Disconnected Dimensions

During Parliamentary question time on Thursday 1^st September, Cyril Ramaphosa referred to South Africa as having a Multi-Dimensional Democracy. I have no idea of his intended meaning when he said this, but here is my very abstract and esoteric interpretation.

The First Dimension is the Presidential Parallel Universe, or PPU. This dimension has primary, sycophantic, captured, and resisting elements. These are rounded out with a chaotic element that results from interactions between the aforementioned primary, sycophantic, captured and resisting elements.

Understanding the driving force behind the primary element is essential, so:

“Imagine, if you can, not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do.  Imagine having no struggles with shame, not a single one, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken.  And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools.  You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are seldom confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness.  Best of all, you create situations that cause others to feel bad about themselves.  Most invigorating of all is to bring down people who are smarter or more accomplished than you, or perhaps classier, or more morally admirable.  This is not only good fun; it is existential vengeance.  And without a conscience, it is amazingly easy to do. Provided you are not stopped, you can do anything at all.   In fact, if you do it just right, you may be able to make a whole nation jump.  And if that is not power, what is”[1] (ie Nenegate; Nkhandla; Hawks; NPA etc etc etc?)

A sycophantic element has no capacity for original thought and is essentially parasitic in nature. While this element fuels the basic needs of a primary element, which feeds it with scraps in return, it is a fundamentally symbiotic relationship, without which neither element could survive. (ie Constitutional Court Judgement; Impeachment?)

A captured element functions in basically the same way as a sycophantic element, but at a generally higher level for higher reward. A captured element is also required to protect the primary element by occasionally exposing itself to attacks from other Dimensions, or make efforts to pre-empt such attacks. (ie Shaun Abrahams; Des van Rooyen; Nkosinathi Nhleko; Thulas Nxesi; Mozebenzi Zwane; Charles Nqakula et al?)  A captured element will also be sacrificed by the primary element if deemed necessary to the advancement of its cause.

A resisting element pushes back against the destructive appetites of the other elements, and tries to bring balance to an otherwise unbalanced situation. While courageous, these elements presently lack sufficient power to bring about real change in the PPU dimension. (ie Nhlanhla Nene; Pravin Gordhan, Thuli Madonsela, Mogoeng Mogoeng?)

The common element across all dimensions is the chaotic element. As the creator of this element the PPU exerts the most influence on it, although once fully unleashed there is no telling who the casualties will be.

The Second Dimension is the Luthuli House Dimension, or LHD, which until recently was the ultimate controller of all other dimensions. LHD’s integrity, gender, youth, and collective decision elements have been cannibalised by the Presidential Parallel Universe, which has reduced LHD’s  function to being merely a mirror of the PPU.

The Third Dimension is the Impotent Opposition Dimension, or IOD. This dimension has a multiplicity of elements including “the ideologically incoherent coalitions of the power-hungry, the forgotten, the almost forgotten, the preferably forgotten, the far right, the rearguard and the downright loony”.[2]

The IOD dimension is conjoined with the PPU through a common chaotic element, to which they add their own chaotic contribution, resulting in increasing occasions of rejection and ejection in the Third Dimension, known as the Parliamentary Dimension. The Parliamentary Dimension is generally inconsequential, and is of only occasional entertainment value.

The Fourth Dimension is the Constitutional Dimension, or CD. This dimension has many of the most important elements of all. The ConCourt, PProtector, and HighCourt elements are primary agents in curbing the excesses of the Presidential Parallel Universe through application and dedication.  Without constant support from these elements, the IOD would not only be impotent, it would be irrelevant.

Unfortunately, these vital CD elements are also shackled by the NPA and Hawks elements which are disinclined to participate in reining in the Presidential Parallel Universe, thereby adding further fuel to the chaotic element. It also eliminates the only avenues that can actively enforce the removal of cancerous elements in the PPU. Without an ability to enforce such removal, the fight here is restricted to damage limitation.

The Fifth, and our very own Dimension, by far the largest but presently the least influential, is the multi-level Citizens and Residents Dimension, or CaRD. Sub-divisions are the RaceCaRD, GenderCaRD, and the LGBTCaRD, all of which involve disharmony, which directly contributes towards our lack of influence. Each of these sub-divisions is stoked by a mainstream media element that sometimes deliberately fans the flames of disharmony, to further fuel the chaotic element, under the guise of legitimate reporting.(ie Gupta Media; SABC?). But the biggest contributor to the chaotic element by a country mile is the social media element, together with its comments component. These allow mass and unfettered access to the blame game: whites blaming blacks, blacks blaming whites; socialists blaming capitalists and vice versa; unions blaming business, business blaming BEE; schoolgirls blaming schools; parents blaming teachers; the list goes on ad nauseum.

In this arena, the RaceCaRD predominates, with the most vociferous commentators generally hiding behind a wall of anonymity. All of this plays directly into the hands of the Presidential Parallel Universe, for while the Fifth Dimension is divided the primary element will continue to rule unchallenged.

What is also apparent from this interpretation is that there are really only two dimensions to our democracy, the Presidential Parallel Universe and Constitutional Dimension. All other dimensions are inconsequential and irrelevant.

With this in mind, in our darkest hour since 1994, are we selling out if those who stand with us are black not white or vice versa?  Should we care whether they are male or female?  Is it relevant or important that they have a different sexual orientation to us, or us to them?  If you can answer an emphatic No! to all  of the above, then we have some hope of getting somewhere.

Only together, by putting aside all prejudices, can we collectively understand how our much-vaunted Constitution allows a Presidential Parallel Universe to come into existence in the first place, and then be allowed to flourish without any practical mechanism to stop it. Armed with this understanding, we can organise ourselves to stand up against the divisive and destructive tactics of the PPU and make sure that it never happens again.

In the words of our own Dimension’s namesake 1960’s band[3], we need to work with harmony and understanding, together with an abundance of sympathy and trust. Can we do it, if only for the sake of our girl-child’s future? The answer is that we must, before we are all reduced to the singularity of the Presidential Parallel Universe.

---

[1] Extracted from: “The Sociopath Next Door: The Ruthless vs. The Rest of Us” by Martha Stout Ph.D

[2] ANC has hit self-destruct button. Who will survive? David Everatt, Biznews August 30^th 2016

[3]Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In lyrics

Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revelation
And the mind's true liberation. 

Let the sunshine in – The Fifth Dimension (1969)

Disproportional Coalitions

Standing back from the political brouhaha surrounding coalitions, where the smaller alliance parties are extolling the virtues of Proportional Representation, and expounding that this is the way our democracy should work, there is something not quite right lurking in the background. Having lived through a 2006 fickle marriage between the DA and ID in George, Western Cape, I find it hard to be enthusiastic about coalition politics. And George was only a bipartisan coalition, not the multi-party entanglement that we face today. Call me cynical, but I have become highly sceptical of a “working democracy” that gives seats at the high-table, with all its trappings, to otherwise insignificant participants.

Do you think that’s a little harsh? It really isn’t if you look at what the current alliance partners of the DA bring to that high-table. At the very bottom is the ACDP who attracted 0.42% of votes nationally, followed by Cope with 0.44%. The IFP come in with a healthy 4.25% until you take out KZN, whereupon their contribution to the results for the rest of the country drops to 0.25%. The UDM chips in with 0.56% and the VF+ rounds everything off with 0.77% of the national vote.

Add it all up and they have a combined total, excluding the regional anomaly of KZN, of around 2.36% of the almost 30 million Ward & PR votes cast in these elections.  For this they are now puffed up with their own importance, and are no doubt being rewarded with Mayoral Committee positions in DA-controlled municipalities across the country, whether they are needed to resolve a hung council or not.

I do, however, wholeheartedly support the stance of Bantu Holomisa of the UDM that local government needs to be de-politicised. What became abundantly clear again in 2016, is that a nanosecond after voting stations closed, politicians were already dividing up the spoils of our votes. We, whether DA, ANC or EFF et al, were consigned to looking on helplessly, crossing our fingers in the faint hope that our party wouldn’t sell out solely for the sake of power.

Municipalities that had a clear majority party were prevented from constituting themselves while “national party leaders” negotiated how much of their supporter’s mandate they were going to give away for the sake of grabbing power somewhere else. Party politics had already kicked in, and constituency responsibility and accountability already kicked out.

In my opinion, Gwede Mantashe is correct when he says that there is something wrong with the Proportional Representation system used for local government elections.  He is incorrect, however, in attributing the ANC’s failure at the polls to the system’s alleged inbuilt bias towards “smaller parties”. In fact, the reverse is more likely to be true if you follow the discourse below. What is really wrong with the system is that it puts too much power in the hands of political party leadership, and not enough in the hands of their constituents.

The ANC’s singular problem in 2016 was a fundamental numbers game that revolves around voter turnout, or in their case the lack thereof. In this, they have no-one to blame but themselves for their dismal performance.

Be that as it may, there remain some issues with our PR electoral system that primarily lie in the IEC’s interpretation of the constitutional intent of the system, as well as their method of calculating seat allocations.

Starting with constitutional intent, it is hard to believe that the authors of our constitution intended for political parties to field a single candidate in a multitude of wards as a means to cheat the system.  A candidate can only represent one ward, so to stand in more than one is effectively turning Ward votes in the additional Wards into a second PR vote.  We all know that we only get one Ward and one PR ballot, so why are political parties allowed to subvert Ward votes in additional Wards into what can only be described as illegitimate PR votes?  It has been said by the IEC and one or two political commentators that this is an acceptable political strategy, but for a number of reasons I disagree:

1. It is a patently duplicitous and unethical practice. To tolerate it because “that’s politics” is admitting to accepting a much lower standard of behaviour from politicians than applied to ordinary citizens. If we are ever going to achieve clean governance, then politicians must be held to a much higher ethical standard than is currently applied.

2. Accepting that a candidate can only represent one ward, they become merely “phantom” candidates in all other Wards in which they stand. Aside from each Ward vote being an undisguised additional PR vote, every phantom Ward vote received is disadvantaging legitimate candidates by taking “viable alternative” votes out of the Ward voter pool.  This is particularly true for Independent candidates and non-list political parties, who rely solely on the Ward votes they receive, and cannot afford to have phantom candidates eating into the total votes available.

3. If a candidate standing in multiple Wards happens to win more than one Ward, can you believe that they get to choose which Ward they want to represent? (and I always thought we were supposed to be choosing them!). The rejected Wards then have to hold by-elections at additional expense to taxpayers. While this situation may not yet have actually occurred, the principle itself is fatally flawed. Something that is unquestionably wrong cannot be allowed to continue simply because it has not yet happened.

4. It has also been said that the large jump in the number of political parties contesting these elections (47% higher than 2011) indicates a vibrant democracy, where more and more people who are dissatisfied with the main parties are forming their own organisations. I am more inclined to believe that this sharp rise is primarily due to more people recognising that if they register a political party, they can exploit this multiple Ward candidacy loophole, which significantly improves their chances of taking a place at the public trough. Without a system change, I anticipate that as others catch on, we will see a further sharp rise in the number of registered political parties.

Moving on to the seat allocation calculation, it is actually simpler than the IEC would have us believe yet it is also, in my opinion, procedurally suspect:

• · The total number of valid Ward and PR votes cast in a municipality, excluding the Ward votes for Independent candidates, is added together. This number is divided by the total number of seats available, less any Ward seats won by Independent and non-list candidates. The result is a “quota” of votes needed for a party to be allocated a seat. The total number of Ward and PR votes obtained by each party is then divided by the “quota” to determine the total number of seats that each party is entitled to.  The number of Wards that a party wins outright is subtracted from this determination, and the balance is awarded to the party as PR seats.

There are a number of issues relating to this that need exploring:

1. Ward votes are used to determine who the outright winner of a council seat on a first-past-the-post basis is. Yet these votes are used again in the calculation of PR seats, which significantly raises the winning party’s chances of obtaining additional seats. The only explanation I have seen published for including these votes in the PR calculation is that this ensures that Ward votes for losing candidates are not “wasted” through omission. The problem with this confused logic is that the Ward vote differential between winning and losing candidates remains constant, so will have no real impact by being added to the PR vote. If anything, smaller parties are disadvantaged by this method of calculation as their PR votes are typically higher than their Ward votes. Theoretically, a small party could have more PR votes than any of the larger parties, yet lose out on a PR seat because the calculation has been loaded against them by the inclusion of bigger parties Ward votes.

2. Then again, why use a separate PR ballot at all?  The numbers bear out that a political party will generally receive both their candidate’s Ward vote, and the party-based PR vote from their supporters. This holds true in around 99% of cases, so we could save a lot of expense by just totalling the number of Ward votes received by a party across the whole municipality, and using this to calculate their proportional support without the need for a separate PR ballot.

3. Another question that begs to be asked is why Independent candidates are excluded from the PR seat allocation process? It is true that they cannot earn PR votes, but if the IEC insists on including Ward votes in the seat allocation calculation, why not include Independent candidate’s votes as well?  There are a number of instances where Independent candidates, while losing their Ward challenge, may have received enough votes to otherwise qualify for a PR seat. This is particularly relevant if the single candidate/multiple Ward loophole is eliminated from the political landscape. Had this been the case in 2016, at least one Independent candidate in Johannesburg would have qualified for a PR seat. And why should an Independent candidate not serve in a PR capacity if they attract sufficient votes? After all, we are told that local government should be about inclusivity and diversity, are we not?

Based on the above, our 2016 local government elections were free, but whether they were completely fair is open to debate.  What is certain, though, is that something has to change in the system. We need better control over political party manipulation of electoral outcomes, and to push more firmly towards constituency accountability. We cannot continue to have a party’s national leadership involved in micro-managing local affairs by dictating who local coalition partners will be, and who gets rewarded with an office-bearer position.  We need the best people running our municipalities regardless of their political affiliation, not disproportional representatives appointed for political expediency.

I don’t purport to have all the answers, or any answers at all for that matter, but there are one or two simple principles that might bring a better balance to the constituency/party accountability debate.

First and foremost, electoral legislation must mandate that a Ward candidate lives in the Ward they are contesting.  If they win the Ward and subsequently move to another area, then a by-election must be held. This will put pressure on the elected councillor to work in the best interests of constituents, without the option of being “redeployed” elsewhere by the party. It will also automatically deal with the single candidate/multiple Ward loophole as a candidate cannot live in more than one place at a time, which itself should encourage a reduction in the number of registered “parties” to manageable levels.

Dispensing with a separate PR ballot, and using the sum of Ward votes alone to determine overall proportional support, will level the playing field for Independent candidates and non-list political parties, who can then also participate in the proportional allocation of council seats.

I am sure there are many ideas out there that will contribute towards improving the system. These ideas must be brought into the light of day before politicians, in particular ANC politicians, concoct an electoral system change that will further erode our requirement for more, not less, constituency accountability.