On March 27, the Electoral Commission (IEC) published a Government Gazette notice inviting political parties, independent candidates and interested stakeholders to comment, by May 8, on the proposed deposit candidates must pay to contest the coming local government elections.
By law, registered political parties and independent candidates intending to contest elections must pay a deposit to confirm their intention to participate and establish their identity.
The commission proposed varying, moderately increased amounts in respect of each candidate list submitted by a party, from R4,700 in a metropolitan municipality and R2,800 in a local municipality with wards, to R1,800 in a local municipality without wards and in a district municipality.
It also intends to increase the deposit for an independent ward candidate and for a ward candidate nominated by a party who is not contesting the election of the relevant municipal council by way of a party list to R1, 800 — all heartening measures.
But there is a broader problem, one that the commission will find difficult to address: given the rising cumulative costs of contesting elections, is it reasonable to increase the deposit amount instead of keeping it the same or even marginally reducing it?
While there is consensus among citizens on the need for candidates to pay a reasonable deposit, it is more difficult to establish what is reasonable this time round.
A political and socioeconomic environment in which rampant household inflation and corruption contaminate the intersection of money and politics keeps chipping away at this consensus.
While the need to avoid an unmanageably long ballot dictates payment of an election deposit, the right to candidacy demands that the amount set cannot be so high as to render registration by prospective candidates impossible.
Whatever one’s views on the conspicuous wealth accrued by politicians and politically connected individuals riding the gravy train, and on the long list of registered parties lining up to contest, we all have a responsibility to comment on whether the proposed amounts sit well next to the headlines the upcoming local elections are making.
The commission’s timely consultation should prevent an enormous backlash among prospective candidates contending that the increases would make the election contest inaccessible to vast numbers of citizens campaigning for various political causes, many of whom are young.
A deposit must not impair, curtail, or hollow out the essence of the right
In principle, the right to stand for public office encompasses both procedural and substantive dimensions.
In its substantive element, it requires permissible filter requirements, such as a deposit, to be proportionate and not excessive to constitute an impenetrable administrative or financial barrier.
A deposit must not impair, curtail, or hollow out the essence of the right.
Also, it must not thwart the free exercise of political choice in electing public representatives.
Some might view the commission’s upwardly revised amounts as an unavoidable reality in dealing with rising operational costs due to the combined impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and recent court decisions that require a detailed voters’ roll and fair treatment of independent candidates.
Some might argue that the attitude in setting deposit amounts seems to be to charge as much as you can get away with charging.
But the deposit is not an outlier, as the amounts are refundable to contestants who obtain a seat in the applicable proportional representation election, or who obtain at least 10% of the valid votes cast in the applicable ward election.
A controversial point is that the deposit is not refundable to losing candidates.
Instead, it is paid into the National Revenue Fund despite calls to ring-fence and direct it to democracy education initiatives.
The average political party and independent are struggling financially, as reflected in the IEC’s quarterly reports submitted to parliament under the Political Funding Act, which requires mandatory disclosure of private donations to political parties and independent representatives.
The knock-on effect on the rest of the candidates is immense.
In these cash-strapped times, people’s pockets are not bottomless when it comes to meeting legally required costs for contesting elections.
Well-funded political parties already in the legislative bodies may be able to spend, spend, spend — but many small local parties and resource-poor independents make hard financial choices.
The challenge is that many candidates on the ballot paper do not emanate from these large parties.
It is small local parties or independent civic groups that nominate them.
If they have to pay an increased deposit and for several other expensive items, will they be less likely to enter the contest?
Even if they do make it on the ballot paper, will the next generation of voters be waiting to support them should they not win and end up forfeiting the deposit?
Payments can leave a sour taste and put citizens off the election entirely.
In this unequal context, the commission’s invitation for comments offers a timely and welcome opportunity for public participation before decision-making.
Neither the commission nor citizens should treat the proposed amounts as a foregone conclusion that cannot be revised downwards.
The people responsible for keeping the election management machinery running might justifiably argue that they are doing their best, and that it is easier to find fault than to balance the books in a financially hostile environment.
Innovations such as the use of technology in election management — a highly popular initiative to register candidates and voters — have gone a long way in making elections more accessible.
But elections rely on candidates, not only for legal compliance, but for the direction of the democracy itself.
Any periodic initiative that seeks to broaden and diversify the candidates by preventing standing for public office from becoming the pursuit of a moneyed elite is doing a service to all of us.
Let us engage with it deliberately.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.