Parliament. Picture: SUNDAY TIMES
Parliament Picture: SUNDAY TIMES

TONY Leon’s letter (Muddled response, Letters, December 6) reminded me of that bizarre Constitutional Court ruling that floor-crossing, which benefited the African National Congress at the time, was legal; notwithstanding it perverted the very essence of proportional representation as provided for in the constitution.

The electorate voted and on that basis each political party was granted the number of seats in Parliament or other bodies equal to its proportion of those votes. The holders of those seats were never elected nor were they there as individuals, but as voting fodder for their respective parties.

Floor-crossing had the effect of changing the result of the election and foiling the wishes of the electorate.

In addition, there existed the probability that they were not the result of agonising decisions made after sleepless nights of conscience examination, but more the result of cash deposits and job offers.

The court however ruled, through convoluted reasoning incomprehensible to an average person, that what was obviously illegal and irrational to an observer was indeed constitutionally acceptable. So was this a demonstration of the superior legal thinking of the majority in that ruling or was it, as implied, "a form of politics" at play?

Sydney Kaye

Cape Town