Legislative processes must have public representation

There is much to like about Parliament’s proposals to beef up scrutiny for new members as it plans to introduce ramped-up screening measures to test the suitability of candidates nominated by political parties to be MPs throughout the five-year term of office as a supplementary measure to the six-day window period for public objections overseen by the Electoral Commission before elections.

The Electoral Act sets out procedures for political parties to submit candidate lists to the Electoral Commission before an election and the commission invites public objections to any of the candidates during a six-day window period.

The problem is that after the commission declares election results and submits the vetted lists to the legislative bodies, there is no public mechanism to screen substitution candidates by political parties.

Yet, public complaints increasingly highlight a rapidly growing number of unsuitable candidates and frustrations about the unavailability of a legal pathway to object to the candidates.

Although the legislative measures supporting that vigilance have, until now, held out, there are increasing public concerns about existing loopholes. As matters stand, the law allows parties to review the names on their candidate lists. For a year after an election, party lists may not change – except in one way: a party may supplement its lists if a vacancy has occurred and the appropriate list of candidates concerned is depleted.

The last two decades have seen a growing public vigilance in the screening of candidates for legislative bodies, positively resulting in political parties dropping names of candidates implicated in corruption, maladministration of public funds, and criminal conduct.

Opening additional public objection windows, and subjecting all candidates to public scrutiny is an attractive prospect that will add more tools to the toolbox to deal with cases such as the recent decisions by the MK Party (MKP) to supplement its list of MPs after firing a string of already sworn-in legislators.

Some people feel the MKP has circumvented the law to accommodate controversial figures. These concerns are mobilising a broad agreement that the Electoral Act must adapt to survive.

The MKP’s national list to the commission ahead of the elections comprised 199 names. In court papers filed in July in its case over Parliament’s decision to send the MKP’s MP John Hlophe to the Judicial Services Commission, the DA said that after the election, seven of the members of the MKP who would have received seats either resigned or were expelled. In addition, 162 members on MKP’s list who would have occupied seats in the National Assembly were unavailable to do so.

The acceptability of public representatives extends beyond the narrow political interests of political parties and voters. As such, Parliament’s approach to the public realm of the role of MPs has wider significance.

Members of the legislative bodies serve not only political party members.

They serve all citizens regardless of age or active participation in voting, including the disenfranchised citizens and children, because following an election, there must be a government for all and not only those who voted for the parties represented in the legislative bodies.

An urgent legislative amendment, to promote transparency and accountability, can increase public confidence and participation in electoral politics, and has implications for other aspects of our democracy.

Instances of objectionable candidates have not been rampant in the past, but the signs have been there.

In 2017, former Eskom CEO Brian Molefe was sworn in as an ANC MP after Parliament announced his party’s nomination to fill a vacancy on the North West list of ANC MPs, which had been depleted. However, some in the party who noted a lack of scrutiny questioned his sudden ascendancy in the ANC in that province.

Seven years later, Molefe and others implicated in State capture took up seats in Parliament under the banner of the MKP last month despite not having been on the party’s original list.

The party also brought in impeached former Western Cape judge president John Hlophe as its parliamentary leader, even though his name did not feature on the original list published by the IEC.

When it expelled its MPs to make way for the group, the MKP said that in the run-up to the elections, its candidate’s list had been “compromised by saboteurs” who had populated the Electoral Commission’s system with a list of their friends, family members and neighbours.

This makes the absence of an open public objection window throughout the five-year term even more troubling. As the public, we should be dismayed that our work of scrutinising candidate lists ahead of the elections, including our submissions of extensive objections to political parties and the voters during the election campaigns, looks set to be binned.

The legislative amendment process must be ambitious and participatory by putting the needs of the citizens before those of the political elite.

The representative nature of our parliamentarians in terms of gender, age and race is an envy of the world, and its ability to inspire change is much loved, as seen in the election outcomes that emphasise co-operation of champions of diverse political views above a single party dominant political landscape.

More public input on the suitability of candidates could enhance the mood further. Other countries topping the list of the corruption index have shown that such public accountability measures can work.

Opponents of centralised and unchecked nomination of candidates have their reasons – including the political stability in our democracy that they want to preserve.

Public representation in legislative bodies requires careful management, particularly in our age of corruption and patronage. So far, there is little detail about internal party processes that produce the candidates who end up in public office, or how the parties will be held accountable for unethical conduct in the longer term.

We should improve the suitability of our public representatives to hold office. As the body representing the people, Parliament has a strong mandate to oversee this. But to do it successfully it must involve the citizens in the legislative amendment and the subsequent implementation processes.

Nyembezi is a policy analyst, researcher and human rights activist.

Cape Times