Admin
26 Aug, 1998
Attack at Waterfront condemned
Statement by UDM President The horrific bomb explosion at the Cape Town Waterfront is condemned in the strongest possible terms by the UDM. The UDM would like to express its condolences and deepest sympathy to the victims and families of victims of the explosion. The political chess game that we have witnessed between the ANC and the NP after the explosion can not be tolerated and is an insult to those affected by the bombing. Urban terrorism in the Western Cape is a reality and very little seems to be done in this regard. The National Party as government in the Western Cape, together with the ANC National Government needs to put aside their political agendas and cheap point scoring and concentrate on the problem at hand. More than 400 similar incidents have taken place in the same region with no arrests or prosecutions following. The National Party can not shed its responsibility as Provincial Government and they need to find a solution and not merely attempt to distribute and attribute blame.
Admin
23 Aug, 1998
Elections 1999: democracy threatened by ANC fears
Statement by UDM Deputy National Secretary The insistence of the ANC to only use the Green Bar-coded South African Identity Document for the purpose of the 1999 elections, is a sure sign of ANC efforts to manipulate the elections. The UDM finds it especially interesting that the ANC who in 1994 insisted that every breathing person in South Africa should have the opportunity to vote, now thinks nothing of alienating at least 20% of the voters in bringing out their democratic choice. It is clear that the ANC is threatened by its own lack of delivery and of the wrath that it would experience from its previous supporters in this regard. In the interest of a free and fair election, the UDM is making a submission to the portfolio committee on Home Affairs in this regard. Find that proposal attached.
Admin
19 Aug, 1998
UDM submission on the Electoral Bill Standing Committee of Home Affairs
Statement by National Deputy-Secretary (19 August 1998) INTRODUCTION Following the insistence by the ANC that only Green Bar-coded SA Identity Documents (GBSAID) be used for the purpose of the 1999 elections, the UDM wishes to make the following submission: HSRC SURVEY AND REPORT The IEC and the Department of Home Affairs commissioned the HSRC to conduct a study into the extent to which eligible voters are in possession of SA ID documents. From this study, it is clear that an alarming number of potential voters are not in possession of SA ID documents. This number is of such great proportion that it calls into question the participation in and the fairness of conducting fair democratic elections in 1999. Between 4.7 and 5.3 million (at least 20% of the total voter population!) voters do not have the GBSAID. One in ten (± 2.4 million) potential voters do not have any ID. More than two thirds of those without ID documents are first time voters. The greatest shortage exists in rural areas. 80% of voters without GBSAID have not yet applied for new ID documents. A third of the voters who have applied for ID documents have been waiting for more than 3 months while 21% have been waiting for more than 5 months. 60% of the voters indicated that they were unaware of the need for GBSAID in order to vote in the 1999 elections. From this figures it is obvious that it would be impossible to declare the 1999 General Elections free and fair if such a huge number of voters could not participate in the elections because of government’s inability to fulfill its task of issuing ID documents to the voter. It is also beyond comprehension why government would commission such a study at a huge cost for the taxpayer and then ignores the findings thereof. THE UDM’s VIEW While acknowledging and supporting measures to limit election fraud to an absolute minimum limiting voting to those with GBSAID documents is clearly not the route to take. The UDM strongly believes that in order to conduct a free and fair election every eligible voter must be offered an equal opportunity to participate in the elections. With the risk of 20% of voters, not being able to participate this is obviously not the case. How can the ANC blatantly disregard the democratic choice of 20% of the electorate? UDM SUGGESTIONS BARCODE EXISTING ID DOCUMENTS The UDM proposes that all ID documents be used to register and to vote. We further suggest that a barcode be paste in the ID document during the registration process. The barcode can be part of the process of control and of starting to compile a proper voters roll for the 2004 elections. The UDM further urge government and the IEC to intensify its efforts in making the voters aware of the need to acquire GBSAID documents, also for future elections. No awareness campaigns in this regard exist. Every effort must be made to increase the productivity and delivery of GBSAID documents up to the elections, and in this regard, the UDM suggests the following: Mobile Home Affairs offices be established and that they service specifically those areas identified in the report as crisis areas and in the rural community. Home Affairs employ casual workers as to increase productivity, delivery and address the backlog and current shortfall. Home Affairs open their offices outside normal business hours. Though it is argued that specifically in the case of TBVC states voters may be in possession of more than one ID document, claims by the ANC government that they have eliminated in most of the affected provinces these “ghost identities” operating fraudulent activities, should put to rest this concern. The major concern and driving force for the UDM remains the democratic right of every single voter to participate in the democratic processes of the country. This basic constitutional right must be respected and maintained. It can not be violated through government’s own inability. It is said that the people get the government that they deserve. It would be ironic if because of that same government’s failure people are deprived of the opportunity to remove that government. Twenty percent of the electorate can determine that swing.
Admin
19 Aug, 1998
Electoral Bill 1988
Statement by UDM Deputy Secretary The United Democratic Movement has been asked to forward comments in writing with regard to the proposed amendments to the Electoral Bill in particular and we would like to comment on certain aspects with regard to party funding. The proposal in this regard does not do anything to address the fundamental inequality that is created by act 103 of 1996, the Funding of Political Parties Represented in Parliament Act. (state funds, at present budgeted somewhere in the vicinity of R53 million).The funds can be allocated to practically any political purpose, with the only real restriction that it should not be used to pay parliamentarians. Therefore, quite clearly, these funds can be used for election purposes, and is in fact intended to be used as such. Although couched in terms which created the impression that it should be used for administrative purposes, such uses frees other donations and funds of such parties for use in election campaigning. In any event, there is no limitation on these funds being directly allocated to campaigns. If this act had to be in position during the 1994 election. It would have meant that practically all the money would have been allocated to the National Party and no funds allocated to the African National Congress, which was then not represented in Parliament. If a similar provision had been in place prior to the last election in the United Kingdom, it would have meant the bulk of the funds would have been allocated to the Conservative Party, which then had the majority in Parliament, and much less to the Labour Party, which won by a landslide, and result might have been different if the ruling party had access to the state funds in proportion to the representation that it had before the election. In cases where there is a delicate balance between the parties, especially in relation to a sensitive issue such as the two thirds majority, the availability of funds might make a substantial difference in the eventual outcome of the election and consequently also to the manner in which the country is governed. Thus to provide funds to those parties represented in Parliament as is presently enacted, substantially affects the operation of multi-party democracy in South Africa. According to opinion polls the United Democratic Movement already can rely on support equivalent to, and surpassing that of, parties already represented in parliament. It would therefore be a fundamental disadvantage if a party like the DP, with 5% support should receive funds from the fund created by Act 103, and a party like the UDM, also with at least 5% support, receives nothing. Similarly it would be unfair if the DP, with 5% current support, received 1% of the funds based on its support 5 years ago, and a party with 1% current support received 20% of the fund, based on its support 5 years ago. The funding could thus lead to fundamental distortions in parties’ capacity to campaign. The proposed allocation of election funds to all parties does nothing to redress this imbalance. According to the proposal it would mean that parties represented in Parliament would then receive monies twice: Once through Act 103 (and probably a substantial amount at that), and then again in terms of the proposed clause 106, whereas parties are not represented would only receive monies in terms of clause 106 . The only way in which a free and fair election can be possible, accepting the existence of act 103 of 1996, is if the election act makes provision for the further funding of parties that are not represented in Parliament, with reference to the monies already allocated to parties represented in Parliament. Thus it should be a balancing provision. In the absence of this, the IEC cannot certify that a fair election has taken place. It might be free, but it cannot be a fair election if some parties are benefiting from state funds where other parties have no access to similar funding. A further objection that the UDM has to this clause, is that it is of no practical assistance to anybody. In the first place the 5% seems to be intended to cover the required deposits, and it makes absolutely no sense for the state to require money as a deposit and also to provide for it in this manner. The rest of the (95%) fund that will be available after election will be of no use for election purposes if it cannot be accessed during the campaign. It will also not serve as any leverage for the purposes of obtaining finance as nobody is likely to advance monies against the future uncertainty as the possible outcome of an election, no matter what the predictions and polls might indicate. The only situation that will alleviate the present imbalance is if Parliament allocated funds to the parties not represented in Parliament with reference to the support that a particular party has: both those represented and those not represented, and that the second fund thereafter is applied in such a manner as to ensure that parties are funded, as nearly as possible, proportional to their current support.
Admin
13 Aug, 1998
Closure of Richmond police station
Statement by National Secretary The UDM has learned with shock about the closure of the Richmond Police Station and the redeployment of the personnel of the station. The UDM finds it strange that these police officers were accused by the Minister of Safety and Security, Sidney Mufamadi, of involvement in the happenings in Richmond. When these police officers then call for evidence to these allegations, they are being redeployed. They are now redeployed and expected to continue to do their work with allegations of involvement in Richmond violence still surrounding them. To the UDM, this appears yet another attempt by President Mandela and the ANC government to manipulate the security forces and use them as political tools. The UDM would like to know whether the newly deployed police officers were former MK members. We doubt also whether the provincial government of KwaZulu-Natal was consulted on this move. The UDM as a peaceful organization working towards true multi-party democracy reiterates our call for an Independent Judicial Commission of Inquiry into the violence in Richmond and other parts of KwaZulu-Natal.
Admin
05 Aug, 1998
Party political funding in perspective
Statement by UDM Deputy-President The reaction of the parties represented in parliament on the question of funding political parties outside of parliament must be seen in perspective. Currently parliamentary represented political parties are receiving funds from two state sources. They are receiving in all nine Provincial as well as in the National Legislature an amount of R4 489-00 per month per member. This is over and above the normal salaries paid to members. Secondly, they are receiving funds from the Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act of 1997. An amount of R53 million was budgeted for under this act to be divided proportionally amongst the parties as they are represented in Parliament per year. STATE FUNDING RECEIVED PER MEMBER NATIONAL PARLIAMENT Political Parties Seats R per Month R per Year ANC 252 R 1 131 228,00 R13 574 736,00 NP 82 R 368 098,00 R 4 417 176,00 IFP 43 R 193 027,00 R 2 316 324,00 FF 9 R 40 401,00 R 484 812,00 DP 7 R 31 423,00 R 377 076,00 PAC 5 R 22 445,00 R 269 340,00 ACDP 2 R 8 978,00; R 107 736,00 ; ; TOTAL R21 547 736,00 STATE FUNDING RECEIVED PER MEMBER PERMANENT MEMBERS NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES Political Parties Seats R per Month R per Year ANC 32 R143 648,00 R1 723 776,00 NP 11 R 49 379,00 R 592 548,00 IFP 3 R 13 467,00 R 161 604,00 FF 5 R 22 445,00 R 269 340,00 DP 3 R 13 467,00 R 161 604,00 TOTAL R2 908 872,00 STATE FUNDING RECEIVED PER MEMBER TOTAL NUMBER OF MEMBERS ALL NINE PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES Political Parties Seats R per Month R per year ANC 266 R1 194 074,00 R14 328 888,00 NP 82 R 368 098,00 R 4 417 176,00 IFP 44 R 197 516,00 R 2 370 192,00 FF 14 R 62 846,00 R 754 152,00 DP 12 R 53 868,00 R 646 416,00 PAC 3 R 13 467,00 R 161 604,00 ACDP 3 R 13 467,00 R 161 604,00 MNF 1 R 4 489,00 R 53 868,00 TOTAL R22 893 900,00 TOTAL AMOUNT OF STATE FUNDING RECEIVED PER YEAR PER MEMBER POLITICAL PARTIES Political Parties R per Year ANC R 29 627 400,00 NP R 9 426 900,00 IFP R 4 848 120,00 FF R 1 508 304,00 DP R 1 185 096,00 PAC R 430 944,00 ACDP R 269 340,00 MNF R 53 868,00 TOTAL R47 349 972,00 As far as the second source of already existing state funding (tax payers money is concerned, the calculation looks as follows: PUBLIC FUNDING ACT OF REPRESENTED POLITICAL PARTIES R53 000 000,00 Party Share of R53 000 000,00 ANC R 33 390 000,00 NP R 10 865 000,00 IFP R 5 697 500,00 FF R 1 192 500,00 DP R 972 500,00 PAC R 662 500,00 ACDP R 265 000,00 Total R53 000 000,00 The amount of R4 489-00 per member per month is suppose to be the amount that was previously called constituency allowance. With this amount, each representative is suppose to service the constituency they represent. It is however a well known fact that individual representatives of certain parties never see this money and it is actually used to finance operational costs of parties. The South African electorates bear witness to this – just question them on the interaction they have experienced over the past four years with individual members of Provincial and National Legislatures. The already “fat cats” see in the call of the UDM and other extra parliamentary parties, for the equal funding of political parties during the elections, the possibility of another gold layered bowl of cream from which they can drink. The point they are missing is that the creation of yet another state funded source is not what it is about. It is about the leveling of the playing fields for parties participating in the 1998 General Elections. If this issue is not going to be addressed the UDM will be forced to continue with its Constitutional Court Case to rectify the situation. The election might be declared free, but with this skewed state of affairs, it can never be called fair.
Admin
05 Aug, 1998
Tobacco Law: another example of the ANC’s inability to produce effective laws
Statement by UDM President The intervention by President Nelson Mandela in an attempt to save the South African Formula One Grand Prix and an estimated R400 million in foreign investment is a clear indication of the ANC producing ineffective and unworkable laws. How can the ANC government consider the effective implementation of this law if only days after cabinet passed it, then the President needs to intervene? The UDM supports the enforcement of smoke free public areas and no one can argue that everything possible must not be done to enforce the ban of sales to minors. That smoking is a health risk one does not argue with either. Nevertheless, just how ill considered Zuma’s Tobacco Law is, is illustrated by the forced intervention of President Mandela. Not only must the freedom of choice and the effect that this law will have on the employment provided by this industry be considered, but one also needs to question the process of arriving at the law and the research that went into this law. Did government for one moment consider the effect that this law will have on the sponsorship of numerous sporting events and the development of sport in general? Is the President going to intervene every time that such an event comes under threat as a result of this law, if not, why then this preferential action by President Mandela? Actions where the President and senior officials of the ANC enter secret discussions also make this law very vulnerable to corruption and manipulation by those in power. This type of action reminds one of the days when a minister instead of parliament ran government. The UDM calls for the suspension of this law until proper consultation with labour, the industry and those benefiting from sponsorships have been conducted. It is ironic that in a country where abortion is legalized, the death penalty scrapped that government in the case of smoking sees itself as the moral guardian of society.
Admin
03 Aug, 1998
UDM makes submission to Portfolio Committee on Party Funding
Statement by UDM President The UDM made a further written submission to the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs regarding the Electoral Bill. In its first submission, the UDM commented on the Electoral Bill and in its latest submission it concentrates on the burning issue of funding of political parties. Senior Council J.C. Heunis and Advocate A.M. Breitenbach prepared the UDM’s submission. (Submission to the Portfolio Committee is attached). The UDM, because of the “anti-defection” clause in the Constitution is not represented in National Assembly or any of the nine Provincial Legislatures. That disqualifies the UDM from receiving funding from The Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act, 1997. This, despite market research that indicates the UDM to be the third largest political party together with the IFP in the country. Nine months after the launch of the UDM in September 1997, the UDM had more than 650 branches throughout the country and more than 50 000 paid up members. The UDM has received funding and recognition from a number of international foundations, including the New South Africa Foundation (Netherlands) which funds political parties represented in Parliament but extended funding to the UDM after assessing the significant political role played by the UDM in South African politics. The UDM also enjoys full recognition by all foreign missions to South Africa. It has held formal meetings with a wide range of Ambassadors, High Commissioners and foreign delegations and a number of foreign missions sent representatives to the UDM’s first national conference. It is clear that the UDM is not a marginal party. The UDM is playing an important and still growing role in the development of multi – party democracy in South Africa as well as in the realignment of politics. Continuing less than a year before elections to fund only representative parties would be inimical to free and fair elections and the anti-discrimination provisions in the Constitution. If Parliament fails to address this issue eloquently, the UDM will be compelled to launch urgent proceedings in the Constitutional Court.
- 01
- 02
- 03
- 04
- 05
- 06
- 07
- 08
- 09
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
