From the moment this year’s South African general election was called, through the whole campaign, the main question everyone here was asking was whether the African National Congress (ANC) could extend its 30-year rule.
The party of Nelson Mandela, elected in 1994 on a wave of euphoria and hope, has had its difficult moments – notably during the Zuma years of corruption – but its hold on power had always seemed electorally assured. It had brought liberation and taken South Africa forward.
But it had not taken all of South Africa forward, and had seemed indifferent to the growing clamour for reform, an end to corruption and greater employment opportunities.
Above all there was clamour for far greater attention to be paid to the country’s badly decaying infrastructure, particularly the precarious state of electricity generation. Patchy electricity supply has meant slower industrial growth. This, in turn, has meant falling employment and a decline in many people’s living standards.
A perfect storm had blown in on the ANC’s watch – but the party strategists never thought the ANC would lose power. A smaller majority in parliament perhaps, but still a majority. Instead, although it is still the largest party, it now faces having to form a coalition with one of its smaller rivals.
Commanding a majority in parliament is key under South Africa’s electoral system. MPs are elected from party lists and the percentage of votes each party wins result in the same percentage of MPs in parliament. Parliament then elects a president.
So there is a disconnect between voters and individual MPs, who do not represent individual constituencies – one reason the ANC grew out of touch with voters.
But now the days of a monolithic one-party state are over, replaced by increasing plurality. There are 15 registered political parties in South Africa, most of which contested the election. This can only be good for democracy.
I was in South Africa for the election and, from what I saw and read, the election was free and fair. On election day, there were often lengthy delays, with people reportedly still voting in some areas at 3am on May 30, when polls were meant to close at 9pm on May 29. But everyone who wanted to vote was able to vote. So far, so good.
But the electoral system has some inbuilt issues. Voters had to complete three ballot papers, representing national, provincial and regional elections. This led to some clumsiness in the physical voting process as voters took time to ensure the right ballot paper went into the right box.
Votes were counted on an electronic basis, and there were glitches in ensuring the national counting centre and the local polling stations were always in synch. Given that there were 23,292 polling stations, this is not surprising – but some of the smaller parties are making an issue of it.
Counting was completed by June 1. But despite the fact that you could see results from the national counting centre online, the count could not be formalised because the Independent Electoral Commission had pledged to consider all objections and complaints – of which there were 579, most of them trivial.
Many resulted from suspicions around the electronic process. These were most loudly articulated by Jacob Zuma’s uMkhonto we Sizwe (MK) party which demanded a manual recount. There is no sign this will take place. Even so, dealing with the objections delayed the official announcement until the evening of June 2.
The ANC won just over 40% of votes cast, a result which was largely in line with what opinion polls had predicted. The Democratic Alliance (DA) won the next largest proportion of votes with 22%. Third was MK with 15% of the vote – although Zuma himself, because of criminal convictions, cannot enter parliament. Julius Malema’s left-wing Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) came fourth with 9%.
Towards a coalition
This delay gave the parties a pause to contemplate their strategies for coalition talks. The strong performance by MK took many observers by surprise as it took the third place that many thought would go to Malema’s EFF. There is also speculation that MK took votes directly from the ANC, Zuma having been an ANC president with his own internal support base.
The ANC must now form a coalition. There is everything to bargain for. Having fallen ten percentage points short of a majority, it needs to attract the support of parties to make up this margin. So, while the likelihood is that the ANC will approach one of three other largest parties, it could conceivably cobble together enough support from smaller parties to get over the line.
Having said that, many local commentators have suggested the ANC’s choice has got to be towards the larger parties: the DA, the MK or the EFF. This will take time, and the ANC will need to get over its shell shock.
It had believed it could get 45%, which would have put it into a position to dominate any discussions with coalition partners. So it had no clear strategy for negotiating from such a relative position of weakness. But as it stands, other parties could band together with a coalition of more than 40%.
Malema has said the EFF could work with Zuma’s MK, something the ANC has definitively ruled out. This means that the most realistic coalition partner for the ANC is the DA.
But it remains far from clear whether South Africa would welcome the return of white figures to senior political positions – perhaps even the vice presidency – that this would most likely mean. And the two parties would have to get over their past antagonism, particularly the DA’s longstanding and consistent criticism of ANC “corruption”.
Things will become clearer as negotiations continue. Compromises can be reached, even between bitter enemies. Malema, disappointed at being relegated into fourth place, might even overcome his scruples and agree to a coalition with the ANC. But it’s far from clear how any of this will result in coherence in actual government.
Stephen Chan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
