Electoral reform not panacea

South Africa has arguably one of the best constitutions in the world. How did it achieve this? Perhaps the country’s lawmakers considered what other countries had already produced and, picking the best practice from each, were able to compile a masterpiece.

This fact illustrates that electoral systems do not operate in a vacuum. Their power to influence political behaviour is either constrained or assisted by the existing political culture and the constitutional and institutional framework.

Whilst mulling over whether to change the electoral system, the question is whether the principles of accountability, transparency, participation and the rule of law are present in the country’s broader institutional design.

And indeed these principles are already enshrined in our constitution. Separation of powers, an independent judiciary, and independent oversight institutions that monitor the actions and performance of government, the requirement for public consultation and publication of policies and financial statements already exist.

Adding a constituency element to the current electoral system could be beneficial in improving governance and government responsiveness to the citizenry. However, electoral reform is not a panacea. Although the argument for it is compelling there are possible drawbacks.

Firstly, dividing a country into constituencies is at most times an emotive and politically divisive exercise.

In a divided society it can possibly foment conflict between different groups, which have vested interests.

Apartheid policies divided South African society along racial differences.

Because the distribution of resources was determined according to race, class stratification has followed the same racialised patterns.

Mcebisi Ndletyana made the point in 2007: “The question still remains: Has South Africa reached a point where the initial considerations, which necessitated the adoption of the PR system, no longer hold sway? My answer is a definite no. South African society is still racially polarised. White voters support historically white parties and vice-versa. There still is a marked distrust of the other, and the white community especially feels emasculated. A shift towards a majoritarian system, therefore, would be completely inappropriate.” His words ring true today.

Secondly, direct accountability does not necessarily mean weakening the influence of political parties in governance. It does not guarantee that MPs will be more responsive to communities because they remain answerable to their political parties.

Thirdly, a constituency-based system is likely to result in the exclusion of minorities and smaller parties who will struggle to compete with the larger electoral margins of the bigger parties such as the ANC and DA.

Adopting a full on constituency based system for national elections would neither uphold the values of inclusiveness and representation which the country’s democracy still needs in order to foster nation building. Nor would it necessarily lead to consolidation of the desired good governance principles – rule of law, participation and accountability – without other institutional imperatives as noted above.

What South Africa ultimately needs is a government committed to complying with the already existing governance framework; strengthened capacity within the state to implement and adhere to constitutional norms and administrative rules, regulations and standards; a conscientious civil service that will apply the Batho Pele (people first) principle of service delivery; and the will to deal decisively with corruption at all levels of the government.

The components of good governance are built into South Africa’s institutional framework. Although introducing a purely constituency-based system could enhance accountability and responsiveness, it could also reverse the gains made in the areas of inclusiveness and representivity of the country’s democracy. A mixed system is therefore the most acceptable compromise.