BACK

Defend Democracy Campaign


FLOOR–CROSSING A CURSE FOR OUR DEMOCRACY


By the AZAPO Department of Political Education (DPE): November 2002


Floor-Crossing is generally understood as a phenomenon in Parliament where a Member of Parliament defects to another party without losing his/her legislative seat. Until the order of the Constitutional Court made on the 4 July 2002, Floor-Crossing was exclusively associated with the First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) Electoral System (also known as the Constituency based system), Floor–Crossing was considered inconsistent with the principles of the Proportional Representation (PR) system.


The Constitutional Court thinks there is nothing that precludes Floor-Crossing in a PR system provided the Government makes the appropriate constitutional amendments. In section 43(b) the interim Constitution stipulated that a member of the National Assembly should lose his/her seat upon termination of membership from a political party that nominated him/her to represent it. Similar anti-defection clauses governing the members of the Senate and provincial legislatures are to be found in section 51(1)(b) and 133(1)(b), respectively.


The 1996 Constitution got rid of the anti-defection clause. But there was a need to fill the void that arose between the interim Constitution and the 1996 Constitution. Transitional relief is provided by item 6(3) of Schedule 6 of the 1996 Constitution that stipulates for the retention of the interim Constitution anti-defection provisions as amended by Annexure A.


To the extent that the Constitutional Court decision does not take into cognizance good values, ethics and integrity of a stable political order, its judgment lends itself to frivolous legalism. More so because the ruling party’s narrow and selfish interests of expansion occasioned the Floor-Crossing saga at all cost. It is by no means to the best interests of the nation and the country.


With the withdrawal of the New National Party (NNP) from the Democratic Alliance (DA) convenient marriage, the ruling party thought it needed to hurriedly do something to gulp the stranded NNP seats. This had to be done in a way that would also alter the balance of power in KwaZulu-Natal in favour of the ruling party.


As a result, four (4) pieces of legislation were enacted amid valid protestations by the opposition parties. (For the record, AZAPO voted against the Bill in the National Assembly). These were the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Second Amendment Act 21 of 2002; Loss or Retention of Membership of National and Provincial Legislatures Act 22 of 2002; Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Amendment Act 18 of 2002; The Local Government: Municipal Structures Amendment Act 20 of 2002. The Constitutional Court ruling directed that Floor-Crossing could as of now be permissible only at local government level where there is a mixture of the PR and FPTP systems. Our system is a three (3) tier government at national, provincial and local levels. This meant that the other two tiers of government – i.e. National and Provincial Legislatures - could not benefit from the Court’s ruling. The ruling party is busy pulling all the stops to pass a Bill that would amend the Constitution to cover these other two tiers.


AZAPO is vehemently opposed to the Floor–Crossing for the reasons that will be supplied below.


AZAPO maintains that Floor-Crossing is not consistent with the principles of the PR system. Like we have said, in a PR system the voters do not vote for the individual candidate, but for a specific political party. The number of votes cast for the political party will determine how many seats that party gets in the legislature. In its present form, our PR system does not impose any thresholds. The candidates equaling the number of votes a party got are chosen from the closed (or open) party list in the order of priority. So it does not make technical or procedural sense for members to defect to another party without vacating the seats that actually belong to the political parties they are deserting.


Perhaps, Floor- Crossing could make some (vague) sense in a FPTP system. Here the voter votes directly for the individual candidate rather than his/her political party. But politics that is devoid of morals, ethics, trust and honesty, degenerates into a dangerous game. That is why AZAPO would discourage the monster called Floor-Crossing even in a FPTP system where it is normally acceptable. Save for independents, candidates are seconded by their political parties. The party expends financial and material resources in campaigning for their chosen candidate. The party offers the candidate its (good) name, history and branding to give credence to the election campaign of the individual candidate. As such, what moral right does such a candidate have to steal in broad daylight the legislative seat so earned?


Legislating Floor-Crossing approximates the condonation of cheating and defrauding the electorate by corrupt politicians.

Floor Crossing is an insult to the sacrosanct concept of the will of the people. It distorts and disfigures the will of the people before dumping it into the deep bottom of the dustbin. When people vote they are in the business of choosing their public representatives in a definite pattern. By extension, they also by this means choose the government of the day. When this occurs you often hear people shouting from the rooftops of their mansions, “The people have spoken”. Even before the poor and exhausted voters have returned home, the power-greedy politicians discourteously discard the will of the people through the corruptive Floor-Crossing instrument. This is blatant abuse of the electorate by the politicians. They have just taken the voters for a ride.


It is not out of step to assert that in the march of time voters would lose confidence in the electoral system if their votes do not matter. This will lead to voter apathy where the voters may unfortunately decide to keep their Xs at home. When this scary eventuality visits us the politicians must be ready to shoulder the blame.


In modern times, there is no system of government that can work without the presence of political parties. For these parties to survive and function they need to exert some semblance of control and discipline over their members. Floor-Crossing brought about circumstances that bring to zero the concepts of order, discipline and control in political parties. Gone is the concept of party loyalty. The meager trust that prevailed has been completely destroyed. With every “window period” that comes by the party does not know whom it is going to lose (or gain). “Gain” is in brackets because a political cheat who has squandered the good will of the masses is no gain at all. He is capable of repeating the same immoral act in your party. It would be extremely difficult for parties to curb the breach of their codes of conduct by ill-disciplined members. The point we are making is that Floor-Crossing has a debilitating effect on the stability of political parties. And yet democracy cannot be nourished without viable and strong political parties.

Floor-Crossing is also a real threat to multi-party democracy in the present political landscape in our country. The ruling party has been given the unfair advantage to manipulate and tamper with the results of the elections to the detriment of smaller parties in particular.


Again, it is difficult to contemplate the negative impact Floor-Crossing could have on the economy. Even though market forces are whimsical and unpredictable, they themselves prefer stability and predictability of any political system. They want to know beforehand that the political balance of power will favour their preferred parties. They also want to know the duration of this favorable state of affairs so that they could manipulate the outcomes of political processes. The advent of the Floor-Crossing will no doubt render our political system less predictable. Our timid and paranoid Rand might not take the pressure of the periodic chaos and destabilisation that would be imposed by the “window-period”.


If we are in a transition where reconstruction is the way to go. AZAPO would then argue that our country needs transitional systems and mechanisms that bring with them at least predictable outcomes and stability. We cannot legislate and therefore legitimate power–mongering and its sordid acts. Floor-Crossing is one of the worst things to happen to this country. It will kill the spirit of collectivism and emasculate political pluralism. The brutal individualisation of our electoral system is a further demonstration of triumph of liberalism over socialist values.