COALITION
GOVERNMENT FOR SOUTH AFRICA
THE
ONLY SOLUTION TO SOUTH AFRICA’S CURRENT POLITICAL TURMOIL
Stes
de Necker
On Monday, 03 April 2017, the Leadership of the DA, EFF,
IFP, COPE, UDM, and ACDP met in Johannesburg following the hostile takeover of
the Treasury, and selling of the country by Jacob Zuma to a grouping whose only
interests are amassing wealth and weakening the State through the theft of the
people’s money and the undermining of the country’s Constitution.
The meeting was attended by the DA (Mmusi Maimane), EFF
(Godrich Gardee and Dali Mpofu), UDM (Bantu Holomisa), COPE (Mosiuoa Lekota),
IFP (Mangaqa Mncwango) and ACDP (Kenneth Meshoe).
The following joint statement was delivered at a press
conference, following the meeting of Opposition Parties in Johannesburg:
"These are indeed irregular and trying times for South
Africa and the people, which demand a united vision and programme of action
from leaders of society, like Opposition Parties represented in the National
Assembly. Opposition Parties agreed that the Constitution must come first and
the country must be protected from those who seek to undermine it. We
therefore deliberated and agreed upon a number of issues in this regard.
Opposition
Programme of Action
This Programme of Action stems from already existing
partnerships and other ad hoc co-operation arrangements which exist in the
country’s metros and other municipalities, where the Opposition governs for all
residents, regardless of their political affiliation. The opposition-led metros
serve as important platforms to show what the Opposition can do for the people
of South Africa, which present a tangible example of the work that we can do,
when we united against corruption, state capture and other ills in society.
Furthermore, we agreed that there is a need for a Summit
that brings together Political Parties and Civil Society to discuss the state
of South Africa. Going forward, we will at times act collectively and at times
as separate political parties, depending on the nature of the issue facing the
country. Our Programme of Action will be to put the people first, with the
vision to build a better South Africa.
National
Day of Action to the Union Buildings
It was agreed that as Opposition Parties, we will start
the process of mobilising their structures from across the country for a
National Day of Action to the Union Buildings. We are planning to have this
mass action event as soon as possible.
We will also be engaging Civil Society formations and
other Political Parties to mobilise in order to support the people’s National
Day of Action to the Union Buildings, so that we are united and not fractured
in our call to save our country in the short-term.
We therefore call upon all South Africans and the whole
of Civil Society to support this mass action, where will speak with one voice
calling for Jacob Zuma to remove himself from the Union Buildings, failing
which he will be pushed, using democratic processes. Zuma cannot hold an entire
country hostage.
Motion
of No Confidence
Opposition Parties are fully behind the Motion of
No Confidence in Jacob Zuma and the call for the Speaker of the National
Assembly to reconvene the House for a special sitting so that this matter of
National Importance can be debated and voted on. The DA and EFF have already
asked the Speaker to reconvene Parliament. The UDM have submitted a similar
request today.
We expect an urgent answer from the Speaker about
progress made in scheduling the Motion, should we not be satisfied with her
response, court action, supported by Opposition Parties will be taken.
Given the crisis engulfing our society, we are confident
that Members of Parliament will stay true to the Constitution and their Oath of
Office.
The Motion of No Confidence is not about the removal the
ANC. The ANC was voted into government by the majority, through the democratic
project, which we respect. In the short-term, we are working to remove Jacob
Zuma, and elect someone from the ranks of the National Assembly who is
committed to South Africa, the people and the Constitution.
Court
Cases
The Opposition support the two court cases which
are currently before the Judiciary.
The DA will be submitting papers for a Review Application
which seeks to test the legal rationality of Jacob Zuma’s disastrous Cabinet
Reshuffle.
The EFF, UDM and COPE are currently before the
Constitutional Court to probe the process and duty of Parliament to facilitate
the impeachment of the President.
Conclusion
Opposition Party Leaders are united in their call for
Zuma to go and our belief in the supremacy of the Constitution. The choice
South Africans must make is: Zuma or South Africa. The two cannot co-exist."
A COALITION GOVERNMENT FOR SOUTH AFRICA
On 4 June 2015 I published an article on Coalition
Government titled ‘COALITION GOVERNEMENT - The only Solution to the current Political
Turmoil in South Africa’
Definition
Difference
between Coalition and Alliance Government
Political
parties have been defined in various ways. But the myriad definitions reflect
more the various perspectives and areas of emphasis of the voter’s historic and
cultural background, than a fundamental difference in meaning. Consensus
however exists on two key definitional issues:
1. That
political parties are formally organised and that they aim at capturing or
gaining control of the government.
2. The
party that wins the most constituencies (constitutional system), or the most
votes (proportional representation parliamentary system) forms the government.
Whether
or not they win control of the government, political parties participate in the
legislative authority.
There
are two ways political parties participate in governance either directly as the
party in power or indirectly as the opposition. The government, of course, is
constituted only by the party or parties that control a majority of seats in
the legislature, but the losing parties still play, or should play, a vital
role in the overall oversight of governance.
When
political parties fail to be elected to form the government, they form the
opposition.
A
political alliance or political bloc, is an agreement of
cooperation between different political parties on common political
agenda, often for purposes of contesting an election, to mutually
benefit by collectively clearing election thresholds or otherwise
benefiting from characteristics of the voting system, or
for government formation before an election.
Coalitions
on the other hand are formed after an election with a view to agree
on the pursuance of common goals; pool their resources in order to achieve this
goal; communicate and form binding commitments concerning their goal(s);
and agree on the distribution of payoffs to be received after the
coalition meets its objectives.
There is
therefore a major difference between a coalition and an alliance.
Within
a coalition, each party retains their party specific principles and identities,
whereas in an alliance, party identity and ideology are usually sacrificed on
the altar of political opportunism.
The
eventual demise of the National Party of South Africa after the 1994 election
is a perfect example of a party which lost it moral principles and identity
after its alliance with the ANC, and eventually disappeared from the political
scene.
Definition of
a Coalition
The
Cambridge Dictionary defines coalition as: “The union of different political
parties or groups for a particular purpose, usually for a limited time.”
For
purposes of this discussion it is necessary however to adopt a broad
operational definition of ‘Coalitions’. A classic purpose of a parliamentary
coalition will be to:
(1)
agree to pursue common goals;
(2)
pool their resources in order to achieve this goal;
(3)
communicate and form binding commitments concerning their goal(s); and
(4)
agree on the distribution of payoffs to be received after the coalition meets
its objectives.
Coalition
government (known in the United States as a ‘fusion administration’)
can therefore be defined as ‘a cabinet of
a parliamentary government in which several political
parties cooperate, reducing the dominance of any one party within that
coalition’.
International
Perspective
Coalition Cabinets
Coalition
cabinets are common in countries where their parliaments
are proportionally representative, with several organized political
parties represented. It usually does not appear in countries in which the
cabinet is chosen by the executive rather than by a lower house, such
as in the United States.
In semi-presidential systems such
as France, where the president formally appoints a prime
minister but the government itself must still maintain the confidence of
parliament, coalition governments occur quite regularly.
Coalition
Governments run the world's largest democracies, notably India, Pakistan,
Brazil and Japan. In the US, both the Democratic and Republican parties are, in
effect, grand coalitions embracing a wide range of groupings across the
political spectrum, with all the contradictory and internal tension that it
implies. In Israel, fractious, multiparty coalitions are a constant, and
constantly undermine attempts to advance key aims such as the peace process in
the Middle-east.
Even
in the so-called "managed democracies" found in Russia and central
Asia (where they hold elections but the results are preordained), pre-poll and
post-poll alliance and coalition building is the rule. In Russia, Vladimir
Putin has turned this process into a fine art, rotating himself in and out of
the presidency and prime minister-ship apparently at will.
In a
sense, Putin is a minority government of one. North Korea's dictator, Kim
Jong-il, takes this approach to a logical conclusion having appointed himself
leader-for-life, ostensibly to unanimous popular acclaim.
Size of a Coalition
Coalition
size clearly impacts bargaining among its members and enforcement of the
agreement that unites them. Less clear is how coalition size impacts
policy outputs and whether the principles of bargaining have consequences for
government performance.
Advantages
and Disadvantages of large coalitions
1.
Disadvantages
Large
coalitions have the drawback of introducing divergent preferences into the
collective bargaining process. For example, in authoritarian regimes some
coalition members may demand a timetable for a transition to democracy while
other members seek exit guarantees, such as job security or amnesty. In
democratic regimes, some coalition members might insist on secular governance
while others demand a greater role for religion in maintaining public
order. The addition of new members means that the coalition has to take
more preferences into account in order to alter the status quo and it may have
to increase the number of payments in order to sustain it.
The
burden of empirical evidence suggests that inclusionary governance, when it is
measured by multi-party coalition governments, leads to larger budget deficits
and weaker fiscal discipline. In its World Development Report 2002, the
World Bank reported “The extent to which governments are required to share
power in coalition governments is an important determinant of budgetary outcomes
in OECD countries. When the power of government is checked by the need to
make compromises with coalition partners, fiscal outcomes are often worse than
when majority governments are in power”
Those
who disapprove of coalition governments believe that such governments have a
tendency to be fractious and prone to disharmony. This is because coalitions
would necessarily include different parties with differing beliefs and who may
not always agree on the correct path for governmental policy. Sometimes the results
of an election are such that the coalitions which are mathematically most
probable are ideologically unfeasible, such as
in Flanders or Northern Ireland. A second difficulty might be
the ability of minor parties to play "kingmaker" and, particularly in
close elections, gain far more for their support than their vote would
otherwise indicate.
Coalition
governments have also been criticized for sustaining a consensus on
issues when disagreement and the consequent discussion would be more fruitful.
To forge a consensus, the leaders of ruling coalition parties can agree to
silence their disagreements on an issue to unify the coalition against the
opposition. The coalition partners, if they control the parliamentary majority,
can collude to make the parliamentary discussion on the issue irrelevant by
consistently disregarding the arguments of the opposition and voting against
the opposition's proposals, even if there is disagreement within the ruling
parties about the issue.
Powerful
parties can also act in a policratic way to form an alliance to
stifle the growth of emerging parties. Of course, such an event is rare in
coalition governments when compared to two-party systems, which typically
exists because of stifling the growth of emerging parties, often through
discriminatory nomination rules regulations and plurality voting
systems, and so on.
A
single, more powerful party can shape the policies of the coalition
disproportionately. Smaller or less powerful parties can be intimidated to not
openly disagree. In order to maintain the coalition, they will have to vote
against the party's platform in the parliament. If they do not, the party has
to leave the government and loses executive powers.
2.
Advantages
Larger
coalitions offer several advantages: First, they reduce the political
consequences of any single member’s defection. Various studies of
parliamentary governments emphasize this point. They find that “surplus”
coalitions can afford to lose members, at least in the short term (Laver
and Schofield 1998). Adding surplus members, thus creating a “minimum
working coalition,” protects the coalition from potential coalition
instability. Coalition members might accept this as a reasonable
trade-off even if it means they each get a slightly smaller payoff (Cooter
2000). Secondly, members who favour the status quo coalition can expect
disenchanted members to face obstacles to organizing themselves, making it
difficult to defect en-mass. As studies of collective action problems
show, the mere presence of a common interest by itself is generally
insufficient for individuals to actually act in concert to achieve their shared
objectives. Finally and perhaps most importantly, larger coalitions allow
for increased representation. This insulates the government from
accusations of political exclusion and sends the public a clear message of
inclusiveness.
Advocates
of proportional representation suggest that a coalition government leads to
more consensus-based politics, in that a government comprising differing parties
(often based on different ideologies) would need to concur in regard to
governmental policy.
Another
stated advantage is that a coalition government better reflects the popular
opinion of the electorate within a country.
A
single, more powerful party can shape the policies of the coalition
disproportionately. Smaller or less powerful parties can be intimidated to not
openly disagree. In order to maintain the coalition, they will have to vote
against the party's platform in the parliament. If they do not, the party has
to leave the government and loses executive powers.
So,
although persons and groups form coalitions for many and varied reasons, the
most common purpose is to combat a common threat or to take advantage of a
certain opportunity; hence, the often-temporary nature of coalitions. The
common threat or existence of opportunity is what gives rise to the coalition
and allows it to exist. Such collaborative processes can gain political
influence and potentially initiate social movements.
Coalition
Governments – A worldwide phenomena
Countries
which often operate with coalition cabinets include: the Nordic countries,
the Benelux countries, Australia, Austria, France, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Turkey, Israel, New
Zealand, Kosovo, Pakistan, Kenya, India, Trinidad and
Tobago, Thailand and Ukraine. Switzerland has been
ruled by a coalition of the four strongest parties in parliament from 1959 to
2008, called the "Magic Formula".
The United
Kingdom also operates a formal coalition cabinet between
the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties, but this
is unusual because the UK normally had a majority government.
In
Germany government is usually the norm, as it is rare for either
the Christian-Democratic Union of Germany and Christian Social
Union in Bavaria (CDU/CSU) or the Social Democratic Party of
Germany (SPD) to win an unqualified majority in a national election. Thus,
at the federal level, governments are formed with at least one of the smaller
parties. For example, Helmut Kohl's CDU governed for years in coalition
with the Free Democratic Party (FDP), from 1998 to 2005 Gerhard
Schröder's SPD was in power with the Greens and from 2009 Angela
Merkel, CDU/CSU was in power with the FDP.
In
Ireland, coalition governments are quite common; not since 1977 has a single
party been able to form a majority government. Coalitions are typically formed
of two or more parties always consisting of one of the two biggest
parties, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, and one or more smaller parties
or independent members of parliament. The current government consists
of Fine Gael and the Labour Party.
In Finland,
no party has had an absolute majority in the parliament since independence, and
multi-party coalitions have always been the norm. Finland experienced its most
stable government (Lipponen Iand II) since independence with a
five-party governing coalition, a so-called "rainbow government". The
Lipponen cabinets set the stability record, and were unusual in the respect
that both moderate (SDP) and radical left wing (Left Alliance) parties sat in
the government with the major right-wing party (National Coalition).
The current Finnish cabinet is an even wider rainbow coalition of a
total of six parties.
Ireland's
first coalition government was formed in 1948. Ireland has had consecutive
coalition governments since the 1989 general election, excluding two
brief Fianna Fáil minority administrations in 1994 and 2011 that
followed the withdrawal of their coalition partners from government. Before 1989,
Fianna Fáil had opposed participation in coalition governments, preferring
single-party minority government instead.
Irish
coalition governments have traditionally been based on one of two large blocs
in Dáil Éireann: either Fianna Fáil in coalition with smaller parties or
independents, or Fine Gael and the Labour Party in
coalition, sometimes with smaller parties. The only exception to these
traditional alliances was the first Government of the 27th Dáil,
comprising Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party, which ruled between 1993 and 1994.
The Government of the 31st Dáil, though a traditional Fine Gael–Labour
coalition, resembles a grand coalition, due to the collapse of Fianna Fáil
to third place among parties in Dáil Éireann.
A
similar situation exists in Israel, which has dozens of different parties
with representation in the Knesset. The only faction to ever gain a
majority of Knesset seats was Alignment, an alliance of the Labour
Party and Mapam that held an absolute majority for a brief period
from 1968 to 1969. Historically, control of the Israeli government has
alternated between periods of rule by the right-wing Likud in
coalition with several right-wing and religious parties and periods of rule by
the centre-left Labour in coalition with several left-wing parties. Ariel
Sharon's formation of the centrist Kadima party in 2006
drew support from former Labour and Likud members, and Kadima ruled in
coalition with several other parties.
In
federal Australian politics, the
conservative Liberal, National, Country Liberal and Liberal
National parties are united in a coalition, known simply as the
Coalition. The Coalition has become so stable, at least at the federal level,
that in practice the lower house of Parliament has become
a two-party house, with the Coalition and the Labour
Party being the major parties. This coalition is also found in the states
of New South Wales, Tasmania and Victoria. In South
Australia and Western Australia the two parties compete
separately, while in the Northern Territory and Queensland, the
two parties have merged, forming the Country Liberal Party in 1978, and the
Liberal National Party in 2008, respectively.
In Canada,
the Great Coalition was formed in 1864 by the Clear
Grits,’ Parti bleu’, and Liberal-Conservative Party. During
the First World War Prime Minister Robert Borden attempted
to form a coalition with the opposition Liberals to broaden support for
controversial conscription legislation. The Liberal Party refused the offer but
some of their members did cross the floor and join the government. Although
sometimes referred to as a coalition government, according to the definition
above, it was not. It was disbanded after the end of the war.
During
the 2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute, two of Canada's opposition
parties signed an agreement to form what would become the country's second
coalition government since Confederation if the minority Conservative
government was defeated on a vote of no-confidence; unseating Stephen
Harper as Prime Minister. The agreement outlined a formal coalition
consisting of two opposition parties, the Liberal Party and
the New Democratic Party. The’Bloc Québécois’ agreed to support the
proposed coalition on confidence matters for 18 months. In the end, parliament
was prorogued by the Governor General and the coalition dispersed following the
election.
Lebanon, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico,
the Netherlands, New Zealand,Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Serbia, Spain, Sweden,Syria, Taiwan and Philippines (source:Politics
of the Philippines) are examples of nations that have used a multi-party system
effectively in their democracies. In these countries, usually no single party
has a parliamentary majority by itself. Instead, multiple political parties
form coalitions for the purpose of developing power blocks for
governing.
In
some multi-party systems, only two or three parties have a substantial chance
of forming a government with or without forming a coalition. An example of this
is the United Kingdom, where only the Conservative Party,
the Labour Party, and the Liberal Democrats have a serious
chance to win enough seats to be a part of the government; the Liberal
Democrats have never had enough seats to form a Government, but have held
enough seats to contribute to a Coalition. To date, the Liberal Democrats have
been in power only once in a coalition, which is the
incumbent Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition. This is also the case
in Canada, where majority governments are very common.
A
two-party system requires voters to align themselves in large blocs, sometimes
so large that they cannot agree on any overarching principles. Some theories
argue that this allows centrists to gain control. On the other hand,
if there are multiple major parties, each with less than a majority of the
vote, the parties are strongly motivated to work together to form working
governments. This also promotes centrism, as well as promoting
coalition-building skills while discouraging polarization.
Coalition
forming – Practices and Complexities
In
most western-style democracies, minority or coalition governments are the rule
rather than the exception. But while such arrangements can and do deliver
stable governance, they can also produce improbable, short-lived pairings of
political opposites, ugly alliances, sudden calamities and gross distortions of
the popular will.
New
Zealand, abandoned the system of “Winner takes all’ in favour of the mixed
member proportional (MMP) system in 1996. Since then, neither of the two
main parties, National and Labour, has obtained an overall parliamentary
majority. Smaller parties and minorities have increased their representation
and the country has mostly been governed by minority administrations.
In
2005, New Zealand became the first country in the world to be entirely ruled by
women, namely (in descending order) the Queen, Governor-general Dame Silvia
Cartwright, prime minister Helen Clark, speaker of the House of Representatives
Margaret Wilson, and chief justice Dame Sian Elias.
Finland
can also claim some sort of record: it has never had a majority government
since gaining independence from Russia in 1917. Like the other Nordic countries
and the states of northern Europe, election days are seen as merely the
beginning of a frequently protracted negotiating period over the composition of
the next government.
In
Germany in 2005, the federal election result was so close that the CDU's Angela
Merkel was forced into a so-called "grand coalition" with the Social
Democrats that, while it survived a full term, was broadly ineffective. German
voters however kicked out the coalition, replacing it with another less
grand coalition.
In
Germany, unlike Britain, people know with a fair degree of certainty what
coalition line ups are on offer before they vote. In the UK, it remains
painfully unclear at present which way the Lib Dems will jump. In Germany, the
conservative CDU/CSU routinely pairs off with the liberal Free Democrats, and
the SPD with the Greens – so you know what you're getting before you vote.
The
situation gets more complicated elsewhere, as in Belgium and the Netherlands,
where five or six parties may all have to agree before a joint administration
is formed. These endlessly confusing permutations can paralyse a government.
Choleric
coalition disputes were the main reason why Belgium was without any kind of
government at all for a record 194 days in 2007-2008, and why its new
government collapsed. It's why calamity befell the Dutch earlier, after their
coalition fatally split over whether to pull troops out of Afghanistan. And
it's why, in Italy and Austria, far-right parties, that arguably have no place
in the democratic arena, has won power.
Coalitions
run the world's largest democracies, notably India, Pakistan, Brazil and Japan.
In the US, both the Democratic and Republican parties are, in effect, grand
coalitions embracing a wide range of groupings across the political spectrum –
with all the contradictory and internal tension that it implies. In
Israel, fractious, multiparty coalitions are a constant, and constantly
frustrate attempts to advance key aims such as the peace process in the
Middle-east.
The Coalition
Government of Denmark
The
political system of Denmark is that of a multi-party structure, where several
parties are represented in Parliament at any one time. Danish governments are
often characterised by minority administrations, aided with the help of one or
more supporting parties. This means that Danish politics is based on consensus
politics. Since 1909, no single party has had the majority in Parliament.
The
Constitutional Act, which sets out the fundamental principles for the political
system in Denmark, does not mention political parties, because when the Act was
introduced in 1849, no such parties had been formed. Yet today, they play a
major role in political life. As in many other countries, the principles
governing politics in Denmark go far beyond the basic rules written down in the
constitution, and tradition, practical considerations and social developments
in general, contribute greatly to the conditions for political life.
In principle, anybody can join a political party, but all members must comply with the party’s regulations and agree to the party programme. It is not possible to be a member of more than one party at a time. About 180,000 Danes are members of a political party at present.
In principle, anybody can join a political party, but all members must comply with the party’s regulations and agree to the party programme. It is not possible to be a member of more than one party at a time. About 180,000 Danes are members of a political party at present.
The Danish
electoral system
Seats
in the Danish Parliament are distributed in accordance with a method known as
proportional representation. This is a fairly complicated, but mathematically
fair, method of distributing votes.
The
system guarantees that political parties gain seats in the Danish Parliament in
proportion to the number of votes cast for them throughout the country. For
example, if a party wins 10 per cent of the votes, it must also have 10 per
cent of the seats in the Parliament.
Distributing
seats in the Danish Parliament
Denmark
is divided into ten large multi-member constituencies, which are in
turn divided into smaller nomination districts. Each multi-member constituency
is allotted a number of constituency seats.
The
constituency seats are distributed between the parties in proportion to the
number of votes they have won in the individual constituencies. The
distribution of the constituency seats ensures that all parts of the country
are represented in Parliament, and not just the big cities where the majority
of voters live.
When
the constituency seats have been distributed, the compensatory seats are
distributed in a way that ensures that each party receives a number of seats
corresponding to the number of votes won at national level.
Since
3rd October 2011, the present Government has consisted of the parties Social
Democrats, Social Liberals and Socialist People´s Party. Helle
Thorning-Schmidt, from the Social Democrats is the Prime Minister.
At
present, the following political parties are represented in the Danish
Parliament:
Number of Seats
Venstre
(The Liberal Party) (V)
47
Socialdemokratiet
(The Social Democratic Party) (S)
45
Dansk
Folkeparti (The Danish People’s Party) (DF)
22
Radikale
Venstre (The Social Liberal Party) (RV)
17
Socialistisk
Folkeparti (The Socialist People’s Party) (SF)
15
Enhedslisten
(The Unity List) (EL) 12
Liberal
Alliance (Liberal Alliance) (LA) 9
Det
Konservative Folkeparti (The Conservative Party) (KF)
8
Inuit
Ataqatigiit (Greenland) (IA) 1
Siumut
(Greenland) (SIU) 1
Sambandsflokkurin
(The Faroe Islands) (SP) 1
Javnaðarflokkurin
(The Faroe Islands) (JF)
1
Total
number of Members
179
Conclusion
Like
most things in life Coalition Government has its upsides and downsides. The
good thing about coalition government is that it forces winners of elections
still to compromise on their plan and show an ability to work together for the
common good, creating a broader basis of support in the population for
government policies. On the down side, as seen in many countries where you
usually have coalition governments, is that voters expect the outcome in favour
of the big winner. Seeing the political party of their choice compromise,
sometimes even with the party they voted against, cause them to feel betrayed,
wondering if it really mattered why they voted anyway. In a system of coalition
government everyone has to compromise, even the biggest winner can never
completely carry out the platform they ran on and that can be disappointing
leaving voters frustrated. In the worst case scenario frustrated voters can
lose faith in Democracy all together.
On
the other hand, a government formed by a multi-party coalition tends to have
certain advantages over one consisting of only a single party. Among them are:
1. reconciliation
of differing ideas
2. more
accurate reflection of popular opinion
Because
the various parties that united to form the coalition are often based on
different, and even conflicting, ideologies, it often becomes necessary for
them to compromise these ideologies in order to come to an agreement on government
policy. This compromising of ideologies often results in broader
representation.
Another
positive result that comes with coalitions is greater policy scrutiny. Two
different parties reflect a greater spectrum of the voting population, so in
theory such a larger portion benefits from the coalition union. Issues that
would be dismissed by a single party government have greater weight when other
parties become part of the mix. Undemocratic or controversial legislation has
accordingly considerably less chance of being passed.
Responsible
and well designed coalitions within socially heterogeneous democracies
(multi party democracies), can in fact be a more effective form of democratic
government than in a homogeneous democracy, where only one or two political
parties exist.
Favourable conditions
for Coalition forming
When
comparing the principle policies of the different parties represented in the
South African Parliament, anyone who asks the question, “So what are the real
differences?” will rightfully have to be excused.
On
face value it would appear that there are no major principle differences!
The
primary difference however lies not in the proclaimed policy statements, but
rather in the manner in which these political objectives and principles are
being implemented.
Increased frustration amongst South African
Citizens
“In
the 27 years since the end of white minority rule, South Africa has
rarely looked so shaky. Mining, the bedrock of the old economy, is in crisis as
costs rise and commodity prices fall. Wildcat strikes are spreading across the
industry and into other sectors.
Companies
are losing production, and the recognized unions, with which business was able
to barter in the past, have lost influence over the labour force. Equally
worrying, the political atmosphere is not only charged but increasingly
poisonous. Opportunists such as Julius Malema, the disgraced former youth
leader of the African National Congress, are exploiting a leadership vacuum to
publicize the broader failures of the post-apartheid state and whip up support
from the disenfranchised.
Our
country has become a comedian's paradise. A comedy of errors that is denting
our image.
Zuma
should not only be removed but should have been banned from entering the Union
Buildings long ago
South
Africa’s Constitution is recognized throughout the world as one of the best
constitutions in the world. Everybody involved was pleased and proud to have
been a part of it. Two of the leaders were even awarded Nobel Peace Prizes.
But
now it seems that some of our ANC leaders are uncomfortable with the Freedom
Charter and the Constitution. They claim to live by the rule of law, but when
the law isn’t on their side, they’re happy to bend, ignore, or even break it.
Current
Political Climate
Thousands
of foreign visitors, who visited South Africa a decade ago, today avoid this
country.
Several
foreign investors, who a decade ago was still excited to invest in South
Africa, took their investments elsewhere.
Today
peaceful marches and protests result in violence and mayhem in the space of
minutes.
Forgotten
are the noble ideals of upliftment of the less privileged. In its place there
is now a culture of "Get as rich as possible as soon as possible."
The
culture of self-enrichment is at the disposal only of a few privileged
loyalists in the ANC.
Differencing
with this group and the right to self-enrichment is quickly taken away.
A
culture that embraced a variety of ills has established itself, most of which
are aimed at the erosion of a constitutional democracy and the maintenance of
unscrupulous and incompetent politicians in their panelled offices
and luxury limousines.
The
greatest evil in the current culture is surely the government's controversial
tender system. It provides the opportunity for every friend and family member
of the ruling elite to obtain lucrative contracts, the vast majority of which
never gets carried out.
For
those who do not have sufficient nepotistic connections to the ruling elite,
there is always the possibility of a lucrative position somewhere in the ANC's
cadre deployment. If you're in that position and you make yourself guilty of
theft and corruption, it is also not so bad. At the very extreme, you can be
suspended on full pay, which means that for the next ten years you can sit at
home and do nothing. By the time the inept legal process eventually commences,
there is already so much time wasted that any trial will in any case constitute
an unfair and unlawful judicial act that there is no chance that you will be
charged and convicted in any way.
South
Africa is littered with failed agricultural development projects while millions
of Rands of development funds ends up in the pockets of corrupt ANC supporters.
Highly
productive agricultural land lies uncultivated and unproductive throughout
South Africa. The ruins and rusty implements and equipment of once thriving
farming units serve as mere tombstones of once vibrant and thriving farming
communities.
Criminal
self-enrichment is the order of the day. The inability of the government
to take decisive action against corrupt individuals have caused these raids to
escalate to a point where corruption is now commonplace. Corruption, in all
facets and levels of Government, enjoys the best profit to risk ratio, as less
than 5% of all corruption charges are successfully prosecuted in the courts
today.
South
Africa's problems are much bigger than most South Africans would like to
believe and as long as the group of privileged political elite remains in
power, it is unlikely that any significant improvement in the prevailing
conditions will occur.
Summary
It is
time that all South Africans again unite around the noble ideals of the Freedom
Charter and the only recipe for peace, prosperity and progress in this country,
is the formation of a coalition government that will honour the aspirations of
the Freedom Charter and the adherence to the provisions of the
Constitution.
The
vast majority of citizens of this country have yet to learn that political
survival and economic prosperity cannot be created by plundering accumulated
reserves. Economic prosperity can only be achieved by innovative thinking,
sound economic principles, hard work and strict personal earnings. It cannot be
"demanded".
The multicoloured rainbow nation of Emeritus Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu is rapidly being replaced with the mirages of a scorched and desolate desert landscape.
Forced
integration at all levels of society is destroying our unique cultural
diversity and identities and creating a faceless society who does not know who
or what they really are.
Indiscriminate
granting of exploration and mining concessions are working to destroy our
natural heritage.
Corruption
and crime are destroying any hope of this country's potential to position
itself as the tourism Mecca of the world.
Personal
gain and an uncompromising devotion to economic and political power, is
destroying South Africa's economic potential and political stability.
Corruption
and fraud, at all levels of our society, is destroying South Africa's
integrity and credibility as a reliable international trading partner.
The
indiscriminate allocation of social grants and donations to win political votes
is destroying our people's work ethics and productivity.
Never
in the history of South Africa were the conditions for unity so favourable than
now.
South
Africa can once again astound the world by proving that the real power of
democracy can only be practiced in a system of Coalition Government.
Only
in a system of Coalition Government, can ‘Unity in Diversity’ be possible in
South Africa.
COALITION – A
MAJORITY OF MINORITIES
