By Zelna Jansen
South Africa comes from a regime where most people were oppressed in the most inhuman way.
This year marks 28 years of democracy where citizens vote for representatives and can participate and influence governing decisions affecting them.
The latter is where much work needs to be done to realise the democratic construct that was envisaged when signing the Constitution into law. The context within which South Africa finds itself exacerbates the challenge.
The legislature is to be the “voice of the people”. However, although some legislatures have embarked on groundbreaking methods to include communities in their activities, others have done nothing. One must, therefore, ask whether involving people in governing matters is a priority for political office bearers.
With this background in mind, the seven-year term of the chairperson of the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) is ending in April this year. The IEC is established under the Constitution, with the objective of supporting democracy. The IEC reports to Parliament which, in turn, conducts oversight of what the IEC has done to fulfil its mandate against the funds it has been given.
The Electoral Act of 1998 provides that commissioners be appointed by a panel consisting of the Office of the Chief Justice, Office of the Public Protector, the Human Rights Commission and the Commission for Gender Equality. The chief justice chairs the panel that must recommend no less than eight names to Parliament’s portfolio committee on home affairs.
The committee will deliberate and nominate candidates from the list in a report to the National Assembly. Once the NA has adopted the report, it will be referred to the president who will appoint the commissioner.
In response to a call for the public to have more time to nominate candidates for the position, the acting chief justice extended the deadline for nominations from February 18 to today, Friday, February 25.
It is possible that at the heart of the call for extension of the deadline, is the concern over “cadre deployment”. Particularly, as the majority party in Parliament will ultimately decide which candidate will be nominated and be referred to the president. There is no exact definition for the term.
However, from the narrative in the media, one could safely say that cadre deployment involves someone who will either participate in or turn a blind eye to malfeasance and corruption, such as has been reported in the Judicial Commission on Inquiry into State Capture Report: Part One and Two.
But corruption and malfeasance also occur in the business sector. Remember Markus Jooste who secretly enriched himself? He eventually admitted to accounting irregularities which led to Steinhoff’s stock tumbling to more than 90% and a loss of more than R200 billion. It is regarded as one of the biggest fraud cases in South Africa.
Advocate Thuli Madonsela was also regarded as cadre deployment. She followed her convictions amid serious pressure and opposition. Convictions that were probably based on her values and interpretation of her party’s policies.
There is, therefore, nothing wrong with deploying a member of a political party that will serve the people of the country through implementing party policies. It is common practice for business and political parties to appoint people who sympathise with a particular cause or vision. The recent interviews of judges for the position of chief justice are an example.
The questions, although in some instances inappropriate, were aimed at ascertaining what the views of the judges were on pro-poor, pro-business, and pro-transformation policies. This is a usual practice in every sector.
Cadre deployment is not the issue to be addressed but rather who is appointed in the position. Is the person going to enrich themselves at the expense of the state? What values do this person hold? What are their views on democracy and its principles? Will that person defend South Africa’s democracy?
The right person must be appointed to ensure that South Africa’s democracy is enhanced by implementing the IEC mandate. The Electoral Act of 1996 provides that the IEC must: monitor party funding, distribute funds to parties, educate society about voting and soon ensure that the electoral system accommodate independent candidates who wish to contest the provincial and national elections in 2024.
The IEC has been criticised about how it handled its recommendation to extend the 2021 local government elections. Many believed the outgoing commissioner should have followed a different route rather than acting autonomously.
The extended deadline is therefore welcomed as it will create an opportunity to create more awareness of the end of term of the commissioner. Allowing citizens and interest groups to keep a watchful eye on the process, the candidates nominated and eventually appointed. It will also allow more time for citizens who are interested to participate in the process.
* Zelna Jansen is a lawyer. She is CEO of Zelna Jansen Consultancy.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of IOL and Independent Media.