Now that the spotlight has moved from the Independent Electoral Commission’s (IEC) handling of the elections to the formation of a new government, we should not be quick to dismiss concerns about how the elections were run.
Electoral complaints, fanned by some political leaders, flew thick and fast after the results were released in an attempt to cast doubt on their credibility. The charge was ironically led by former president Jacob Zuma’s MK party — the surprise of the election when it garnered more than 2m votes nationally, ahead of many established parties.
Despite emerging as the biggest party in KwaZulu-Natal, the party claimed that the exercise had been rigged and demanded a recount. It claimed to have evidence of more than 9m missing votes. Speaking from the floor of the results centre, a livid Zuma warned the IEC not to “provoke” his party by releasing the results. It then approached the Electoral Court to set aside the outcome while the IEC rejected the claim as “patently false” and not backed by credible evidence.
The UDM’s Bantu Holomisa claimed that as some IEC personnel had been active in the liberation movement they could not be trusted to be impartial — as if participation in the struggle should bar them from now working in the public service. Curiously, after threatening to boycott parliament and take its gripes to the “international court”, the MK party has taken up its seats and is now the third largest party in the national legislature.
Disregarding the rules would plunge us into chaos
Similarly, the UDM, despite its initial grouse, was quick to hop onto the government of national unity bus as soon as it started moving. The question is: what do we have here? Political leaders cynically playing fast and loose with the the facts to advance their narrow interests and who, without producing a shred of evidence, are prepared to inflame passions by casting doubt on our democratic process.
Some protesting parties, incredibly, even argued that it did not matter that they did not follow the electoral rules in raising their complaints. Well, the rules do matter. They are what holds everything together, what ensures fair and equitable treatment for all contesting parties. A disregard of the rules would plunge us into chaos where each party becomes player and referee, only accepting the results if they are declared the winner.
The IEC may take the view that it played by the rules, bar a few aberrations, or “glitches”, which it deems technically “immaterial”. But the value of elections lies not only in the technical and the factual, critical as these may be. Equally importantly, it lies in the process’s credibility in the eyes of the people who matter most — the voters.
In that context, it is not enough for the IEC to win the battle of credibility only in the courts. Every claim of electoral unfairness or corruption on the part of the IEC, even if untrue, can only serve to erode the trust and reputation of the body, the electoral processes and, ultimately, democracy itself among sections of the population.
What if the millions who voted for the MK party, a substantial number of voters, believes the party’s claim that the election was stolen? Even though a Human Sciences Research Council survey showed high levels of voter trust in the IEC. In addition, the commission faces the problem of operating in the post-truth world of “alternative facts” where conspiracy theories are rife and fake news, even outright lies, are a regular fare on social media platforms. That’s why claims that cast aspersions on the IEC, including the unproven ones, should not be left hanging in the air.
It was the Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels who said: Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. The IEC may have responded in the rational space of the legal system but some voters may believe there is no smoke without fire and opt out of the electoral process — deciding that the system fails to reflect their will.
The IEC cannot take lightly the various claims and accusations of misconduct, or the failure to follow the rules by some of its electoral agents. The farce of defective scanners, a recurring flaw, cannot be allowed to continue into another election.
Apart from making its public communication more effective, the commission must ensure that its processes enable problem-free participation by citizens rather than becoming a hurdle to the exercise of the democratic right to choose who they wish to be governed by. The IEC cannot rest on its laurels now that the elections have passed.
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.