Ballots, not blood

by Editor · October 29, 2008

For South Africa�s young democracy, the split in the African National Congress represents a major test for the country�s capacity of tolerating political challenges. Our democracy may well be energised by the emergence of a potent electoral alternative to the ANC, which in 2004 received almost 70% of the vote. A properly functioning democracy by necessity demands viable electoral competition, which hitherto has been absent in post-apartheid South Africa (and, indeed, during most of the apartheid era). While the breakaway party may not yet constitute a functional challenge to an ANC majority, it will surely cut into the ruling party�s hegemony. This should be welcomed even among those democrats inclined to sympathise with the ANC-led alliance.

Yet, Cardinal Wilfrid Napier�s concern that the break in the ANC could lead to political violence (as we reported last week) is vigilant. By pledging to �kill for Zuma� and by using improper and inflammatory rhetoric, such as references to �counter-revolutionaries�, some leaders in the tripartite alliance � and not only ANC Youth League president Julius Malema � have created a climate which may well lead to violent conflict between erstwhile comrades. There is cause for such concern when political thugs assault even members of minority parties, as happened in Mogoba informal settlement near Johannesburg in late October.

The leaders of all political parties and movements have an immutable obligation to the nation to ensure that factional differences find no expression in violence. In particular, it would be timely if the man for whom people have promised to kill and die, ANC president Jacob Zuma, would deliver sustained and unambiguous instructions to his supporters that no act of political violence is licit or tolerable. Preferably such an injunction would be backed by the threat of disciplinary action. Likewise, the leaders of the new post-ANC party would be well advised to counsel restraint among those of their supporters disposed towards agitation. Anything less will represent a moral and political failure.

We must expect a robust election campaign. Few contests are less forgiving than those between estranged siblings. Our democracy will face its biggest challenge yet: can the ANC-led alliance and its opposition fight their battles at grassroots by constitutional means?

The electorate, meanwhile, will now have a wider choice of parties in the ballot. Civil society and its leaders, including the Church, must encourage all eligible citizens to exercise their democratic obligation to vote responsibly. One may hope that Archbishop Desmond Tutu, an icon in South Africa�s struggle for democracy, peace and justice, will reconsider his declaration, made in October, that he might abstain from the polls at the next national election. Disillusion with the representatives in the ballot is no good reason to boycott an election. Discontent can be expressed in several ways.

One such method is tactical voting, for example by casting a ballot for marginal parties to diminish the percentage of votes received by the majority party. Another means of showing electoral frustration is to spoil one�s ballot. While 1,5% of spoilt ballots can be attributed to coincidental error, 5% of spoilt votes would send those who seek to represent us a strong message of rejection, communicating that many South Africans don�t regard any of the parties as qualified to represent them.

Collectively, our votes are powerful. And it is the power of the ballot box that must reign supreme over any impulses the agents or supporters of political parties may entertain of solving their differences by non-constitutional means.