Admin
06 Apr, 2016
Our freedom and democracy on the verge of collapse: What is to be done?
Statement by Mr. BH Holomisa, UDM President Yesterday, the 5th of April 2016, the ANC members of the National Assembly have once again violated their oath of office and acted in contempt of the Constitutional Court. Led by the Deputy Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, John Jeffery, they argued that there was no order to impeach Mr. Zuma, knowing fully well that the court would not do that. Once again and in abuse of their majority, they have refused to hold the Executive to account, by so doing defying to execute their constitutional obligation. ANC members of the National Assembly must be reminded that South Africa is not a majoritarian democracy but a Constitutional Democracy. Whilst the national legislature was breaching its oath of office, Mr. Zuma tells South Africans that he has not violated his oath of office, yet the Constitutional Court found on paragraph 103 of the judgment: “Consistent with this constitutional injunction, and order will thus be made that the President’s failure to comply with the remedial action taken against him by the Public Protector is inconsistent with his obligation to uphold, defend and respect the Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic;…”. On Sunday the 3rd of April 2016, Ms. Baleka Mbete, purporting to be speaking on behalf of the National Assembly, said to the nation; “We never violated the Constitution, there is no such statement in the Constitutional Court Judgment”. Paragraph 104 of the judgment reads, “Similarly, the failure by the National Assembly to hold the President accountable by ensuring that he complies with the remedial action taken against him, is inconsistent with its obligation to scrutinize and oversee executive action and to maintain oversight of the exercise of the executive powers by the President”. One of the primary functions and constitutional obligations of the legislature is to hold the executive accountable on behalf of citizens. On Monday the 4th of April 2016, the ruling party announced that it has accepted the half-hearted apology by Mr. Zuma and instructed its members of the National Assembly, to defend a dubious character in our body polity. The ANC therefore has instructed its members of parliament to violate the constitution and disregard the court’s findings. It is an accomplice in this crime. All of this has confirms, that the ANC has indeed, and as Zuma once said, that the ANC comes first and the country last. It has opened a wide door for a massive looting of public resources, a rule by a mob, an undermining of the Constitution and the rule of law. Our country is surely gravitating towards a lawlessness society. This is a reality we cannot allow and must be stopped now. The time for South Africans to reclaim their freedom and defend democracy is now. In defense of our Constitutional Democracy, we need: A ground-swell of all citizens, from the religious, traditional, academic, labour, business, civic, non-governmental, issue based organisations and all organs of civil society. A National Movement of the people reclaiming their freedom and defending their Constitutional Democracy, must have a national coordinating structure, duplicated in provinces, districts, locals including in suburbs, townships, informal settlements and villages. At the center of this movement should be: The call for an immediate resignation of Mr. Zuma; Dissolution of Parliament; Establishment of an Interim Government; Creation of a fair and transparent party funding legislation; and A reform of the Electoral Act. The Electoral Act has to be reformed in order to: Allow for a balance between the constituency and proportional elected representation system; Allow citizens to directly elect the State President; Ensure that candidates for cabinet position are vetted before appointed; and Enable Parliament to appoint an independent Speaker who is not accountable to a political party. The role that the civil society can play in building and strengthening democracy is powerful because, it includes the entire range of organized groups and institution that are independent from the state, voluntary, and at least to some extent self-reliant. Civil society have demonstrated respect for the law, for the rights of citizens, and for the constitution. In this regard, and unlike during the apartheid years, the security forces should refuse to be used to suppress the voice of the people. When people engage in lawful actions, and whose intentions are to build and sustain democracy, they should not be suppressed. In this way I am of the opinion that the people of South Africa will be able to talk in one voice and in unison and take charge of their destiny. Let the people reclaim their freedom. End
Admin
18 Aug, 2015
“Does South Africa Need Electoral Reform?” – Daily Dispatch Dialogue
Daily Dispatch Dialogue on – 18 August 2015, Guild Theater, East London at 18h40. TOPIC: “Does South Africa Need Electoral Reform.” By Mr Bantu Holomisa, President of the United Democratic Movement and Member of Parliament. Programme Director, Fellow Panellists and Participants, good evening. Let me from the onset, acknowledge and welcome the great and timely contribution by Mama Bam on one of the most important matter of national interest. Indeed Electoral Systems do play a significant role in the creation of a truly democratic society. Her book, “Democracy, More than Just Elections” not only provides an insight into various dimensions of her wealth of knowledge and wisdom on the workings of democracy – it also re-affirms and reinforce a clarion call that has reverberated our national discourse as far back as 2000. In this regard, we support her well-considered view that, South Africa does need an electoral regime that will encourage greater responsibility and accountability from citizens and political leaders. We hope that her voice, as it adds to others will mobilise citizens and political leader into action. In your book you said, “We all know that cynicism about politicians and their parties exists everywhere in the world, but it is more pronounced where there is no structural connection between politicians and voters. We are now a maturing democracy and should consider changing our electoral system which ushered in our heart-earned democracy. We are more self – confident, self – assured and more responsible for our own lives than to relegate our right to choose the leader of our country to card carrying members of the parties. It is time to review our electoral reform system”. Sisi Hlophe, I could not agree more with your well thought observation. Indeed Section 43 (3) of the South African Constitution states that, “the National Assembly is elected to represent the people to ensure government by the people through the Constitution”. I strongly believe that, 21 years into democracy, the participatory deliberative model of democracy should be central in the enrichment and strengthening of democratic citizenship. Political accountability is at the heart of fully-functioning democracy. The current proportional representation (PR) system means that elected leaders are accountable solely to their party bosses and not to the people who voted them into office. In addition the current practice where political parties impose their choice of president on the nation is profoundly undemocratic. Through the current system, electorate mandates a political party to govern based on its policies and manifesto. However, we have noticed that the ruling party is held at ransom from implementing its mandate because some of their allies who have not been mandated by the electorate seem to have veto powers in particular with regard to Economic Policies. This dilemma makes governance ineffective, compromise confidence of investors, jobs shading, increasing levels of poverty and result to instability. Once such situation exists, opportunistic leaders take advantage and do things that have nothing to do with the electorate’s mandate but their own interests, like the current disputed procurement of nuclear energy and many other questionable transactions such as Arm’s Deal. To make things worse these leaders become intransigent and use these MP’s who have no constituencies as voting cattle to rubber stamp their nefarious objectives. The UDM notes that a great deal of inputs from diverse and often conflicting social, economic, political, linguist and cultural communities as well as interests groups informed the decisions which were made and ultimately culminated in the Constitution we have today that has become an international benchmark. Any discussion on a new electoral system must always remind us where we come from. We should move towards a mixed electoral system that draws from the strengths of both the proportional and constituency based electoral systems. The first major step we need to take is the introduction of constituencies into the PR system to ensure that politicians have a specific geographically-defined community they represent. We also need to change the electoral laws to allow for a separately elected President, as is the case in many democracies across the globe in that way we will put the power back in the hands of the voters. However, it is important that any electoral reform process culminates in as widely inclusive manner as possible. We would do well to follow the example of many countries such as New Zealand, Ireland etc, who confirmed electoral reforms by holding referendums. In this way, every voter is consulted directly. The current electoral system risks the checks and balances that are a necessity in ensuring that the Constitutional dictates are adhered to at all material times. The research conducted by Community Agency for Social Enquiry (CASE) and release in April 2014, has made serious findings that may question the legitimacy of the election processes. Amongst others, it has found that the electorate is a subject of political intimidation through, amongst others: · Manipulation of people using misinformation and threats regarding pensions and grants; · Interfering with access to meeting facilities; · The disruption of meetings; · Assaults and threats of physical harm; and · Punishing people who associate with rival political parties through the denial of jobs, contracts, services and development opportunities. In addition, the research report concludes that, voters and electoral processes are manipulated and opposition parties are undermined through: · Fraudulent voter registration; and · The targeted use of government resources to promote parties immediately prior to elections. When last for instance did you see trucks distributing food parcels to the needy, but come elections next year you will see them often, to hood-wink the voters. The other body that causes a lot of confusion is the Demarcation Board whose mandate to draw boundaries is always done to favour the ruling party. Citizens in the meantime are also demobilised into non active and disorganised individuals, whose collective voices are only heard when they take to the streets to demand service. There is no deliberate direct involvement of the people in running their own affairs, taking charge of their own lives and freedom, with government and other development agencies as facilitators. To make things worse, some civil society organs like, unions who were supposed to be at the centre of mobilising communities into activism, are core governing with the ruling elite. During elections, some of their members become part of the IEC machinery. If you take a case of a POPCRU member who is supposed to intervene in the disruption of a political party’s elections meeting; where the ruling party is involved, such a member would certainly be compromised from discharging his or her Constitutional obligation without fair or favour. His or her ascendance to the next higher position at work, is intrinsically depended on the deployment committee of the ruling party. No member of a Cosatu affiliated union will be able to carry-out his or her work fairly and without bias and yet some of the SADTU members are presiding over voting stations and take serious decisions that influences the outcome of any election. Ballot boxes are transported from one point to the other; either by the members of POPCRU and or the Intelligence officers whose loyalty is not in doubt. The South African Electoral Commission is chosen by the ruling party using its majority in Parliament, the recent appointment is a case in point, where all other parties objected but the ruling party forced it through our throats at the expense of reasoning. These appointments cascade down to Municipal Electoral Officers (MEO) who in many if not all instances are; a municipal senior officials whose appointments to those municipalities are determined by party bosses through deployment policy. As if these and other are not enough, the companies contracted to capture IEC data are secrete, not only to the electorate but also to the political parties who participate in the elections. Whilst electoral systems in themselves do not secure deliberative participation and direct accountability to citizens, putting a face to a representation, and placing political accountability to communities through the election of identifiable individuals who are accessible between elections, would benefit South African democracy. Finally, these reforms should go beyond the system itself, but such other matters as the party-political funding and the rules and regulations needed to ensure sound, ethical party fund-raising. I thank you.
Admin
31 Oct, 2008
UDM input at the National Convention South African democracy at a crossroad: turning a new page
INTRODUCTION The debate about political realignment has long been in the minds of many people in this country. It has been discussed publicly and privately by writers, political parties, and other individuals. Also over the years we have seen developments such as the emergence of the DA, the dissolution of the NNP and its absorption into the ANC, as well as the formation of new political parties. All of these are signs of the impetus for political realignment. Those initiatives may not have been as effective as their architects may have hoped, but realignment is a process not an event. The UDM feels it will not be in the best interests of all South Africans if the debate is only about political alliances. Any serious discussion about realigning the political landscape should not be confined only to political parties, but should also embrace stakeholders from civil society. The re-alignment phenomenon, it must be clearly understood, is not an alliance of political parties. It is a re-writing of the political map, a re-alignment of ideas, the regrouping of people around new concepts that have been thrown up by the changes that have taken place. However, we must thank the people behind this current initiative because it is more inclusive than many of the previous efforts. The UDM welcomes the revival of this important discussion about political realignment. The people who have gathered for this convention reflect the demographics of this country, representing the various formations of our society. There are those who couldn’t be present for this gathering due to a lack of resources, but who pin their hopes on the possibility that there may emerge from this convention a statement of intent towards addressing the social ills of this country. Let us remind each other that the impact of the social forces that transformed a totalitarian racist regime to a democratic social order – founded on the most progressive principles to be enshrined in a bill of rights in any country in modern times – shook the social foundations that had hitherto provided the basis and rationale for the alignment of political groupings which characterized our political landscape prior to 1994. Our point of departure in nation building must not be an ideological paradigm predicated on intolerant nationalism. This would be an unfortunate repeat of the discredited and failed social orders such as apartheid and communism in the former eastern block countries. This view has been propounded by Dr Van Zyl Slabbert in his book. THE STATE OF THE NATION Our history demands an awareness and willingness from all South Africans to fight the resurgence of racial hostilities and conflicts. It is in recognition of this historical legacy of our society that the UDM has committed itself to the vision of a new South Africa. Our analysis of the changing socio–economic-political order in South Africa since 1994, indicates that there will be discernible political shifts along interest group divides, distinguished by common concerns and aspirations. This process will move towards the crystallization of two major political streams, which express the ethos of the beneficiaries of the established order, on the one hand, and the aspirations of the emerging major social groupings that are marginalized at present, on the other hand. This will necessitate the emergence of two major political formations representing these interest groups. The group of beneficiaries is composed among others of those in position of power who implement policies skewed towards the interests of a select elite. It is this crowd today which runs the government from outside government structures even to the extent of who should get tenders and contracts and who not. The same style of government in the last 14 years has actually produced multi-millionaires and billionaires who have been cuing for state tenders irrespective of their ability to delivery, but on the other hand the products and services they have delivered have often left much to be desired. It is no wonder that today those successful deployees-turned-businessmen can donate individually R10 million to their party which enriched them with taxpayer money. We can expect as we move forward that it is these people who will resist change and pay in order to discredit this convention. The marginalized groups we are talking about are those sections of the population that have been unable to participate significantly in the economy for decades. Those groups are losing hope because daily their socio-economic suffering increases. It is these people who hoped that after 1994 there would be a clear-cut programme to uplift them. Instead we have seen a new culture being introduced, a culture of dependence and handouts, which has been characterized by the politics of patronage. For example, in order to get a particular service, or RDP house, or employment, you need to belong to party X, and in the case of tenders you need to ‘donate’ a certain percentage back to that political party. It promotes marginalization and discrimination if a ruling party deploys only its own cadres to head Chapter 9 institutions and the top structures of the civil service. The same policy is applied in the parastatals. It is a further marginalization of the people in the country if the ruling party deploys only its own cadres to head businesses. That is precisely why it is so easy currently for state resources to be used to prop up the ruling party, for example the R11 million that was donated to the ANC in the PetroSA/Oilgate scandal. You don’t have to be a rocket science to see that this is a form of institutionalized corruption where there is a deliberate web to siphon off state money to benefit a particular party. This strategy of marginalizing the rest of the country from participating in the economy has been exacerbated by the ruling party’s failure to distinguish between the role of the party and the role of government. As a result of the blurring of the roles of party and government that when there is conflict in the ruling party, it spills over into government and service delivery suffers. All tiers of Government have been paralysed by these divisions in the ruling party. Squabbles have erupted at the SABC, the National Intelligence Agency, provincial administrations and many municipalities. Not to mention the systematic campaign to undermine and devalue institutions of the democratic state we have witnessed, which resulted in the establishment of the Hefer and Khampepe Commissions of Inquiry. There is therefore a compelling need for the nation to periodically meet, as we are doing at this convention, to do a prognosis and reflect on strategies to address our national challenges. One thing is certain, the strategy of giving one political party the mandate to address our national challenges has been a failure. Nor can we fold our arms and do nothing whilst people are engaging in cronyism, nepotism and corruption. We can’t look the other way just because the people committing these crimes against our society are hiding behind the ruling party’s liberation credentials. When we talk of the ANC, we must understand that there are certain emotional attachments for many people, because it led the Struggle that liberated everybody including the erstwhile oppressors. But equally so we have a right to raise questions when we witness unscrupulous people hijacking the democratic project to enrich themselves, break the law and loot the resources of the country. Indeed we can no longer say that the trust that was given to the ruling party as custodian of our Constitution is still deserved, when they embark on campaigns aimed at undermining aspects of the democratic order, such as the judiciary just because they want the judiciary to pronounce a verdict that is acceptable to the palace. In all our discussions in this debate our point of departure should be the recommitment to the principle of improving the quality of lives of the people of South Africa as a national objective agreed to by all parties during the negotiation process prior to 1994. It is particularly important since nearly 15 years into democracy research by credible institutions indicate that the gap between rich and poor is widening. If we follow this as a guideline, we will emerge from this convention as a group of South Africans, to send a strong message that this convention is not only about the needs of the elite, or angry people for that matter, contrary to what the ruling party’s leadership and some analysts have claimed. Focusing on the marginalization of the citizens in this country, as well as resisting anarchist lawless tendencies, are not elitist or exclusive exercises. You can’t continue to use these citizens, including the poorest of the poor, as voting cattle, but when you get a mandate to govern, you forget about them. How does the ruling party reconcile its urban-biased policies, for instance subsidizing urban housing for the poor, but forget to cater on a similar scale for the needs of the rural communities? A responsible government would have been expected to engage the citizens in the rural areas, some of whom were bundled there because of the old apartheid policies, to determine what their needs are. Perhaps it may not be subsidized housing, but rather irrigation schemes. Even those in the urban areas, such as the squatter camps along the N2 in Cape Town who have been there since the 1980s, do not receive the services that they require. That community has been reduced to a political football between the ruling party at national and provincial level and local government under the opposition, but their urgent housing needs remain unaddressed. That is why we have seen in the past few years all over the country how frustrated communities have resorted to barricading roads and acts of public unrest because of poor service delivery. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPERATIVES It should never be forgotten that our democratic Constitution seeks to guarantee our freedom, but this can only be achieved if the socio-economic environment allows the Bill of Rights to become a reality for all South Africans. Political freedom, without social and economic freedom is a hollow concept. The question that confronts us is: Has the political freedom gained in 1994 translated into social and economic freedom? We must deliberately measure our progress since 1994, because true freedom is not a once-off event but an ongoing process. The UDM understands that the growth of freedom depends on certain basic conditions that affect citizens’ physical ability but are also directly linked to their dignity, including the following: • Jobs. Without productive employment and a decent living wage people will not be able to experience the fruits of freedom. In the long term, food security can only be achieved and hunger beaten if people have jobs. • Education. Without knowledge and skills people cannot make informed decisions and achieve their goals, and so enhance their livelihoods. • Health. People need to be healthy and have adequate health care in order to reach their full potential and share in the benefits of a democratic society. • Security. People who feel under siege from criminals in their homes, neighbourhoods and places of work cannot fully concentrate on pursuing their aspirations. • Property ownership. Without ownership of land and property people are unable to participate actively in the economic and social life of the country. The architects of international institutions such as the World Trade Organisations (WTO) and even many developing countries like Brazil, China and India recognise the responsibility that they have towards their citizens and intervene to protect their domestic jobs and businesses. A Government that proposes anything less does not care about its people, and is not willing to accept responsibility for their welfare and prosperity. Whilst Apartheid undermined the majority’s dignity and freedom, the current levels of unemployment, poverty, crime and HIV/AIDS are taking many South Africans back to that same state of hardship and suffering experienced under Apartheid. The lack of coherent policy priorities to address these imbalances and backlogs, has led to the loss of hope by many South Africans. As a result of these contradictions in the implementation of policies South Africans are suspicious and mistrust Government, because of perceptions that it is not equitably distributing the resources of the country. There is an overwhelming view that there has never been a consensus on a macro-economic policy that can transform the economy in a manner that will create and spread wealth wider and improve the lot of the disadvantaged majority. There are, in particular, concerns about the inadequacies and contradictions of the fiscal and industrial policies. As a nation can we continue to allow the Minister of Finance and the Reserve Bank Governor to determine our economic fate exclusively on the basis of a narrow focus on inflation? This convention would’ve failed in its objective if it cannot resolve that there is a need for South Africans to meet again to discuss economic policy. We must resist the danger that economic policy will be determined by the ruling party’s donors. South Africans were too relaxed after 1994, thinking that there would be “jobs for all” as the ruling party promised. But the moment that it ascended to the Union Buildings it produced strange policies that led to jobless growth. There is a tendency to label people as ‘leftist’ when they call for the Government to do more for the people of this country. But when the Afrikaners were uplifted by their Government, it wasn’t called ‘leftist’. When the developed countries of the world subsidise their local agriculture and industry with trillions of dollars it is not called ‘leftist’. Just recently the governments of the US and Europe have intervened in their economies to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars to rescue private banks, but they have not been labelled ‘leftist’. It is ridiculous to suggest that our government should fold its arms when millions of South Africans are wallowing in poverty, because to uplift them would be so-called ‘leftist’. Above all South Africans want an accountable, ethical and incorruptible government. A NEW POLITICAL PARTY? There is talk that this convention might culminate in the launching of a new political party in December this year. The UDM views this convention as the first phase in a process. Aside from the threat to our constitutional democracy that we are discussing at this convention, there are those that are looking for a political home. We should encourage those who want to launch a new political party in the meanwhile to do so and to publish their platform. The second phase would be a bigger national convention after the elections – which is as inclusive as possible – where likeminded parties could meet as equals to discuss how we can build a strong new movement which would articulate the issues arising from this convention. THREATS TO A NEW PARTY: PLAYING FIELD NOT LEVEL Indications are that the ruling party will not tolerate the launching of a new party; disrupting meetings and declaring no-go areas etc. This hostile environment was once experienced by the UDM when violence was used to deter people from joining the party. Added to this was a deliberate blackout by the public broadcaster of UDM policy positions when it was launched. Perhaps after a new political party has been launched it should delegate a representative to sit on the Multi-Party Forum steering committee, which has been engaging the IEC on a number of issues to level the playing field for the election. To assist the new party, the resolutions – that were adopted by all political parties after the IEC conference last year – are attached to this document. Our engagement with the IEC is informed by the AU and SADC concerns about electoral processes in various countries, where election results have been disputed, sometimes even leading to violence and civil war. Those who form this new party will discover that one of the biggest inhibiting factors is lack of access to the public broadcaster in order to publish their policies and positions. They will discover that they will be lucky to get four minutes on national news to present their manifesto to the nation during the election period, yet the SABC will give the ruling party’s manifesto launch and major rallies hours of live coverage. An abuse of state resources that even the old National Party never committed. Even recently the ANC Secretary General and President both were allowed to abuse the SABC to speak to the nation live in order to address party squabbles. The other major handicap that the new party will find is the hesitance of the IEC to implement changes that the political parties have identified as inhibiting factors to multi-party democracy; the only stakeholder they take seriously is the ruling party. They have so far failed to arrange a meeting between themselves, the SABC, ICASA and the political parties to discuss the levelling of the playing field, as they promised to do earlier this year. Indeed they have failed dismally so far to come clean on what role the National Intelligence Agency is playing in the awarding of tenders to companies involved in the running of the elections. Nor have they convinced us that the IEC is insulated from Government influence through the Department of Home Affairs. This issue of the IEC is one area that political parties should all take seriously. What is the point of endorsing the IEC Commissioners when they do not listen to stakeholder concerns? This convention would be committing a grave mistake if it did not pronounce itself strongly on this matter. The IEC has despite our concerns gone ahead and started appointing people to run the elections that belong to the tripartite alliance. Some of the people who might be forming this new political party, may have an experience of how things were done in the ruling party, such as the hiring of venues and catering, and the printing of propaganda material under the guise of government information, rolling out food parcels that after the election disappear again. This abuse of state resources to promote the ruling party must stop. If we fail to address the IEC being embedded in Government, as well as the behaviour of the SABC, all the issues we raise at this convention will be for naught. Collectively we may need to ask for a High Court/Constitutional Court to review whether the rights of all are being respected. We need guarantees before the next election; we can’t allow South Africans to be kept in the dark about the policies and views of parties other than the ruling party, as if we are in exile in our own country. In everything we are discussing here, we need to realise that time is a major issue. Two major factors can take us out of this dilemma: speed and control of the process. The masses are waiting to here from us on how do we rescue this country from the embarrassing situation we find ourselves in, when the ruling party violates such basic principles such as accountability, consultation, inclusiveness, respect and decency. WAY FORWARD South Africa is at a crossroad; due to the situation explained above. As we have converged here with a view to seek solutions to the challenges facing the nation, it would be important to emerge with a message of hope for the people of South Africa. The bottom-line is that the masses of this country are vulnerable. They have been treated shabbily and used as voting cattle. This should not just have been a meeting where we spoke and then nothing came of it. It is time to turn the page. We need to ask ourselves how our discussions here will affect our actions in five year’s time. Thus we need to develop a plan of action, with specific steps and deadlines. As a way forward we know that the immediate task before us is to prepare for the elections next year. We need to provide answers on how we will cooperate as political parties to ensure that those elections will be free and fair. The levelling of the playing field will necessitate that the IEC need to speedily convene a meeting of political party leaders to answer whether it will be business as usual as far as the SABC, the involvement of NIA, and the capturing of election results are concerned. The other immediate issue confronting some of the people at this convention, is for those who intend launching a political party in December, to be given the time to do so. But in the meantime they must familiarise themselves with the ins and outs regarding the upcoming elections. The issues that have been identified for discussion at this convention are relevant to all political parties. The resolutions taken here reflect the views of the nation and it is incumbent upon every political party to decide how those views will be reflected in their policies. I dare say that even the ruling party should take note of the resolutions of this convention. COOPERATION SCENARIOS Since the Polokwane Conference of the ruling party there has been tremendous pressure from the public asking why we in the opposition do not form a strong alternative to the ruling party. It is a debate that has dominated public and private discussions. The truth is that we can’t just bundle a group of political parties together at short notice because we represent specific voters and mandates. The 2009 election is near; if we had started this convention process in January this year we would’ve been in a better position, but now time is against us. However the following scenarios may be looked at: a. Come up with a cooperation model, without losing the identity of the political parties, but work together under one umbrella in the election. b. Another scenario would be to remain as separate parties, but cooperate on issues raised in the Multi-Party Forum, such as electoral processes. c. Electoral pacts are also a possibility, where political parties agree not to contest against each other, and ask their supporters in certain areas to vote for their partner in the pact. d. Political parties can also contest the election separately but consider coalitions after the election. e. Another scenario would be to disband all the likeminded parties and create one new political entity to contest the upcoming election, but given that parties operate under electoral and conference mandates between elections, that is unlikely. Whatever scenario is chosen, all political parties need to promote certain common campaign messages, such as the need for electoral reform and the need to call a CODESA-type indaba on the economy and education. All of us can state those objectives in our election manifestoes and tell the nation that collectively we will ensure that these reforms will be implemented before the 2012 local government elections. There is no harm for each and every party to have a common thread in our manifestoes to say that never again should this country be dominated by a two-thirds majority, in order to counter the ills we’ve identified and improve service delivery. South Africans need to spread the vote to promote a balance of power, and ensure that the interests of our diverse society are reflected in the legislatures and Executive. CONVENTION BEYOND 2009 ELECTION Now that we have started a serious debate in this country about political realignment and have embarked upon the first phase of achieving that objective, the UDM would propose the following steps to advance this debate: a. Engage in informal discussion with all stakeholders, as we have started this weekend, which will begin to identify the various policy positions that are needed to improve the lot of South Africans. b. If there is an emerging consensus to establish an alternative government, we should establish a Committee of Parties with equal status (it will need to include other stakeholders in society such as Labour, Business, Traditional institutions, Youth, Women, NGOs, etc). c. That Committee of Parties should, in consultation with their leaders, work out the following: i. a vision ii. a possible vehicle to drive the process, including the question of leadership iii. areas of agreement and disagreement on our values. d. If there is consensus, the Committee should call a Summit of Leaders to send a message that we are serious about political realignment in South Africa. It is at this Summit that the leaders may decide on what the next stage in the process will be. e. The UDM view is that an appropriate format for discussions will be a second bigger National Indaba/Convention of Political Parties and sectors of society. f. Such an Indaba/Convention can set up Commissions to deliberate on different policy areas. g. The Commissions would report their findings to the Indaba/Convention, indicating differences and agreements on key areas and principles underlying party platforms. h. It would be the responsibility of the Indaba/Convention to take resolutions, on the most important aspects of this process, which would be a commitment to an accepted common vision of an alternative government. If consensus is reached during the course outlined above, it is conceivable that the situation could result in a new political formation that would pursue the objective of an alternative government. We call upon South Africans in all political formations, civil society, the business sector, academic etc. to take stock and concede that we should leave the baggage of the past behind and embrace the opportunity to carry our society forward and write a new chapter in our history. We should commend the ANC for having been the mother of non-racialism. To demonstrate their bona fides they even welcomed the members of the dissolved National Party of PW Botha into their ranks. However we have noted the double standards in Parliament and public debates where they would vent their anger about the policies of the past by blaming the DA, yet the architects of apartheid have been rewarded inside the ANC and Government with cosy positions. As we meet here the emphasis should be on the Constitution of the country, rather than wasting our energy on who owns the Freedom Charter etc. We have a fresh founding document of democracy that we need to embrace and protect. The UDM remains committed to multi-party democracy, and we feel that this is an opportune time to turn the page on one-party dominance. May God bless us all to read from the same page and take our country forward.
Admin
05 Nov, 1998
Politics bankrupt IEC: democracy on knife edge
Statement by Deputy-President The South African voter public may well become the victim and democracy the corps that will be buried as a result of the ANC and opposition parties unwillingness to provide sufficient funding to the IEC. The UDM has warned from the outset that the amount made available to the IEC to conduct the elections, is not enough. This affects the smooth running of the elections as well as the independence of the IEC. The UDM’s fears have now become reality. It was reported today at a National Party Liaison Committee that the IEC only have enough money to continue their work until the middle of November. The IEC was awarded a budget of R500 million, this after they requested a budget of R1.1 billion. Only a further R100 million was added to the budget though the IEC requested a further R600 million from the supplementary budget. None of the political parties in parliament supported the IEC in their request for more money. Because of the shortage in the budget, the IEC took the decision to register voters only for three days. The IEC does not have more money available to spend on registration. The decision not to grant people abroad and prisoners a voting opportunity was also taken because of the budget shortage. At any given point in time there are 250 000 South Africans in London alone. With a three-day registration process, this figure will escalate together with South Africans in South Africa, who will not be in their voting districts during the registration days, will be added, and will not be able to vote. Because of budget constraints, they will be deprived of their democratic right to vote as contained in the Bill of Rights. Though, the IEC did indicate that, if the registration percentage is unsatisfactory after the period lapsed, they will approach parliament for funds, so as to continue registering voters, this will only become obvious at the end of November, and it will remain subject to funds being made available. It is the UDM’s opinion that the IEC will not be able to stick to the current timeframe and that the date of the elections will be affected. The 1999 elections are heading for disaster. It is obvious when it comes to voting money to themselves, political parties will do so very easily as they have done with the “Funding of Political Parties Bill.”; The UDM can not but question the ANC’s political motives in providing such an inadequate budget to the IEC. Can it be that the ANC does not want to see the elections take place in 1999?; How do you explain spending R80 million per week “enforcing” democracy in a neighbouring state, but you are not willing to provide sufficient funds for your own democracy. The UDM challenges political parties in parliament to ensure that the election process is properly funded; demonstrate your seriousness with democracy – ensure free and fair elections.
