THE cracks and faults in the US political system were laid bare earlier this year when the minority Republicans in the US House of Representatives managed to hold the entire country’s economy hostage to extract concessions on budget cuts and future spending.
It seemed remarkable to the point of being fantastic, but for 16 days in October, parts of the federal government had to shut down.
It was dramatic stuff, and might have led some people to consider that their government doesn’t work.
A Gallup poll taken after the shutdown showed that approval ratings of Congress dipped below the 10% mark for the first time in 34 years. However unhappy the people were, they couldn’t be as unhappy as the people trying to do something about it: third parties.
There’s a reason why you only hear of Republicans or Democrats in US politics. The system has been rigged to discourage outsiders as much as possible. A memorable recent example was Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli, who wanted to run for a congressional seat in 2006. Rather strangely, Republican backers pumped money into his campaign, perhaps in hopes of diluting the Democratic vote. But the Republican and Democratic candidates needed 2,000 signatures to get onto the ballot. Romanelli needed 67,000. Unsurprisingly, he didn’t make it.
They are quite brazen about their distaste for political outsiders in the US, but they are not the only ones who do it. The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) published draft regulations for broadcasters ahead of the national elections in 2014, and the new kids on the block are not happy about the regulator’s plans.
All broadcasters will have to allocate free, one-minute slots for political advertisements. Eight of these slots must be opened up a day and parties will get airtime based on size, representivity and participation in the elections.
By tweaking the allocation formula to favour parties with a "historical record", the numbers in the national and provincial legislatures and the number of seats being challenged for, Icasa is going to favour the African National Congress (ANC) and Democratic Alliance (DA). According to the Sunday Times, these two parties will take up to 60% of the allocations.
This is a blow to new parties, in an election that promises to feature a clutch of vocal ones like the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and Agang SA. The EFF have already complained, telling the Sunday Times that these plans meant that the "broadcaster is already taking sides". Agang also complained about the entrenchment of the status quo.
Agang director of communications Thabo Leshilo said that the effects of the draft regulation, if passed, would not just limit the airtime newcomers like his party would get. "This is a double-whammy for small parties. We are getting less airplay, and also less funding," he said.
"Political parties will be awarded funds based on representation in Parliament, which means that new parties do not get any grants now."
Leshilo also slammed South African corporations for adopting a conservative stance on party funding.
He said: "Corporate South Africa follows a cop-out method of not funding change. They will tell you that they fund parties based on parliamentary seats. For me, this is a cop-out. They are missing a great opportunity to save the country. What is the best environment for business to operate in? Not the corrupt one we have now."
"We are headed down the tubes and 2014 is perhaps the final opportunity we have to stop the rot. After that I don’t think we’ll get another chance," he said.
It is not like Icasa is being accused of favouritism. The regulations it published make that clear. However, don’t expect either the ANC or the DA to do anything about it. This is a genuine zero-sum game after all, and any airtime given to Agang or EFF must be taken from the big two.
The peculiarity of the proportional system is that it can allow for smaller, special interest parties to exist. The first-over-the-post system employed by the US and England might result in binary divisions, but it could never allow special interests to have a showing anywhere. Parties like the Minority Front in KwaZulu-Natal, the United Democratic Movement in the Eastern Cape and the Independent Democrats (before the capitulation to the DA) in the Northern Cape.
However, Icasa is implying that the interests of people are vested in what is already widely available. If parties do not regenerate themselves to reflect the will of the people, then tough. That’s the choice people have. The only acceptable answers are A or B.
Icasa has not finalised the process yet, and if you believe that public pressure can sway the opinions of bureaucrats, you may write to them and say that you think that parties should be given equal airtime.
To root out pretenders and chancers, Icasa could implement a system similar to the one that stopped Romanelli to get onto the Pennsylvania ballot: if a party is so new as not to have parliamentary seats, it can prove its chops by getting a certain number of public signatures. Once it passes that threshold, it ought to then be granted the same amount of airtime as established parties.
This is surely better than openly prejudicing parties simply because they weren’t founded long enough ago.
Post a comment