By Phephelaphi Dube: Director, Centre for Constitutional Rights
22 June 2018
South Africa, alongside other constitutional democracies, recognises the importance of political parties. The founding provisions of the Constitution mention that South Africa is a sovereign, democratic State, founded on the values of universal adult suffrage, a national common voters roll, regular elections and “a multi-party system of democratic government”. Political parties as such, play a beneficial role within South Africa’s constitutional democracy.
It stands to reason that political parties are not homogenous but are nonetheless united in their quest to acquire and exercise political power. But what happens when the practices and conduct of political parties are found wanting, resulting in an apparent existential intra-party crisis?
While there is an obvious distinction between political parties and the State, however, South Africa’s democracy is highly dependent on political parties. Moreso at provincial and national level, political parties are voted in – rather than individuals – and it is these members of political parties who then become the Executive. The Executive, in terms of the Constitution, is tasked with ensuring good governance through quality service delivery while realising the aspirations of the nation as a whole.
It would appear however, that South Africa’s major political parties are wanting in several respects. The governing party at the moment, having recently “recalled” former President Jacob Zuma, appears to be riven by factional conflict over perceived loyalties to the current President, Cyril Ramaphosa. At the time of writing, the Johannesburg High Court had reserved judgment in a case where the Eastern Cape province of the governing party challenged the party’s National Executive Committee’s failure to adopt a report in which the disbandment of the Eastern Cape’s provincial structure is recommended. It is not the first time in which the governing party has sought refuge from its own machinations using the courts. The governing party’s 2017 elective conference saw delegates from KwaZulu-Natal‚ the Free State and North West provinces not being allowed to vote at the party’s national elective conference, following various court declarations regarding the latter provinces’ elective conferences. The North West Provincial Legislature was on the brink of dissolution following a protracted bid to find a replacement for former Premier Mahumapelo. This was averted by an eleventh-hour decision by the governing party’s National Working Committee to appoint his replacement, who has just been sworn into the position. This shows that the failure of the political parties has a direct impact on the functioning of the State. The fact that Mahikeng residents in April took to the streets and in violent protests demanded an end to the then Premier Mahumapelo’s tenure attests to this fact. The obvious governance failures in the Province are arguably linked to the failure by the governing party to hold its members in public office, accountable. The fact that national government has had to intervene in the administration of the province should be welcomed cautiously, given the magnitude of the task ahead.
The official opposition too is entangled currently in public leadership spats, of which the City of Cape Town saga – involving the Mayor – is the prominent example. Other intra-party conflicts have seen changes in city council leadership as happened in Knynsa, or, as was the case in Mogale City, the intra-party conflict resulting in the mayorship reverting back to the governing party. Of course, conflict within political organisations is almost inevitable, but it is with this understanding that conflict should be better managed to ensure that the conflict does not impact on matters of good governance.
Other major political parties appear to be caught up in racially-inflammatory rhetoric, which only serves to move the nation further away from its “united in diversity” constitutional ideal. It is apparent that such sentiment only serves the short-term goals of the party, while leaving an indelible stain on the nation’s long-term reconciliation goal. Other parties lack real party-political power, but nonetheless have powerful party leaders, to the extent that there is little distinction between the party and the individual leader.
In all of this, matters of public concern are receiving scant attention from political parties, making South Africa’s version of representative democracy the poorer. The fact that, in particular, opposition political parties appear to be too wrapped up in divisive internal conflict makes them less capable of holding the government to account. This too claws away from their role in ensuring that Parliament passes relevant and coherent laws. The South African public hence bears the brunt of poorly-functioning internal party politics.
There is a need therefore for all of South Africa’s political parties to recommit themselves to sound constitutional principles in the manner in which their affairs are conducted. This means ensuring, for example, that the party’s constitution is aligned to constitutional dictates and further that the party abides by its own laws. Importantly, parties should be responsive to errant behaviour on the part of its members and should hold such members accountable. That courts are invariably used to settle disputes between rival party factions, in turn runs the risk of creating public perception that courts are politicised.
Ultimately, as the Constitutional Court made clear in the Secret Ballot decision, in the event of conflict between upholding constitutional values and party loyalty, political parties should be guided by the need and undertaking to serve the people – and do only what is in the people’s best interest. This is so not only because they were elected through their parties to represent the people, but also to enable the people to govern through them, in terms of the Constitution.
STATEMENT ON MY VOTE COUNTS CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULING
The FW de Klerk Foundation welcomes the Constitutional Court’s decision in My Vote Counts NPC v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another. The decision, which confirmed an earlier Western Cape High Court ruling, makes it apparent that the unchecked funding of political parties or individuals running for political office, has no place within a constitutional democracy founded on values of transparency and accountability.
The decision enhances the voting public’s right to make informed political choices through requiring that the information pertaining to the private funding of political parties and independent candidates must be recorded, preserved and made reasonably accessible. The provisions of the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (PAIA), which excluded political parties and independent candidates from its purview, were also declared invalid. The order of invalidity was however suspended for 18 months to allow Parliament to remedy PAIA to bring the Act in line with the decision. This means that there is a high likelihood that political parties in the 2019 national and provincial elections will be governed by the amended PAIA. South Africa’s democracy will be all the richer for it.
The decision will ensure that the “will of the people” is not subverted by corruption, which is often enabled by undisclosed private funding. It also leaves very little room for narrow sectarian interests to thrive. The adoption of the Political Party Funding Bill (B33 – 2017) is at an advanced stage before Parliament. This Bill, applied with the amended PAIA, will ultimately overhaul private political party funding, enhancing and deepening South Africa’s democracy.
Issued by the FW de Klerk Foundation