Lessons for SA? US, Britain used ‘X’ to keep political parties in check
The British political landscape has been flipped on its head, while the United States is expecting new leadership come November. But what is it about these transitions that has caught Cape Messenger editor Donwald Pressly's attention? He says both systems show where political accountability work. And he's hoping South Africa takes a few leaves out of their electoral books come August. – Stuart Lowman
By Donwald Pressly*
Notice how seamlessly the elites in the British governing party have changed since the Brexit vote. Theresa May, now the Prime Minister, was not viewed as a front-runner for the leadership prior to that vote. But that vote changed it all.
For a moment most thought the new Prime Minister would be the playboy Boris Johnson, the former London Mayor (who has now emerged as Foreign Secretary). But a combination of disloyal friends – in particular Justice Secretary Michael Gove – and lack of preparation, one supposes, for actually winning the Brexit vote, saw him sidelined. Suddenly there were two women front-runners – May and Andrea Leadsom, who polled strongly initially within the Conservative Party caucus.
It was quite clear that if David Cameron, the incumbent Prime Minister, lost Brexit, he would be political toast. To his credit he bailed out, but curiously the job has gone to another "Remainer" in the European Union, May. Perhaps she wasn't outspoken enough about her stance, thus not blotting her copy book as Cameron did. But her government, nevertheless, has to manage the transition out of Europe.
In the United States we could have the first woman, Hillary Clinton, winning the presidency in November. It could, of course, go to Donald Trump, as unimaginable as that may seem to people who dislike playboy politicians. What is important is that both in Britain and the United States one sees regular changes in the political guard. In the US, a president can only serve two consecutive terms. In the UK, it is rare for any Prime Minister to serve more than two terms – and although it is permitted by law, the British voter has the knack of removing people in high office when it is perceived they have been there too long. One only has to think of Winston Churchill after the war and Margaret Thatcher in 1990. Both were formidable politicians – some would suggest they were, in fact, political tornadoes who changed the currents of British politics – but the electorate (or at least representatives of the electorate) decided that just too long in high office was just too much for them.
In the UK and the US, the electorates – at least a portion of the voters – swing from one political party to another quite regularly. This is what makes them good – and politically accountable and flexible – democracies.
Here in South Africa, thank heavens, a two-term limit was also placed on the presidency. We can be grateful that was written into the constitution. Otherwise we would be headed for a third term of President Jacob Zuma. What we have NOT witnessed is any likelihood of an opposition party displacing the ruling party. The ANC has ruled for 22 years and the apartheid National Party ruled for 46 years before that.
We need to encourage the electorate in South Africa to vote tactically so that any political party doesn't feel that it is in office by birthright. We need to wash away political entitlement. If that means voting for a party which is not our first choice, that surely is the way to go? If that means that the party one supports has grown arrogant in power, it should translate into a voter backlash.
Perhaps South Africa will get a taste of it in the August 3 municipal poll, but what we are unlikely to see is a seamless change in the national leadership of the ruling ANC, something which is surely exactly what the political doctor is ordering. At best we will likely only see a few mayors around the country toppled instead. That will, of course, be a good start, nevertheless!
- Donwald Pressly, Editor Cape Messenger