Nkoskikhulule Nyembezi
The Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) is a constitutional body mandated to administer elections and declare results as part of our constitutional democracy.
And yet, to some who are opposed to the proposed R100 000 deposit fee increase gazetted on August 3, it is doing something many might regard as less than democratic: demanding political parties pay R300 000 deposit to contest the national elections and all regional polls, and independent candidates to pay R20 000 to contest the national election and R15000 for a provincial legislature.
Contesting a provincial election will cost a political party R45 000 a province.
The public has until August 27 to comment on the regulations as the IEC says charging a deposit will minimise frivolity, ensure contestants are serious about their participation and that it has adjusted the proposed amounts for inflation.
It last adjusted deposits in 2014. Not that the electorate is oblivious –there is not a single radio or television show I have listened to where participating prospective candidates or voters have not expressed dissatisfaction with the high cost of election deposits.
As one said: “It risks leaving a nasty taste of unfairness in the mouth before you have even got to chew and digest the election promises of those fortunate enough to pay the deposits.”
But they can see no other way.
Another said the IEC should scrap deposits, and candidates should be required to gather 30% more signatures of the set number of supporters to show that they are seriously contesting an election.
There is a wide range of views on how to incorporate technology to make it easier for candidates to stand for election in the future while maintaining trust and confidence in the administration of elections.
The Venice Commission’s Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters highlights that signature registration requirements and deposit fees should not be excessive or unreasonable.
Also, rules on registration must be clear and foreseeable to give candidates ample time to meet the relevant requirements.
The main principle underlying the criterion of reasonable ballot access is that the requirements for inclusion on the ballot must not be “overly burdensome or discriminatory”, with the result that they unjustifiably deny eligible citizens the right to stand on account of onerous administrative hurdles such as high candidate deposit amounts.
We can commend the IEC for the timely publishing of the revised regulations and the window for public comments, as there should be no changes in the fundamental elements of an election administration system less than one year before an election.
Failure to pay deposits constitutes non-compliance, resulting in disqualification from participating in elections. Although there is a limited scope to correct candidate lists, there is notably no scope for condonation or waiver of the deposit requirement.
Although there has never been a political or legal challenge to the constitutionality of deposits, in 2014 the EFF unsuccessfully sought a temporary exemption from paying the prescribed deposits or a concession for the IEC to set a small nominal deposit for new entrant parties.
In their decisions, the courts have emphasised that the rationale behind the payment of the electoral deposit serves as a guarantee that a political party seriously wants to participate in elections and that policy considerations do not give permission to flout the laws, rules and regulations, which are legislative instruments, whereas policy determinations are not.
Conditions for contesting elections are harsh as candidates battle the cost of-living challenges affecting all of us: increased food and energy costs, rising rents and wages, public media advertising, stadium hiring and municipal poster hanging fees.
Political violence against election candidates, elected public representatives and traditional leaders is rising, as are the costs of security measures to protect politicians.
What also complicates election administration is that of the 312 registered political parties, just over 78 contest elections. Only parties that win a parliamentary seat get a deposit refund, while a party that fails to secure at least one seat in the legislature forfeits its deposit to the state.
I have spoken to several individuals who have spent much time filling candidate details into paper forms over the years and rushing to submit them to IEC offices. I am confident many will welcome the new regulations making revised provisions to register online as an augmentation of the streamlined system.
I want the administration of elections to ensure freeness and fairness and for candidates to thrive, and if paying the proposed amounts of deposit helps everyone to do that, then so be it.
And I hope those who register are going to turn up and campaign. Or if there is an emergency preventing them from doing so, they will cancel their names in good time. We do not want to end up with a lengthy ballot paper containing deadwood. The mystery is why some candidates think it is okay to do so.
One explanation is that the online systems that save time and money for candidates and the IEC, by doing away with the need for physical documents and more than 220000 staff some of whom focus on taking phone calls, also remove a point of human connection. Perhaps it is easier to become a no-show if all you have done is fill in a form and pay a small amount, rather than talk to a person.
It would be nice to think the administrative challenges facing the IEC will ease as technology use in elections improves – that the cost of printing ballot papers and setting up more than 28000 voting stations for more than 18000 candidates will fall.
There is an average of 20 candidates a seat.
If that happens, the IEC can stop increasing deposits or scrap them.
Unfortunately, I doubt that will happen soon. It is not simply that candidate and voter behaviour are unlikely to change in their demands for extensive election administration apparatus.
It is that once embedded, the system rarely abandons monetary qualification requirements in electoral processes. The drudge of giving over your deposits to the IEC when you register to contest elections is here to stay.
Nyembezi is a policy analyst, researcher and human rights activist
Cape Times