THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM


PROPORTIONALITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN SOUTH AFRICA’S ELECTORAL SYSTEM


When the first democratic elections took place in South Africa in 1994, the proportional representation electoral system was used. With questions now being asked about whether this system produces a sufficient degree of accountability of Members to the voters, a senior South African electoral official assesses whether it is time to consider electoral reform.


Mr Norman du Plessis in Centurian. Mr du Plessis has been Deputy Chief Electoral Officer since1998. A civil servant and diplomat, he was an electoral advisor to the multiparty Negotiating Process and served with the Independent Electoral Commission in 1994 and its successor body until 1997. The views expressed here are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Electoral Commission.


Until 1994, South Africa used a first- past-the-post constituency electoral system. This came about neither by accident nor by design: it was inherited from our colonial history – what applied “at home” in Britain also applied in the colonies. In fact, this was the prevalent electoral system in most parts of the world in the early 20th century, with other systems gaining in popularity only later on. Neither was there at the time any


inclination to change the system. The don’t-fix-what’s-not-broken factor applied – besides which, Members of Parliament could naturally be inclined to support the system that got them elected in the first place. The establishment of democracy


in 1994 and its fundamental paradigm shift necessitated careful consideration of the electoral system,


68 | The Parliamentarian | 2013: Issue One - South Africa


the elections that year being the proverbial last step on the road to freedom. The various parties to the multiparty negotiations no doubt considered the matter with great care and behind-the-scenes discussions may well have taken place. When the subject was formally tabled for discussion there was, however, little debate or disagreement. The winner-takes-all concept did


not feature. Fairness, inclusivity and simplicity and understanding of the system by the electorate were the guiding themes. This presupposed proportional representation and when the very short timeframe for the conduct of an election was taken into account, the choice was inevitable. That then was the electoral system incorporated into the Interim Constitution in 1993.


Mr Norman du Plessis


Accountability and the proportional system For a number of years now the suitability of the electoral system decided on 20 years ago has been debated in certain quarters. Most of the discussion has focused on the concept of


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188  |  Page 189  |  Page 190  |  Page 191  |  Page 192  |  Page 193  |  Page 194  |  Page 195  |  Page 196  |  Page 197  |  Page 198  |  Page 199