Limitations of Proportional Representatives System (PRS) 1. “Democratic Deficit” in the PR System

5. Findings: Elections as the Bedrock for Democracy

5.2. Limitations of Proportional Representatives System (PRS) 1. “Democratic Deficit” in the PR System

110

In addition, elected officials occupy a central and decisive position in the local polity because they are strategically position to set the boundaries of acceptable policies during their administration.

5.2.Limitations of Proportional Representatives System (PRS)

111

relating to the ability of elections to hold government accountable in which Schulz-Herzenberg (2009: 23) points out that when parties cease to ‘fear the ballot box’ they are likely to become unresponsive and ideologically entrenched. Thus Hamill (2004: 702) advances this debate by saying that an extended and uncontested period in power can engender complacency, arrogance and corruption in the incumbent party.

5.2.3. Distancing People from the Act of Governing

Democracy by its very nature is the government by the people for the people. This statement underlies the process of democratizing democracy in favor of the governed.

Proportional electoral system has the potential of alienating and distancing the electorates once the elections are over. Through this system, people have no upper hand in electing candidates whom they know and can trust but are systematically subjected to the political party who are to compile a candidate list. More often, the system reduces people to be electioneering stooges who are conditioned to partake actively during the electoral campaigns and the actual elections.

Once the elections are over, people for various reasons are treated as subjects whose intelligence is not adequate enough to direct the local government affairs. Despite all election promises, the post-election period is characterized by lack of transparency and accountability especially to those elected into office. The myth that the elected will act on people behalf rapidly disappears and the state of “lulla moment” is accompanied by the culture of entitlement and corruption. This situation is also attributed by people’s compliance and over-trusting their elected representatives without demanding transparency and accountability. Goss (2001: 57) highlighted this dilemma by stating that:

“People inside local government and other public agencies have often done their best to meet local needs, but have been imprisoned within ways of looking at and understanding the world that seal them off from the experiences, understanding and perceptions of the people they serve”.

In the case of South Africa, it could be argued that the adoption of this electoral has in one way failed the people and render them a peripheral status. Various institutions have been established since 1994 such as the Public Protector, the Human Rights Commission, the Commission for Gender Equality, etc. (de Villiers, 2001: 65-66). These institutions have a common purpose of defending democracy and protect the rights of citizens; unfortunately such structures have failed the poor and the economically less privileged. Consequently, ordinary people have decided to utilize “informal oversight structures” primarily for the purposes of ensuring social justice prevail and democracy is defended. The term ‘informal oversight structures’ is used here to refer to the numerous and varied community structures that spontaneously spring up to address a perceived problem in the handling of public services and the distribution of public resources. Mubangizi & Tshishonga (2013: 310) argue that in South Africa, these “informal oversight structures” manifest themselves in what has come to be called “public service delivery protests”. They come under many names including concerned youth groups, concerned citizens’

groups and shack dwellers associations, to mention but a few. While these spontaneous groups may have varied reasons for formation, Alexander (2010: 30) cites poor services (such as inadequate roads, dirty water supply, and insufficient sports facilities) and pitiable local

112

government (including nepotism, lack of transparency and indifferent, incompetent, and contemptuous officials) as the primary points of concern. What is clear is that service delivery protests are principally about the lack of basic services and inadequate local administration, and that communities see these protests as a means of gaining the attention of the media, the politicians and the bureaucrats. They are able to attract attention because they deploy such tactics as the use of stay-always and barricades with flaming tyres, destruction of private and public property and the intimidation of non-sympathetic community members Mubangizi &

Tshishonga (2013). While informal and often (unfortunately) violent, such processes act as a form of oversight since they generally succeed in spurring officials and politicians alike into action and induce them to act with caution in future.

5.2.4. Creating Dependent Citizens

Central to free and fair elections within the representative democracy is the activation of active and responsible citizenship. South Africa has just emerged from the regime which was decisive in partitioning people into first and second citizens. Various policies were introduced during the colonial and apartheid eras and central to all was to relegate blacks (including Africans, Indians and Coloreds) as second citizens while their white counterparts enjoy the privileges of being the first citizens of the Republic of South Africa. With the introduction of the Homeland System, black people were forced to relinquish the South African citizenship and take the homeland citizenship which was based on race and ethnic categorization. In the new Homeland arrangement, ethic grouping such as Vendas, Shangaans, Pedis, Xhosas, Zulus, Ndebeles, Southern and Northern Sothos saw themselves being degraded to assume their new identity according to their respective ethnic inclinations (Tapscott, 1997). The negative implications for this arrangement were it saw divisions among different ethnic groupings and both race and ethnic groupings became the vehicle through which resources were allocated.

Even in the democratic dispensation, the unequal and skewered field created by apartheid still haunts the new regime and its bureaucrats as to how to democratic South Africa so that all its people could enjoy equal rights irrespective of race, gender and ethnic affiliation. The adoption of proportional representation did not only create dependency on the local state for goods and services but also contributed to the dependent and irresponsible citizenship. Mthombothi (2014:

21) alludes to the fact that:

“Voters came to see voting not as a civic duty, but as quid pro quo. They vote to get something in return, be it a social grant or a ‘free’ house. And so, when the party fails to keep its part of the bargain, the response is often a refusal to vote. It does not occur to the voter that perhaps the more effective way of punishing the guilty party is not to abstain, but to vote for another party”.

At local government level, the dependency syndrome is a result from the emerging culture of entitlement which is also perpetuated by the occupation of political office through cadre deployment policy of the ANC. UNDP (2000: 80) poses that if those who have been historically excluded are to claim the benefits of citizenship and meet their responsibilities, much more public education and capacity building of the poorest will be needed.

113

5.2.5. Engendering Mistrust to Local Government

Fundamental to the well-functioning of local government is the trust established between the citizens and this local sphere of polity. In politic trust is a reciprocal process that is underpinned by social contract binding to both the local state and citizens. Fox & Meyer (1996:

120) defines social contract theory as a theory of government that states that the justification and origin of the state is based upon a contractual agreement amongst members of a society. For Selbourne (1994) social contract is a glue that holds societies together. Knight, et al. (2002: 1) designates social contract as:

“A tacit agreement under which citizens contribute their thinking to the government’s decisions and take some responsibility for those decisions once they are made,, the social contract has underpinned the development of democracy”.

At local government level, such a contract in entered into for the purpose of promoting the common good especially for the needy and downtrodden. In the South African local government context, social contract is be based on the interface of governance and citizenship. On one hand, governance is understood in this paper as engaging processes that transcend beyond government machinery to embrace private sector and organs of civil society. Broadly, Heywood (2000: 19) associates governance with various ways through which social life is coordinated

…and be taken to include any mechanisms through which ordered rule is maintained, its central features being the ability to make collective decisions and the capacity to enforce them. In governance framework, local government is only one actor among a network of agencies.

According to Rhodes (1997: 15) governance is often carried out through “self-organizing, inter- organizational networks”. Importantly, local governance is understood by Goss (2001: 11) to describe the way these interact at local level. In governance framework, local government is only one actor among a network of agencies. The following comments from citizens are symbolic of the breakdown of communication and relationship.

“Local government through various municipalities are unable to deliver on its promises which render citizens to go on rampant in demand for basic services such as water and sanitation, housing, health facilities” (female citizen).

One of the citizens indicated that:

“Where services are delivered they often extended to those who card carrying members of the ruling party in exclusion of those who belong to other parties or have no political affiliation. In our community this preference has created tensions” (male citizen).

The social contract is broken in most municipalities. Some of the attributing reasons are due to the fact that councilors are far removed from their constituencies while others prefer to migrate to urban areas as their residential areas. Local government is equated to social space in which Thompson and McHugh (1995: 93) argue is an arena of struggle, constituted and divided by opposing interest rather than a centralized and unified political actor. The betrayal of people’s trust to local government has been costly in the sense that it contributed to violent protests coupled by property vandalism and the loss of citizens’ life of people such as Andrew Tatane. In a democratic society the issue of trust plays an important role more particularly in consolidating social contract between the elected representatives and the electorates. Holding regular elections is viewed as the essential and pillar towards the consolidation, solidation and

114

affirmation of democracy (Struwig, et al., 2013: 1122). However, scholars such as Mozafar (2002) argue that it is the electoral integrity and credibility rather than the actual running of the elections that contribute towards the achievement of representative and accountable institutions.

Fundamental to healthy democracy is trust which Atkeson & Saunders (2007: 656) describes as centered on building public trust in the validity of elections and also has the potential to translate into greater conference in the political system as a whole. Although mistrust and diminishing voter participation is a world-wide phenomenon, in South Africa, the declining trust in public institutions, public discontent and hostility especially towards the local sphere of government has multiplied.

5.2.6. Closing the Us-Them Dichotomy

By their very nature elections are capable of creating US-Them dichotomy whereby those elected into the position of power regard themselves as US while the electorates are considered as Them in this political equation. The Us-Them dichotomy has detrimental effects as it has the tendency of undermining the social contract entered into between the elected representatives and the citizenry. On the ground, the phrase Us and Them is often expressed through assertions such as:

“We have voted them into power and now they have deserted us and go live in the suburbs. The frustrations with electoral democracy are that there are times that we enjoy the presence of politicians in our respective communities and homes. That is the time that they are campaigning for our votes, desperate to win our votes for their own benefit, so sweet with cunning tongue but once that is done, the alienation swiftly crop which serves as dividing wall between Us as citizens and Them as our elected representatives”

(male community activist, 2014).

A middle aged female citizen stormed into the community hall where ward committee members were being elected and commented that:

“Elections are a waste of time, because immediately you assume power instead of looking after our needs, you take care of your families and relatives. Power makes politicians drunk to an extent that they forget their own people and the failure to adequately represent our needs has contributed to the loose of trust on them and the parties which they represent”.

Through this dichotomy, desperate citizens have blamed politicians to have political amnesia who once in position of power deliberately forget to serve their constituencies and therefore neglect their duties to be of service to the needs and aspiration of their electorates. This situation has far reaching consequences for the local politicians such as the ward councilors whom without meeting the needs and demands of the communities have been seen being chased from their homes and their houses being burnt down.

Dalam dokumen 3rd SAAPAM LIMPOPO CHAPTER Annual Conference (Halaman 117-121)