The writing had been on the wall from the very beginning. Yet many of us stayed up waiting for the results. Some would change channels to catch up on the opening match of Euro 2024, where Germany was taking on Scotland; others killed time with telenovelas and other forms of entertainment offered by television and the vast virtual world that is the internet.
But the real action was at the Cape Town International Convention Centre, where newly sworn-in MPs were casting their votes to decide whether Cyril Ramaphosa or Julius Malema should be the country’s next president.
At a press conference the night before, Malema had sounded like he and his EFF had no interest in challenging Ramaphosa for the post — even if it was just to make a statement. He was still talking about finding some common ground with the ANC — even suggesting that the EFF would be amenable to taking the position of National Assembly speaker or chairing some parliamentary committees as part of a negotiated deal.
By the next morning, all of that had changed. It had become clear to all that the ANC, DA, IFP and several other parties had reached some kind of a deal on the formation of a government of national unity. The EFF and a group of other smaller parties, calling themselves the 'progressive caucus', were crying foul and accusing the ANC of negotiating in bad faith.
Hence their justification for fielding candidates to contest the positions of speaker, deputy speaker and president, even though they simply did not have the numbers.
When the EFF’s Veronica Mente received 49 votes to Thoko Didiza’s 284 votes for the speaker position, it became clear that the GNU caucus was solid and unbreakable. If among the ranks of the Progressive Caucus there were those hoping that some ANC MPs would break with the party line, they were soon disappointed.
However, that didn’t deter Malema and his grouping from their intent to make a statement by challenging for the other two positions. By midnight they had lost both, with Ramaphosa being unsurprisingly re-elected into office by 283 votes to Malema’s 44.
The presidential contest, though really a non-starter as far as contests go, did make one wonder about the way we elect a president.
Thirty years into our freedom and democracy, there seems to be a real appetite for an in-depth review of the way we have been doing things in the country. The outcomes of the general election, which produced a hung parliament, seem to suggest as much.
Now that it looks like we may never again have one-party dominance of the political system, that no single party will ever again win more than 50% of the seats in the National Assembly, it seems an opportune time to review the electoral system — especially as it pertains to the election of the president.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the position of president is extremely powerful in our constitutional setup. The head of state not only appoints the national executive and signs bills into law, he or she is also responsible for appointing the chief justice and other members of the judiciary, as well as heads of Chapter 9 institutions and various other bodies stipulated in the constitution and legislation.
As recent history has shown us, electing an unsuitable person to the job may set the country back by many years — if not decades — and lead to its sovereignty being undermined even by petty criminals if they happen to have proximity to that head of state. So why must we leave the fate of the country in the hands of 400 MPs making deals in smoke-filled rooms?
Depending on which side of the now-reconfigured political landscape one stands, the current deal may have been good in that it brings about political stability, certainty and all the other things that are said to make economies thrive. But what if future elections produce an even more fractured parliament with none of the parties big enough to put together a coherent coalition government? We would be entering the Kabelo Gwamanda-Johannesburg scenario, where backroom horse-trading could result in an administration being headed by someone no voter has ever heard of.
That phenomenon has led to disastrous outcomes in a number of metros where mayoral chains change hands frequently, dependent of the whims of small political parties. One shudders to think what this would lead to at national level.
The one way of preventing this from happening in the future is to separate the presidential elections from parliamentary polls. Amending the constitution to allow the president to be elected directly would mean the winner could form his or her own cabinet whether or not his or her party was able to secure a majority in the house or not. Such a president would be more accountable to the electorate than is the case now.
The outcome of this year’s elections have amplified calls for a fresh national dialogue about the direction South Africa should take over the next 30 years. Why shouldn’t such a dialogue include how we choose our presidents?
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.