Will the coalition respect democracy?

By: Steven Friedman

IS South African democracy safe in the hands of its coalition government? The answer is more complicated than it seems.

The general election is an important sign of the strength of South Africa’s formal democracy. Saying anything good about the state of politics in this country invites ridicule from  the public debate. And so the fact that a party which has governed nationally for thirty years has accepted without question not only a loss of its majority but a result far worse than it expected, has been taken for granted. But it shatters some bigoted stereotypes about Africa and its people.

If anyone had insisted thirty years that democracy here would be alive and well after three decades, they would have been mocked. If they had insisted also that the governing party would accept the loss of its majority, the mockery would become much louder. Governing parties on this continent, they would have been  told, don’t accept the results when they lose their majority.

This is a prejudice, since there are African countries whose governing parties have accepted defeat at the polls – Ghana and Zambia are two examples. But, in a world in which Republicans in the US still refuse to accept the result of an election they obviously lost and in which democracy is under pressure everywhere, the fact that the election has produced a smooth change to a coalition, not an attempt by the governing party to stay in office,  is a great asset.

One of South Africa’s most important achievements is that formal democracy – free and fair elections, multi-partyism and the independence of the courts – has become entrenched. Not only  did the governing party accept the result; there was never any question that it would. The principle that elections must reflect the votes of the people and that parties must accept the results is accepted as a given within and outside the largest party.

Avoiding Complacency

But that does not mean democrats can be complacent about democracy here.

The election also saw the growth of parties who claim democracy has gone too far – they are intolerant of people who were born elsewhere and others whose existence offends them. It saw for the first time demands that the constitution be changed to remove protections  which, it is claimed without evidence, block changes the country needs. And a party which won 14 percent of the vote claims, following the US’s Donald Trump, that it was cheated of victory but refuses to present any evidence of this.

So, the celebration of democracy’s advance must be tempered by vigilance about threats it now faces. An important concern is whether the new government will respect democratic freedoms.

On one level, the question seems strange. The two largest parties in the coalition, the African National Congress and the Democratic Alliance, insist that the value they most  share is respect for the constitution. The DA likes to insist that its prime reason for entering a coalition is to protect the constitution.

This suggests that the democracy South Africans have enjoyed for three decades is safe in the hands of the coalition. This may largely be true. But there are two reasons for asking whether democracy under the coalition will be as democratic as it is now.

The first is an issue raised here before – political party funding. Just before the election, the Electoral Matters Amendment Act became law. Until then , political parties had to make public donations worth R100 000 or more. The new law allows the President to change this ceiling – he could, if he wants, make sure that very large donations are secret. And, until the President sets a limit, parties do not have to declare any donations at all.

This seriously weakens democracy,  making it far easier for wealthy people to influence politicians. But the damage could be partly undone if the President sets the limit at R100 000 – or, ideally, lower.

The law is the ANC’s idea – it came up with it when it found that donors were more reluctant to support it if their names became known. But will the DA want to maintain or reduce the limit since it too receives funds from donors who may prefer to stay anonymous, particularly since it is now in government and they can be accused of buying influence? A coalition which wants to strengthen democracy would insist on forcing parties to say which wealthy people are funding them but this government may prefer not to do that.

Limiting Local Democracy

The second cause for worry is the Municipal Structures Amendment Bill, which was published just before the election and is widely known as the Coalitions Bill.

This too was an ANC idea since it was then the only party in government. But it also reflects the DA’s view, expressed in a private members’ bill it tabled in Parliament. The bill  aims to ‘stabilise’ coalitions; it contains two ideas which would strengthen democracy but several which would weaken it.

Democracy would be strengthened by the Bill’s proposal that municipal elections be decided by a show of hands, not a secret ballot. It aims to protect big parties whose councillors sometimes vote against their party’s choice of candidate. But the principle that voters have a right to know how their representatives vote is important.

Those of us who sat through the election of a President, Speaker and deputy Speaker last week learned how much time a secret ballot of MPs can take. But nobody questioned why they were allowed to hide from the people who voted for them their choice in the most important election of its type since 1994. Not only would the proceedings have been over by mid-afternoon if MPs voted by a show of hands – voters would have known who their representatives supported.

The bill also gives councils more time – 30 days – after an election to choose a mayor or speaker. This is a step towards fixing a problem in the constitution –it forces parties to form governments in a few days even though they may need weeks or months to bridge their differences. The two weeks parties had to form a national government was not nearly enough and this begins to allow more bargaining before governments are formed.

It does not go far enough – even 30 days may be too short, so what is needed is an arrangement for governing the country until a new government is formed  . Since coalitions are likely to be part of the political future, this may be essential to make democracy work better.

Democracy will be strengthened if secret ballots are scrapped in elected bodies and more time is allowed to negotiate coalitions. But we cannot say the same about the Bill’s other proposals. One is that the votes parties need to win a seat be raised. At this stage, it would make no great difference – parties would need 1 percent of the vote, so it would only matter in councils with over 100 councillors. But the problem is the principle. Large parties prefer not to govern with small ones and so they want to deny them seats. The fact that they represent people is ignored.

Once the threshold has been introduced, it becomes much easier to raise it, excluding small parties which may play an important role in giving people a voice. In effect, the big parties are ganging up on the small ones. Since the coalition is dominated by the two biggest parties, that could become a theme over the life of this government.

Another proposal in the bill is that mayors and their deputies be protected from no confidence votes for two years. This is meant to prevent the turmoil we have seen in some local governments but will protect incompetents who have lost the confidence of most councillors and the public. And so it will ensure much less accountability than we have now.

The bill also proposes that, if no party wins a majority in a council, it must use the executive committee system, in which parties are represented in the municipal government in proportion to their numbers. While this system has its merits, it can’t be democratic to order councils to adopt a form of multi-party government if they don’t want this. It may also be an attempt to get smaller parties out of government.

For now, these changes apply only to local government. They also do not seem that important when measured against the arrival of the first national coalition government since democracy was achieved. But the problem is the attitude behind them. Voters’ choices and democratic politics are respected only if they don’t disturb what the two biggest parties want. It is also a view which seems willing to trim our political freedoms to ensure that politics is ‘orderly.’

So, we can expect the new government to honour the freedoms the constitution protects. But voters will need to be on their guard to  ensure that it does not limit their choices in the name of bringing order.

Prof Steven Friedman is a research professor at the University of Johannesburg, faculty of humanities, politics department, and writes in his personal capacity.