MARIUS ROODT AND TERENCE CORRIGAN: Getting ‘serious’ beyond the electoral system

Jonny Steinberg lamented in his most recent column that SA’s electoral system is one in which small minorities are seduced by “deeply unserious people” (“SA’s electoral system enables the crazies to bloom,” March 8). This is a serious matter indeed, and requires more reflective analysis than the “deeply unserious” rendering he gave it. 

In common with many other observers Steinberg criticises the deficiencies of the existing system. His concern — a recurrent theme in his writing — is the danger posed by small, extremist parties. In his latest column he attributes this threat to the proportional representation (PR) system, coupled with low entry thresholds.

The avatar of this at present is the MK Party, which polling suggests could take about 5% of the vote, if not more. This rather undermines Steinberg’s argument: 5% is a significant slice of the vote and denotes considerable appeal. (In fact, in no election since 1994 have more than four parties been able to reach this level nationally in a single election.)

We doubt Steinberg would disagree with our contention that the EFF represents a similar sinister extremism, and it made its parliamentary debut in 2014 with 6.4% of the total. In other words, it is simply not the case that extremists are infiltrating SA’s political institutions because of low-threshold PR.

Exponents of extreme agendas and people with tainted pasts have been able to muster sizeable followings that would most likely have exceeded even a relatively high threshold, such as the 5% that prevails in Germany — and this is a country that deliberately set this limit as a means of keeping extremists out.

Interestingly, Steinberg has been lukewarm about constituency-based systems. He wrote in 2021 that “bringing structures of representation closer to the ground does not necessarily make them more democratic. It could just as easily promote a distasteful politics few people want”, (“Constituency voting could spawn even uglier politics,” June 3 2021). 

Steinberg also writes that a first-past-the-post two-party system would serve to temper the “crazies”, as parties would have to serve the interests of as many people as possible. But there are first-past-the-post systems where this is not true. In India, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a Hindu nationalist outfit, now enjoys comfortable majorities in the Lok Sabha, the Indian parliament, and seems set to secure a relatively easy win in that country’s elections, also scheduled for 2024. The BJP is openly hostile to the interests of religious minorities in India, particularly Muslims. 

The US is similar. Given how difficult it is for third parties to get onto the ballot in that country it is a de facto two-party state, but that has not stopped the rise of extremism in the US, particularly among Republican Party devotees. The Democratic Party has not been immune either, with both parties now having large proportions of supporters who could charitably be described as “unserious”. 

What Steinberg seems to yearn for is mature, sensible politics and the honest, developmental government that would flow from that. This is understandable, even commendable. But perhaps he conflates this with the idea of democracy, for it is part of the democratic bargain that outcomes are inherently unpredictable, and that people empowered to make choices about their destinies can make poor choices. In fact, sizeable numbers may well want that brand of “distasteful” politics more eagerly than Steinberg (or we) would like to recognise. 

Nor is it necessarily the fault of the electoral system that the “serious new parties led by substantial people offering sophisticated policy agendas” may fail to gain the traction they would hope for. On the contrary, it is highly likely that some of these newcomers will at least secure some representation, precisely because of the electoral system. To understand why they may not have the effect they hope to would require looking elsewhere. For instance, Change Starts Now was flawed by what we can only describe as a general naivete in believing that a credible challenge could be mounted in the constrained time frame that it allotted itself. The electoral system played little role here. 

Yes, mechanisms such as thresholds can be instituted to limit the prospects of fringe groups, incentives such as requirements for special majorities in particular circumstances can encourage compromise and coalition building, and legal barriers may even exclude particularly tainted ideological tendencies, or individuals convicted of crimes. But none of these is foolproof, nor would any of them — on their own or in combination — guarantee the outcome Steinberg seeks. 

Democracy does not imply competent or stable government, and although it is a tool that can be used to foster it, it is not always an effective tool for this. When it comes down to it, a change in political culture capable of putting SA on a path of consistent and sustainable economic growth is the only way to tackle the evils of poverty and unemployment.

The rise of parties that are little more than personality cults, such as the MK Party, or that continue to offer outdated solutions to our problems such as the EFF, will mean this country will continue to languish as a low-growth also-ran. 

Whether SA succeeds or fails will not be the fault of the country’s electoral system. It will depend on the country’s voters and the political parties they support — and how genuinely serious they are about succeeding. 

• Roodt is writer and senior researcher, and Corrigan publications and project manager, at the Institute of Race Relations.