Long after the votes were counted in the May 29 general elections, the intention of the voters who delivered the historic outcome remains uncertain and open to varying interpretations. The overriding among them being an apparent refusal to entrust one single party with the leadership of the country.
As many as 62% of voters chose the middle road, politically speaking, and their vote was assuredly one for stability and government with a purpose and a plan to reinvigorate the South African dream.
But how have the political parties gone about giving action to the voters’ intentions?
Could it really be that MK Party supporters, who handed the party 4.5-million plus votes, intended that its 58 seats would be allocated to figures who feature prominently in the sorry saga of state capture that brought South Africa to its knees?
Could it really be that MKP supporters intended that its seats would be allocated to a state capture rogues gallery
Between them, MKP MPs Brian Molefe and Siyabonga Gama, who headed Eskom and Transnet at the zenith of state capture and whose roles are meticulously documented in the Zondo commission report, cost the state billions. Both men are on trial. As head of the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa, Lucky Montana presided over the fall of our railway system. Nothing was beyond plunder.
Yet these gentlemen will be sitting in our parliament, making laws for all of us. In doing so they’ll be guided by the disgraced ex-judge John Hlophe. Taking advantage of a loophole in the law, MKP was able to shaft the list of MPs it had gone into the election with and replace them with a state capture rogues gallery. Is this what its voters wanted? All of this is perfectly legal but certainly open to ethical questions.
Because no party attained a 50% majority, it was inevitable that there'd have to be horse-trading and backroom deals, but to what extent can it be argued that the outcome of these negotiations reflects what the voters wanted? And to what degree is the unseemly coalition-making and jockeying for power at metro level being replicated at the top?
On a national level, the ANC has essentially gone into a coalition with the DA, evidenced by its needing DA votes to get Cyril Ramaphosa elected president again. Possibly in avoiding this uncomfortable truth, Ramaphosa and the ANC have fashioned the GNU, with 11 parties and a bloated executive to cater for egos and reward support. And the ANC has been left explaining how it’s now in cahoots with a party that it accused of wanting to take South Africa back to apartheid.
The DA, after loudly trumpeting the multiparty charter and the need for an anti-ANC coalition that excluded the EFF, eagerly took up positions in Ramaphosa’s cabinet. Is that what DA voters had hoped for on May 29? Perhaps, but both parties were exceedingly coy about a possible tie-up going into the elections.
ActionSA led by Herman Mashaba elevated not co-operating with the ANC to a founding principle of the party. Now, however, claiming that the DA had broken its moonshot pact word on not reaching a deal with the ANC after May 29, ActionSA has dumped the DA as a coalition partner in the Gauteng metros of Joburg and Tshwane. The result has been an ANC mayor in Joburg and the looming threat of a no-confidence vote to unseat the DA-led coalition mayor in Tshwane. Where does this Mashaba volte-face leave ActionSA voters? And what about ActionSA having agreed at the multiparty charter talks to do everything needed to keep the EFF out of the picture?
In the Western Cape, the DA and the FF+ have been at loggerheads, with party leaders John Steenhuisen and Pieter Groenewald meeting to put aside grievances that have seen the FF+ siding with the ANC, notably in Oudtshoorn. FF+ voters may well ask about their party's sudden enthusiasm for the ANC.
The overriding concern in all the horse-trading and political chicanery taking place is to what extent it serves the voters who put these representatives in power. Some argue that unless MPs and councillors are voted for directly in constituencies there will never be true accountability in our electoral system, which makes it less than fit for purpose in the democratic project.
However, this is unlikely to change, and the principle of proportional representation, which was included in the constitution as a guard against racial or other domination, is sure to remain. That puts an onus on the parties to show the highest level of integrity in keeping their word to those who put them in office.
Parliament, and politics generally, should not be allowed to become a dumping ground for people whose past and track records make them unsuitable role models and leaders of a modern, progressive society.
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.