The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

Dear friends and fellow South Africans,

Racial slurs are finding their way into our social discourse with
alarming frequency, and from alarming sources. Recently a newspaper
carried the headline "Race Wars" and, though some thought this an
extreme description, it certainly conveyed the gravity of the issue.

I have often said that the IFP refrains from poking its nose into the
internal problems of other political parties. But the character
assassination going on in the ANC is not simply an internal matter. It
raises questions about the ruling Party's commitment to multi-racialism.

The IFP rejected Government Spokesperson Mr Jimmy Manyi's utterances
regarding the "oversupply of coloureds" in the Western Cape. His
comments were highlighted during the debate over amendments to the
Employment Equity Act which are likely to disadvantage the coloured
community by considering national, rather than regional demographics
when calculating representivity in the economically active population.

Solidarity has warned that hundreds of thousands of coloureds in the
Western Cape may lose their jobs if the amendments are adopted.

Mr Manyi's comments were deplorable and widely criticised by
opposition parties. Yet the ANC's Secretary General, Mr Gwede
Mantashe, says this criticism is "a question of hatred for change" and
not a question of Mr Manyi's competence. While taking pains to note
that this is his own view, Mr Mantashe warns ANC members not to "act
as free agents", implying that members should toe the line of the
organisation.

He was referring, of course, to Minister Trevor Manuel's public rebuke
of Mr Manyi for making these racist comments. The IFP applauds
Minister Manuel and appreciates his courage in taking this stand
against racism. It seems bizarre that it should be Minister Manuel who
faces censure from his Party, rather than Mr Manyi.

The subtext suggests that the ANC supports Mr Manyi's sentiments and
disagrees with Minister's Manuel's stand. I'm afraid Mr Mantashe has
confirmed this by referring to Minister Manuel as the "free agent"
going against the organisation.

The "free agent" warning is a little off key, when Mr Mantashe is on
record making statements that go against the ANC's stated policy. Take
for instance his criticism of the judiciary in 2008, when he labelled
the Constitutional Court a "counter revolutionary force". At the time,
the ANC back peddled and tried to reframe Mr Mantashe's criticism,
saying that public institutions should expect their actions to be
"scrutinised, discussed and criticised" as this was "not unhealthy in
a democracy".

To my mind, it is unhealthy for a democracy to have a newly appointed
Government Spokesperson make racist comments, and then chastise the
Minister in the Presidency for pointing out that the comments are
racist. If South Africa is moving back towards a policy of racial
discrimination, then yes, the IFP "has a hatred for change".

But we are not alone in raising the red flag over the ruling Party's
missteps towards an untouchable elite. The Archbishop Desmond Tutu
recently spoke quite frankly about the endemic corruption in our
country's leadership that is threatening the gains of democracy. I was
interested to hear the Archbishop also recommend a return to a
constituency based electoral system.

As Minister of Home Affairs, the IEC fell under me as the line
function Minister. It is by now a matter of record that the Electoral
Commission which was appointed during that time recommended that South
Africa adopt a composite electoral system; part proportional
representation and part constituency based. In this way, we could
ensure fair representation and simplicity of voting, while also
achieving a measure of accountability. Cabinet rejected this
recommendation, and South Africa is still bound by proportional
representation only.

Accordingly, in each election voters choose a party to represent them,
rather than a person, and then rely on that party to choose who will
be sent to Parliament and the Provincial Legislatures to be the voice
of the electorate. Representatives are accountable to the party that
gave them their position, instead of being directly accountable to the
voters.

The IFP is concerned about this lack of accountability. In the 2009
general election, we decided to give more power to the electorate by
using a constituency based system to draw up our party lists. This
enabled our supporters to decide for themselves who their
representatives would be.

This brought about profound transformation in our party lists, both in
terms of having new faces and in terms of senior leaders finding
themselves lower down on the list, after many of their junior
colleagues. This was true democracy in the making and a reflection of
the IFP's commitment to accountability in leadership.

We will keep taking steps towards greater accountability so that the
electorate can instruct their representatives, rather than simply
being informed after the fact about what is being done supposedly in
their best interest. I regret that this is often the way governance is
done, and the IFP is fighting to change it.

Our bold step towards creating a constituency based system reflected
the tide of renewal that is refreshing the IFP. While our values
remain uncompromised over 35 years, the IFP has evolved with the
changing needs of our country. At this juncture, the greatest need in
South Africa is for a leadership that will take a stand of integrity,
point to the hard path, and walk it.

Our country deserves more than a tennis match of criticism. We deserve
accountable leaders.

At the IEC Leaders Summit I tabled my unhappiness over the fact that
complaints about fraud at each election have never been addressed by
the IEC. Quite often we are told that we did not present the complaint
at the right time, or one or the other technical reason is given. When
it comes to the fraudulent registering of people in Umhlanga by the
ruling Party, the IEC said that once the date of the election is
gazetted, there is nothing they can do.

I disagree. In terms of section 8 of the Local Government Municipal
Electoral Act, the IEC may request the Minister to postpone the voting
day determined for an election if it is satisfied that "it is not
reasonably possible to conduct a free and fair election on that day".
The date should therefore not be the deciding factor, but rather the
likelihood of a compromised election; which happens when there is fraud.

As it stands, the people that were registered in Umhlanga who came
from KwaMashu and Umlazi, and even those who admitted that they were
given bribes, will vote in Umhlanga on the 18th of May, because the
IEC claims that the gazetting of the election date bars them from
investigating the matter.

Electoral fraud has not been limited to Umhlanga. It has happened on a
large scale, in several places, over many years.

Yours in the service of the nation,