalition talks, the focus has been on embedding power-sharing mechanisms into policy and law, rather than on an agenda of bills and regulations that coalitions should prioritise so as to preside over substantial improvements in the lives of citizens. This fixation on “coalition bills”, constitutional amendments and thresholds for legislative entry underscores a worrying trend: political actors seem more interested in securing their positions than in delivering transformative governance.
It’s wild, for instance, that the governing party and the official opposition have found common ground in advocating legislation that limits the entry of new political parties into parliament and the legislatures. One would think they had never been small parties themselves, and instead arrived fully formed in parliament.
The very notion of national and provincial thresholds in a full PR system like ours is absurd. We already have thresholds for entry into parliament; they are a function of voter turnout divided by the number of seats in the house. At the last election the number of votes required to win a single seat was 44,200. This threshold increases proportionally based on how many people turn out to vote.
The notion of electoral thresholds is not objectionable in and of itself — they exist uncontroversially in democracies around the world. What is questionable is their introduction at the very moment when the parties doing the introducing are at risk of losing a governing majority.
This is an issue that transcends party lines and should evoke a united response from leaders and citizens alike. Political parties in decline should not be free to gerrymander the system to extend their term in power while invalidating the political choices of hundreds of thousands of voters. And we should not allow the spectre of “unstable government” to be invoked as justification for such shenanigans, nor should we allow ourselves to be relegated to observer status as our system is manipulated to benefit the few.
We must shift the dynamics so that politicians fear the voice of the people and are unmistakably accountable to them
The political conversations around coalitions have also revolved around the presumed “electoral heft” of each party, often sidelining the ultimate source of power: the voters. These negotiations, based on projected vote tallies, presume to predict the future and overlook the dynamic nature of elections. Voters should not be reduced — even notionally — to bargaining chips whose agency is treated as largely extraneous. The coalition-building process must transition from being a self-serving chess match to a concerted effort aimed at presenting a coherent and compelling vision for governing the nation, so that voters are offered legitimate choices that extend beyond personalities and party colours.
In such discussions, “stability” should be about good governance and the effective delivery of a visionary plan for our country. Not about ensuring the same constellation of people and parties stays in power for a full five years, uninterrupted, without much discussion about whether those five years will deliver anything of substance to the people.
It’s crucial that citizens reclaim their agency and actively participate in shaping the discourse and outcomes of coalition politics. We must shift the dynamics so that politicians fear the voice of the people and are unmistakably accountable to them. Establishing a critical mass of engaged citizens is essential to disrupt the current power disequilibrium. Only by doing so can we ensure that the pursuit of genuine and people-centred governance takes precedence over narrow self-interest.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.