Constituency system is no cure for our voting shortfalls

By Mosotho Moepya

Over the past few months, we have witnessed a resurgence of debate and discussion about the appropriateness of SA’s electoral system. Commentators, academics and politicians have asked whether the proportional representation system is relevant, effective and appropriate 20 years into our democracy.

Those questioning the effectiveness of the system provided for in our Constitution primarily argue that the weakness of the system is in holding politicians to account to the electorate. They suggest that MPs are appointed not directly by voters but rather by their parties based on candidate lists submitted to the Electoral Commission of SA ahead of the elections.

This, they maintain, makes an MP beholden to a party and its leadership rather than voters and puts party politics and loyalties ahead of effectiveness and delivery.

In response, some commentators advocate a return to the constituency system SA inherited from the UK and used under apartheid. Such a system, they say, will hold politicians more directly accountable to the voters and will better ensure that election promises are kept for fear of being voted out. They also argue that such a system will limit the power of individual party leaders and encourage MPs to vote in accordance with the needs and desires of their constituencies rather than only toeing the party lines. Rather paradoxically, half a world away, a similar debate is under way — albeit opposite in nature.

In the recent UK parliamentary elections, the Conservative Party swept to an outright majority in parliament, winning 331 of the 650 seats (or 50.9%) in the House of Commons. Surprisingly, however, the party received only 36.9% of the popular vote and, even more incongruously, some fairly large parties — notably the UK Independence Party (Ukip) — won just a single seat after securing 12.6% of the popular vote, or nearly 4-million votes.

Within days of the result, more than 100,000 people had signed a petition launched by the Electoral Reform Society that states: "The 2015 general election has shown once and for all that our voting system is broken and beyond repair."

Will Brett, head of campaigns for the society, noted "the fact that over 5-million people … have voted Ukip and Green (the Green Party, which received 1.15-million votes) and they have two MPs strikes us as utterly absurd and a … denial of people’s democratic wishes".

At the heart of this apparent discrepancy between the popular vote and the election result is the "winner takes all" approach in a first-past-the-post electoral system. Taken to the extreme, such a system can result in a political party receiving nearly half the total votes but not one seat in Parliament.

It can also result in representatives being elected who the majority of voters did not vote for. To illustrate the problem: if candidate A obtains 40% of the vote, B gets 35% and C gets 25%, that would make A, as the person who received most votes (a simple majority), the winner. At issue is the fact that, notwithstanding the majority vote, the winning candidate was not the first choice of the majority (60%) of the voters.

The biggest losers in a "winner takes all" system tend to be the smaller parties, which, if they are unable to win constituencies outright (and therefore seats), face the prospect of little or no representation in parliament as their losing votes count for nothing.

It was exactly this concern that led the multiparty drafters of our Constitution to reflect on a system that would better align with the founding tenets of the birth of democracy in SA — principles of fairness, inclusivity and multiparty democracy.

In SA’s context, the concept of "one person one vote" is deeply ingrained in the struggle for freedom and democracy. This means a universal franchise is the cornerstone of our democracy: that all votes should count equally and that the composition of the legislature should fairly represent the views and aspirations of the people.

There is also no doubt that SA’s history, the political climate of 1994, the desire of inclusivity and the nature of the multiparty negotiations contributed significantly to the decision to adopt a proportional representation system in 1994.

This is not to say that the system was cast in stone for all time. Recognising the value of review, in 2002 the Cabinet appointed Frederik van Zyl Slabbert to lead an Electoral Task Team to review the electoral system and make recommendations.

The report was presented in 2003 and contained a majority view (to adopt a mixed system combining elements of the proportional representation and constituency systems) and a minority view (to adopt a more traditional constituency system). The recommendations were not implemented.

No electoral system is perfect and each has strengths and weaknesses. There is no doubt the proportional representation system has ensured significant representation for minority parties in Parliament. Since 1999, at least 12 political parties have been represented in the National Assembly — highly unlikely under a constituency system. Critics argue that very small parties have little real power in Parliament, dilute more effective opposition and hand even more power to the majority party rather than advancing minority or dissenting views. They say while inclusivity is a benefit, it is at the expense of accountability.

There is also a questionable link between accountability and a constituency system. The experience in SA’s municipal elections and by-elections over the past 15 years shows the theoretical link between directly voting for a candidate and accountability and performance is tenuous at best. In more than 85% of by-elections, the party has retained its seat, calling into question any real consequence for nonperformance.

On the other side of the coin, it is also unfair to label the proportional representation system as lacking in accountability. The holding of regular elections, whatever the system used, leads to accountability and to parties and their candidates answering to the electorate on their past performance and future promises.

That is the ultimate accountability.

The final test for any democracy and electoral system is the ability of the electorate to express its will freely and to bring about a change in government or a legislature if that is desired, without the will of the people being distorted by the workings of an electoral system. In SA, the majority party has changed in two provincial legislatures and in a number of municipalities since 1994. In all these cases, our electoral system promoted an acceptance of the outcome as an accurate reflection of the preferences of voters and the transitions were generally smooth and peaceful. I believe this, together with the inclusivity, simplicity and transparency of our system, make it the most appropriate for SA in the context of our still-young democracy.

• Moepya is chief electoral officer but writes in his personal capacity. This view may not reflect the position of the Electoral Commission of SA.

This article was first published in Business Day, 21 May 2015.