Is our constitution fundamentally flawed?

[Dave A]

Our constitution is claimed to be one of, if not the best in the world. In fact it probably was until the reintroduction of racial discrimination into the constitution.

Yeah, yeah - I know it's supposed to be fair racial discrimination, but trying to resolve inequalities in economic and academic circumstance by setting rules by race is like deciding which cows need better grazing by measuring the distance between the tips of the horns.

But that's not what I'm trying to tackle right now. What is floating through my mind is something slightly more complex, and perhaps far more dangerous.

It is the undesirable consequence of two components of our constitution. Viewed in isolation they seem fine, but in combination we might just have a problem.

First, we have the system of proportional representation.
The big plus for proportional representation is that it allows pretty small minority interests a shot at getting representation that they might not get otherwise. However, proportional representation also seems to have created two problems in particular:

• Individuals aren't directly responsible to the people who have elected them, making it quite difficult for the electorate to pin individual politicians down when they don't do things the way the electorate would prefer.
  
• Politicians owe their seat in parliament (or the other elected bodies) to the party, not the electorate. This makes them servants of the party, not the people.

One of the consequences which I'd like to stress for now is this means when it comes to voting in parliament, we are seeing block voting by party. If for some reason a member of parliament wishes to vote differently to what the party would prefer and the party feels the need, said errant individual can look forward to having to do real work for a living in the not-to-distant future rather than the spectacularly comfy role of being the cheering section of the main stars who are doing the real work.

Now you might think given this party power every decision is discussed right through the party before any decision is made. But in reality, no matter how "democratic" the party claims to be, most of the time very few people are making the big decisions.

The top leaders will make a decision and everyone else is expected to cheer them on. A classic example is the recent decision to deny the Dalai Lama entry into the country, a decision made by two people on behalf of the nation according to reports on the matter.

Second, we have the matter of simple and two thirds majority votes.
Most matters only require a simple majority. But some really important matters, including changes to our constitution, require a two thirds majority.

The logic is simple - some things are so important that we need more people approving decisions than a simple majority. In particular the rules of the game.

Now if we have a whole pile of individuals making these decisions, casting a wary eye over their shoulder at the people who elected them, this shouldn't present a problem. However, mix this with proportional representation and the current dominance of one party and you end up with something of a devil's brew.

Let's put it this way - If you are going to change the more significant rules of the game, you need at least some of the folk who aren't obliged to agree with you on all issues to have some influence on the matter.

And as things stand, they don't. In fact under current circumstance the sum total of the opposition is entirely irrelevant. Practically, whether the decision requires a simple or two thirds majority is much the same thing.

That might or might not change in a few days time, but the mere fact that the potential exists for an exceptionally small group to effect major changes at will to both the constitution and its supposed politically independant enforcers is deeply troubling.

Now I'd like to suggest this isn't the way things should be. There really needs to be some checks and balances on the big issues, particularly given the rather lop-sided nature of South Africa in so many ways.

So we need a solution. And I have a proposal.

The percentage of the majority party should be capped at 60%.

I see a huge number of advantages to this, the main ones being:

• The majority party will still be able to see to normal business without any material problems.
• Those really big decisions no longer become unilateral.
• Opposition politics will at least have a role to play.

We'll also be rid of a small pile of bench warmers who literally have nothing to do other than cough, cheer, jeer and raise their hands at the appropriate moment - at substantial cost to the taxpayer. But that's just a sideline bonus.

In the unlikely event that this proposal gains any serious potential of succeeding, there would still be the matter of what to do with with the excess seats if the majority party does gain more than 60% in elections. But that would probably be easier to negotiate and resolve than the idea of a cap.

A reallocation according to proportional support amongst those minority parties makes the most sense to me right now, but there probably are other options. Right now those details seem less important than the really tough hurdle. So first things first...

How do you pursuade a majority party (right now make that the ruling party) that there might be merit in such a cap?
Because without their support the idea is never going to fly.

Maybe let's start with you -

What do you think of the idea?
Do you have any suggestions that might help?