The relevant authorities on the secret ballot agree that it originated from Australia in the 1850s, hence some people refer to it as “The Australian Ballot”.
It arose as a consequence of widespread rigging of general elections in that country, through bribery, blackmail, vote buying, pressure and intimidation.
It became law in 1856 in Australia, rapidly spreading in no time.
The secret ballot system was made law in Britain in 1872, and took effect in the US around 1888.
Today, the secret ballot is a universal feature of general elections.
When the colonisers of our country arrived, needless to say — they brought the system along with them.
Our constitutional democracy did not stop at ensuring that all general election voting would be by secret ballot.
It went further and ensured through explicit provisions in the constitution and ConCourt judgments — that the National Assembly would respect the secret ballot system, and afford the system its rightful place whenever it is called for in the house’s operations.
I appeal to readers to reflect on whether the vices of the open/public vote as enumerated above would not/do not play themselves out in full, in one form or another, in our National Assembly whenever voting is imperative.
This is particularly in no-confidence votes.
Our constitution appears to be focusing more on ensuring that the individual members of parliament would be free to objectively apply their minds and consciences to the matter at hand, without interference.
In fact, there are at least two ConCourt judgments where this view is stated as an injunction.
It is also worth noting, that there have been very few, if any, members of the National Assembly to date in democratic SA who boldly stood up to their political parties.
It would appear that the constitution, and hence ConCourt, expressly provide for or rule as such, only for members of the National Assembly and all provincial legislatures.
For instance, it would also appear that when political parties deploy their people to work in the executive or the judicial arms of government, no such constitutional red tape exists for so long as the people’s individual constitutional rights in the Bill of Rights chapter of the constitution are not violated.
This is understandable, considering that the originators of capitalist democracy, the system that democratic SA preferred from 1994, albeit with amendments, did not mince their words from inception.
Thus, once a people elect an individual to a legislative body of a country or part thereof, whether directly or through their political parties, no person or party has a right to interfere with the individual’s rational, informed and independent thought processes, in the exercise of their duty as legislature members, that is, until their term in office comes to an end.
You can read relevant sources on the US governance evolution, the originators of the capitalist democracy political system, from 1787 which system has since spread to the rest of the world, albeit in various forms.
SA has a case before court presently, that of a member of the KwaZulu-Natal legislature, Mbali Shinga of the NFP.
The party has a single seat in the legislature occupied by Shinga.
She has been recalled from the legislature and expelled from the party because she dared to vote contrary to party guidelines.
She took them to court. It would be a watershed judgment were it to go all the way to the Constitutional Court.
My calculated guess is that ConCourt, if the case were to reach it, will find in favour of Shinga.
Particularly if the court were to establish beyond reasonable doubt that she was prevented from performing her constitutional duty in her attempts to scrutinise executive action through independently reflecting on whether the voting public would benefit more if she were to vote in one way or the other.
Most interesting, is the probability that the practice of sanctioning or recalling members of legislatures, based on the members’ actions or omission to act as directed by their political parties, may in the circumstances also be on the line.
Mawonga Deliwe, retired Ulwazi High School principal and University of Fort Hare lecturer.
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.