Time for a Rethink on How Political Leadership is Chosen if South Africa is to Prosper
Only honest and credible leadership can solve the myriad of problems facing South Africa. Serious consideration therefore needs to be given to how political leaders in both the ANC and the country are selected.
Hamadziripi
Tamukamoyo, Researcher, Crime and Justice Programme, ISS Pretoria
Over the past few months
South Africa’s economy has taken several knocks as a result of wildcat and violent
labour strikes, capital outflow and credit downgrades by the globally influential
ratings agencies Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s. There is a strong sense
that the country needs a change of course if it is to become a stable and
prosperous nation. Failures of political leadership are all happening in the
run-up to the most significant of political events outside of a national
election, namely the African National Congress (ANC) national electoral conference
to be held in December in Mangaung. While this event should provide the ANC
with an opportunity to consider the extent to which current leaders are
succeeding in solving the country’s problems, and whether there are viable
alternatives, this is not really happening. The only viable challenger to ANC president
Jacob Zuma is his deputy Kgalema Motlanthe, and with less six
weeks to go he has yet to firmly state whether he will do so. This has led many
to believe that the status quo will be maintained. Nevertheless, this event has
amplified discussion on the divisive issue of succession and leadership
selection both inside and outside the ANC. This is because the vast majority of
South Africans, and indeed ANC members, are shut out of the conference at which
its leadership is elected. Not only is open campaigning frowned upon in the
ANC, but the processes that lead to delegates being sent to the conference are
opaque. Consequently, there is little trust in the process among the populace
and many ANC members.
The Pretoria News (29 October 2012)
reported that eThekwini in KwaZulu-Natal, the largest ANC region with the most
delegates at the conference, has seen accusations of ‘vote rigging and the
deliberate exclusion of some branches’. There are allegations that the ‘region
has allegedly inflated its membership figures with ghost members and sidelined
senior party leaders seen as anti-Zuma from branch general meetings and voter
rolls’.
Indeed, the way that
leadership positions are contested in the ANC raises questions about commitment
among the party elite to the principles of transparency and accountability. Consider
the case of Fikile Mbalula, who on 15 October (according to the independent online website, www.iol.co.za) apparently ‘decried
news reports about his purported allegiance to factions within the ANC’, saying
that the reports clearly ‘exposed the desperation of political thugs and their
consorts, who have elected to subject me to political lynching’. Many within the ANC fear being
linked to what could turn out to be a losing faction in the party, which would result
in the loss of government positions or access to patronage.
The current ANC election
process fuels factionalism and a divisive political culture that largely
advantages the incumbent elite, irrespective of their performance in running
the party. Importantly, it prevents the most talented and competent individuals
from running for top positions. Motlanthe has frequently bemoaned this state of
affairs. Consequently, differences within the party are not about a vision for the
future, or how best to solve existing challenges, but the access to patronage
that supporting the winner will bring.
When a political system is anchored in patronage, as is currently the
case in the ANC, it prevents contestation on the basis of the merit of possible
leaders, their capabilities or the robustness of their policy choices. The
practice of ‘slates’ emerged during the run-up to the 2007 Polokwane elective
conference in order to purge the ANC of those loyal to former president Thabo
Mbeki. This meant that various politicians were removed from government
positions regardless of their level of competence and commendable work. As a
consequence, we have a system where political fortunes depend on allegiances to
factions rather than adherence to important principles such integrity, transparency,
equity and accountability. As a result corruption has worsened throughout government
and many capable cadres have been lost. These are cadres who could have served
as role models to the younger crop of leaders. Ultimately, the people of South
Africa are the casualties when intelligent individuals with integrity are
purged from their government positions and replaced with sometimes incompetent,
corrupt individuals who are appointed primarily on the basis of their
allegiance to a certain faction.
The ANC electoral system is even more problematic given that our Members
of Parliament (MPs) are not directly accountable to the electorate. MPs have a
duty to reflect their constituency’s interests and to hold those in the
executive branch of government to account for the delivery of services. However,
as a consequence of the ‘party list’ system in South Africa, it is the
political party, and not the electorate, that has the power to appoint or remove
MPs. This stifles independent debate and fundamentally undermines political accountability.
Those with aspirations to political leadership have a better chance at success
if they act in the interests of a narrow political elite, even when it goes
against the interests of the electorate. A good example of this was when ANC MP
Ben Turok faced calls to be disciplined when he abstained from voting for the
deeply unpopular Protection of State Information Bill. Serious flaws in the
Bill would primarily serve those willing to hide state corruption. Mindful of
this, Turok acted on principle, given that ANC MPs were required to vote on a
version of the Bill that they had not had time to adequately engage with, thereby
making a mockery of the legislative process.
These weaknesses in
the country’s electoral framework have long been recognised. On 13 January 2009
an Independent Panel of Assessment of Parliament (of which the late Frederick
van Zyl Slabbert, who headed the 2002 commission of inquiry into electoral
reform, was part), presented a report to the Speaker of the National Assembly that
raised serious concerns about the architecture of South Africa’s electoral
system. This report reflected on the findings of the 2002 commission and essentially
called on the National Assembly to urgently debate the subject of electoral
reform in South Africa and consider the merits and disadvantages of various
models. While the panel did not recommend any specific model, it did note that
the absence of a constituency-based electoral system and the existence of a
top-down party-list system was a barrier to accountability and a breeding
ground for corruption. Indeed, if there is no direct accountability between the
electorate and their political leaders, there is a greater likelihood that these
leaders will act in accordance with their own needs rather than those of voters.
Unfortunately, this
report appears to have been shelved, signalling little political appetite for
improving the electoral system. Most recently, leading activist Mamphela Ramphele announced that her Citizens Movement for
Social Change would be leading a campaign to advocate an overhaul of the
electoral system. This underscores yet again how the consolidation and
promotion of democracy in South Africa has started to depend more on civil
society, the judiciary and the media than on politicians who are supposed to
represent the will of the people.
Only
a transformed electoral framework that seeks to enhance political accountability
can ensure that political leaders serve all South Africans and deliver on the
principles espoused in the constitution. This would more likely lead to a ‘developmental
state’ staffed by individuals capable of advancing the ideals of equity and
justice, and pragmatically solve or at least minimise the myriad of challenges
facing South Africa.