Elections discussion reveals need for constructive team players in government

It is not often I find myself nodding along with those with whom I usually profoundly disagree and raising an eyebrow at the contributions of those I would count as political allies.

But it was the position I found myself in on May 10 while moderating and listening to 10 political parties debate crime and unemployment in the Western Cape.

What to make of my outbreak of fervent agreement with Patricia de Lille (GOOD); Reagan Allen (DA); Khalid Sayed (ANC); Wayne Thring (ACDP); Nkosekhaya Lala (ACC); Nazier Paulsen (EFF); Fairouz Nagia (Al Jama-ah); Lumka Mquqo (Bosa); Axolile Notywala (RISE Mzansi); and Fadiel Adams (NCC) on their plans for enhanced integration of psychosocial services to the criminal justice system through targeted crime prevention and offender rehabilitation programmes? 

If you agree with a member of tribe X, you must, by default, be part of that tribe, or so the argument goes.

I see this unlikely affinity differently: as healthy proof that even in the polarised political discourse of 2024, some socioeconomic complex issues resist alignment along a left-right spectrum.

But despite this complexity, there is a strong tendency in our political culture to divide the public into neat, clean-cut political boxes.

This tendency is curiously neutralised in these elections by how much people nationwide value ensuring the state protects, promotes, and fulfils human rights concerning crime and unemployment, which often cuts across provincial boundaries and divisions between left and right. 

In the past, candidates’ debates have sometimes had less dynamic political consequences. That is not so this time.

The net result is that the Western Cape has unique election campaign issues that better mirror the national scene and, in many ways, provide lessons that enable even first-time candidates nationwide to mobilise support across racial lines. 

This axis is critical to understanding why people have different views on the balance of intergovernmental relations and, for example, what underlines the quest for additional control of public transport and policing functions by the DA-led provincial government. 

One strong reason against the proposed legalisation to grant the provincial government more policing powers is the risk of state-enabled shifting of crime spots from one township in the Cape Flats to another as a result of what people see as selective policing by diverting financial resources from crucial psychosocial and socioeconomic services to policing activities that cosmetically chase away criminals from demarcated precincts to adjacent communities. 

The knock-on effects this already has on affected communities emerged strongly, as the short-term benefit to some communities may be great in an election year but come at significant harm to others.

These experiences form a lens through which we view society, but this is often more like a kaleidoscope than a magnifying glass.

Though I was unsuccessful in getting the candidates to declare their prospective coalition partners explicitly, they articulated concerns of various urban and rural communities well, such as the dismal failures of government and big business to create sustainable jobs.

They proposed innovative ways of promoting a bottom-up approach to decision-making to protect sustainable livelihoods and end the criminalisation of informal economic practices.

Most see themselves, with varying degrees of credibility, as the alternative to the loosely defined opposing partnerships under the DA and ANC. 

Their political pronouncements — seemingly at odds with one another — capture what so much of South Africa’s mainstream political thinking underestimates: that people in this country, particularly now, cannot be easily pigeonholed. 

South Africa has entered an age of unpredictable politics as major political parties are losing electoral ground, the ballot paper is lengthening, and the voter profile increasingly features millennials.

There were clashes and revealing evasions. One bidding war of this kind focused on businesses that employ African migrants instead of South Africans.

The ACC’s Lala said: “South African citizens must come first, and 70% of jobs must go to South Africans.” 

Another is the need to employ more social workers to help individuals and families afflicted by substance abuse, gender-based violence and other crimes.

Al Jama-ah’s Nagia said the party wanted to see at least one psychologist and one social worker at every school, supported by a team of psychosocial members to assist children.

The DA, ACDP, GOOD and ANC share similar plans. 

A third came over strict enforcement of criminal laws and reinstatement of the death penalty.

On the criminalisation of young children, Adams said the NCC had a programme for the scrapping of non-violent criminal history, working with the justice department, while Bosa’s Mquqo said the party wanted to establish a national crime investigation directorate to pursue and prosecute the top 100 most violent crimes.

RISE Mzansi’s Notywala promised education and development initiatives, particularly at a primary school level for young boys, to fight GBV and femicide.

One striking divergence came on the interpretation of crime and unemployment statistics, whose touting by the DA and ANC as a measure of significant progress that distinguishes the DA-led Western Cape from ANC-led provinces ran counter to the narrative of other parties. 

It’s no coincidence crime and unemployment issues raised relate in some way to women’s and children’s rights, given they are more likely to experience exploitation.

There is an additional dimension to the difference between those who understand the intersection between informality and the informal economy, and the formal economy and government policies, as more than just a brew of human relationships and cultural influences.

While the candidates [differed], their election promises acknowledged the validity of many concerns and importance of scrutinising any  proposals. 

So, what should voters do about this?

Feelings understandably run high when people have personal experiences of suffering stemming from unfulfilled promises.

Still, on May 29, voters must rise above the emotionally fraught timbre of the debate to consider the risks on all sides and vote for credible candidates who can be constructive team players in government.

It is OK to disagree with your friends and agree with your opponents, and sometimes the world is a better place for it.