Admin
08 Apr, 2014
ANC imbedded within IEC
The Chairperson of the Electoral Commission, Advocate Pansy Tlakula, has brought the Electoral Commission into disrepute in terms of Chapter 2, Paragraph 9 (c) of the Electoral Commission’s act (51 of 1996) which states that: “ (9) No members of the commission: (c) may, by his or her membership, association, statement, conduct or in any other manner place in jeopardy his or her perceived independence, or in any other manner harm the credibility, impartiality, independence in integrity of the commission. “ Adv Tlakula’s association with a senior leader of the African National Congress (ANC), namely the chairperson of the finances portfolio committee, has compromised the Commission’s integrity and independence. Adv Tlakula not only broke the rules when she was Chief Electoral Officer, but also in her position as the Chairperson of Electoral Commission when she flatly refused to cooperate with the forensic audit sanctioned National Treasury as endorsed by Parliament. The United Democratic Movement is not surprised that the ANC is defending Adv Tlakula’s actions, because they firmly embedded within Independent Electoral Commission – this despite two credible organisations finding that she is on the wrong side of the law.
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.
