Category Archives: Politics

Zuma to Decide on Deputy – Do Voters Matter?

Posted on by
Reply

One of the unique systems of the parliamentary system that South Africa adopted in 1994 was the party-list system. In simplistic terms, a South African political party puts a list of 400 of its members for election. This of course corresponds to the 400 seats in the National Assmebly. The list is made up by the party and has no input from the actual voters. The list represents those members of the party who will be seated first in the new National Assmebly when the new government convenes. Obviously, those on the top of the list have a better shot at gaining a seat then those at the bottom. Thus the percentage of the vote that your party achieves on election day equals the percentage of your party list that is seated in the National Assembly.

The most notable problem of this system in South Africa is personal accountability to the constiuents of the country. Local voters have no local canidate necessarily attached to the national party. They simply vote ANC, DA, etc. While these parties campaign behind a national leader and the party’s leadership, there is no direct connection between the voters and the politicians once they are seated in terms of accountability. There is no legislator to complain to when the power goes out or the water turns off. Plus there is no one in the National Assembly fighting for your district. No one to bring home the pork as Americans would say. Thus you as a voter have no one to vote out of office in order to show your displeasure.

This disconnect is a problem that will loom over South Africa for as long as service delivery remains one of the most pressing topics for everyday citizens and the government. This disconnect also can explain why the ANC can retain 60%+ of the voters even though most South Africans remain disatisfied with the governments attempts to reduce poverty, crime, and unemployment. While newspapers like to harp on the fact that voters see the ANC as the liberation party and thus have a (in Western-eyes) irrational attachment to the party, what Western newspapers fail to pick up is the fact that while the ANC is the government and the president, whether Mandela, Mbeki, or now Zuma, is the face of the party, the connection between regular voters and those men is so great that voters cannot attribute failure to those individuals. Perhaps rightly so, as how can voters attach all the blame to the person at the very top? As much as presidents and prime ministers like to claim they are responsible for all that goes on in their government, this is unrealistic, and untrue. While a president can assume responsibility and blame for a mid-level bureaucrat’s mistakes, there is no actual link between the bureaucrat that  screws up and the person at the head of the government that should reflect poorly on the President. However, in western societies we like, and demand, that the leaders of companies, organizations, and goverments take full blame for anyone beneath them that screws up. People are severly chastised when they try to explain away or pass blame. 

In Africa, and specifically in parts of Africa where remnants of tribal structures remain, the desire to see the head leader of an organization, or chief, accept all the blame solely on their shoulders does not have the same cultural significance that it does in the West. Thus while Western newspapers like to portray ANC voters as a sort of a cult of personality surrounding Jacob Zuma, they fail to recognize that the culpability that Europeans and Americans expect from their leaders has not taken hold in South African politics to the same extent. Thus to blame Zuma for all of the ANC’s mistakes is not something a common ANC voter would do, and even if they did attribute some blame to previous ANC leaders, it would not be enough for them to put their trust in another party. 

When Jacob Zuma finally decides on his deputy president, the voters will have had no formal impact on this selection. There will be no vetting process, no campaign to see the person up on stage, or in their households sipping tea. And the disconnect between voters and their elected representatives will grow. 

How does this trend change? Or should it change? From my experience in local and municipal politics in South Africa, an Americanized change of political representation could benefit local and underdeveloped communities. But would this be good for the nation as a whole? One of the effects of local representation in the national legislature in the United States is that the good of the whole is often overlooked in favor of the benefit of a representative’s relatively small size of constituents. South Africa’s system would seem to favor broad national consensus that was not polluted with local and regional interests. 15 years on from the first multiracial election, the progress seems to be a fraction of what was needed, or even promised by the first ANC government. Due to the desperate need for service delivery in rural and impoverished areas, the benefit of a local representative of the National Assembly could be crucial in spurring more growth as the world emerges from the economic downturn. How and from who such a radical rewrite of the South Africa political scene comes from is uncertain. Allocating a portion of the National Legislature to local representation is a possibility. Or, adding more weight and power to the National Council of Provinces. Adding more positions for politicians or party contributers should not play a part in any rewrite. Instead allowing for the current power structures to recognize and allow particiation from overlooked areas of the country should be the priority.

Perhaps Tip O’Neil’s declaration that “all politics is local” is not something that South Africa wants to experiment with, but despite the solid increases in services that the ANC has provided since 1994, so much more can and should be done. Having a local rep in the legislature would be an outlet for local and community groups to get solutions to immediate and regional issues. It would create a vehical to vent frustration with slow progress or corruption. How South Africa addresses this need for a stronger connection between the constituency of voters and their representatives should be a pressing issue for debate in the lead up to the next election.

South African President to Dissolve Parliament? Call New Elections?

Posted on by
1

A report by Stratfor, tucked away nicely on their members-only page, is titled South Africa: President To Dissolve Parliament – Report. Such a course of action would seem prudent if viewed from a political perspective. While this year’s regulary schedule general election were to be held sometime between April and June, this recent possible action by South African president, Kgalema Motlanthe, could signal the African National Congress’s (ANC) growing concern over the upstart breakaway party, the Congress of the People (COPE). 

ANC may well claim that since the dismissal of Thabo Mbeki from head of state, Motlanthe has been in a care-taking role and that with the current worldwide finicial crisis, it is more appropriate to get a new government seated sooner, rather than later. Motlanthe has certainly kept the ball rolling on certain ANC projects, one of which was the dismantling of the Scorpions, but he has not undertaken any other major endevors as he has no political capital of his own. The looming shadow of Jacob Zuma must also be inhibiting Motlanthe during his Presidency. (To See a Review of his first 100 Days in office, see his interview with the M&G) This claim that a legitimate government is needed to handle the financial crisis would seem to make good sense, as a new government would be able to react to the crisis and use their newly earned political capital to implement their plans.

Oddly enough, another possible reason for the early election might be a new possibility for South Africans abroad to vote overseas. While not all inclusive, the government may want to speed up an election, so that word of mouth of the new provision has not spread sufficiently in time for an overseas vote to be significant. As most of the overseas vote would most likely favor the DA or possibly COPE, the ANC is not exactly advertising this new ability to vote abroad.  

The ANC must also be worrying about any growing influence that COPE is gathering in former ANC territory. It would be rational to believe that the longer COPE has to prepare for the elections and to publicize their platform, the more successive they will be in the election. Whether this plays out in this fashion is still to be seen, but its a fair bet that the 2009 South African election may well be the most exciting since 1994. The smaller parties are sensing the division in the ANC may mean more votes for their platforms, but I believe the actual number of electorate defections will be less than is hyped in the media. In any case, voter participation may rise for the first time in South Africa’s post-apartheid era.

Which ever reason is given by President Motlanthe to call for elections before the normal timetable, there must be a period of 60-65 days between when an election is called and when the actual voting day is established. COPE has claimed that a date of March 25th has been set, denied by Motlanthe, but in reality will one or two months make a difference to COPE’s success at the voting booth? They might argue yes, but in reality I believe that those who were ready to cast a non-ANC vote have already made up their mind about COPE. Those rural people who COPE may try to target for conversion from ANC stalwarts cannot be converted in months, rather years.

While 2009 sees the first formidable splinter group of the ANC pose a challenge to the ANC, no real power change will happen this year. It may be 2014, or beyond, before a COPE, or a COPE-DA alliance, could seriously threaten the stranglehold the ANC possesses over the South African electorate.

Calls for Action in Zimbabwe – Will Anyone Actually Give a Realistic Plan of Action?

Posted on by
1

Today’s Washington Post Opinion page featured a piece appropriately named as it was penned by two physicians, In Zimbabwe, a Cancer Called Mugabe, which like many governments and other advocay groups called on the help to be made available to Zimbabweans. Unfortunately, they don’t go into spcifics about what kind of ‘help’ should be given other than that under the wide ‘humanitarian’ banner, nor do they even give any guidance to Barack Obama for what he should actually DO.

This seems to be the theme of most op-ed articles, opinion pieces, and major world instituions who have been calling for ‘change’. Everyone seems to agree that Mugabe must step down (1, 2, 3), but since Mugabe could obviously care little for world sanctions or condemnations (much less any empathy for the citizens of his country), how do these writes and politicians actually envision Mugabe being removed from power? Certainly no military action is considered by Western nations, and it is even more ridiculous to assume it will come from any African Union member at this point. Freezing of his monetary resources, along with the rest of his ‘cronies’ seems to have done little to result in change.

The world does not seem to recognize that they are dealing with a stubborn, old, and proud African man. Do leaders and journalists think that simply writing about his rule and his iron-fisted ways will bring about real change to the regime? If they do not, then why bring any attention to the situation at all? Is it a good topic to fill up the the ‘holier than thou’ part of the newspaper? Saying, look at us, we’re looking out for our fellow citizens of the world by writing about their blights, but don’t ask us to actually implement, much less create a feasible plan of action. 

The Zimbabwean currency lost is value some time ago (I actually have Zim dollars that are expired), the opposition party is being ruthlessly beaten and jailed by the ruling party seemingly attempting a MLK-approach to Mugabe’s rule, and citizens of the neighboring countries have called on their governments to act, but have seen only half-hearted plans for a unitary government, a sole organizer for regional meetings on the topics and rebukes of ZANU-PF from no one of note other Botswana.

Though calls for Mugabe to step down have grown steadily from African leaders, no one seems to ever say ‘or else’. They all call on him to end the suffering of his people. HIS people? Does any one think that Mugabe actually sympathizes with the rural people of Zimbabwe? He cares about keeping his inner cirlce happy, and he has done that to such a degree that all he has to do is set them loose on the farms, and they’re perfectly content with his rule.

How does change come to Zimbabwe, real change, real development, and the return of simple government services? Next week, The African File will present a 5-piece plan of action to bring about actual change, that will not just yell ‘do something’, but will say ‘do this‘.

Proof that Even A Dictator Can Tire From Destroying their Country

Posted on by
2

Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s underfire president, has decided that the past year of rigging elections, murdering opposition supporters, and being staunchly against sharing his power, has taken a toll on his nearly 85 year old body and is going to take a one month vacation according to the Mail & Guardian. One must ask where one  would go in Zimbabwe to vacation these days, much less the all-a-round hated leader of the imploding nation. One would hope that he might head to Victoria Falls where we could all pray that the Zambezi might sweep him over the edge, but alas, he’s decided to take what must be the last bit of foreign currency reserves the government holds and use them to vacation abroad. Says his spokesman George Charamba: 

This is more of a retreat than an annual leave. The president is very busy reflecting on the new structures that are needed to deal with the economic sanctions against Zimbabwe as well as working on structures of an inclusive government which must come too soon

These are the times when you wish that ZANU-PF was facing anything but a subjugated press, or at least a media outlet that would ask, “So how far off is ‘too soon’?”

A deeper analysis could reveal two things. One, Mugabe is so secure in his power of controlling power that he knows that whether he is in the country or not, he is able to maintain his iron grip. Two, he knows a coup is coming, and does not want to be caught in the cross fire and is using this ‘retreat’ as a way of getting out of the line of fire and thus living out his days in exile. Or, a more likely third probablity, Mugabe has long been oustered from the real center of power in the party and in the country, and thus is just being used as a figure head for ZANU-PF. The people really in charge of the suppression of opposition and of land redistribution have slowly wrestled power away from Mugabe, though in his old-age they probably still convince him that he makes all the ‘real’ decisions.

Whatever the deeper meaning or reason behind his vacation, this would be the perfect time for outside intervention from the AU or the UN, but that’s more of a fantasy than Mugabe falling off Victoria Falls…