Hi, welcome to my Poliseries: an exploration of the vision each parliamentary party has for South Africa’s future. In this report, I discuss the One South Africa Movement (OSA): the knife in our toolbox meant to fix South Africa’s political system by cutting out the middlemen: political parties. Although OSA is an activist movement unlike a political party and, like ActionSA, the movement isn’t in parliament, it has caught my attention due to its vision being so similar to my own. As far as I’m concerned, OSA is the first of its kind to be aborted from a political party, in this case, the DA; the first bastard with a vision and mission to ‘take-out’, not only its parent but all political parties. Based on this mission, I believe this movement regards the corruption infected by political parties’ very existence as central to the lack of progress in resolving the land question.
I find it ironic that within a drafted take on political parties’ visions relative to the future of South Africa, it is that of, not simply a non-party-like organisation, but an anti-party-like movement that is most hopeful. OSA beholds a future wherein individual citizens, as part of their respective communities, become active political participants in their governance. A political system the movement calls “direct democracy” which is devoid of political parties thereby narrowing the gap between citizens and government. Acknowledging their idea as not entirely new, since independent candidates have been standing for elections, primarily locally in municipal councils, for some time now; this movement’s proposed political system restructuring aims to address an innate problem the parties have.
As I’ve discussed in my previous reports, establishing a political party to serve the interests of communities automatically creates a gap between that party and those it is meant to serve. This, because the very act of establishing it necessitates that it have its own identity, vision and mission – all of which will inevitably deviate from those of the communities it serves. As a result, a conflict of interest will gradually develop as the party slowly differentiates its survival from that of those it serves. The communities, of which it was initially a part when founded, later become as clients with interests, not only different from its own but that which it couldn’t care less about. This gap then goes on to become a breeding ground for all sorts of self-serving/corrupt activities and ‘sub-cultures’ that, in turn, feed into socio-economic inequalities. It is in this sense that OSA considers the very existence of political parties its target problem.
The shortcomings of previous attempts at self-governance via bypassing political parties were characterised by lower-revel organisation. This movement points out that, although progress was made by way of independent candidates winning over municipal wards, their victory was short-lived when their ambitions were later undermined by those political parties after they won over the entire municipal council. The advantage enjoyed by political parties here being that of proportional representation (PR) vote. You see, South African local councils/municipalities are categorised into those for larger metropolitan areas and those for smaller communal areas. Our local elections decide our governance via these institutions by individuals and political parties for whom we choose to vote.
The selection system used by these elections is called the mixed-member PR electoral system. It is a two-stage voting process whereby voters first select their preferred individual candidate using a first-past-the-post (FPTP) plurality method in which the candidate with the most votes wins the seat in contest; and, thereafter, select a political party whose contested seat allocation is to take place using the PR method. For local councils, seat allocation is split 50/50 between FPTP and PR; but district councils, which oversee multiple local councils, have a 40% political party PR seat allocation and the remaining 60% is also allocated to political parties via PR but based on local council PR results.
Having individual candidates working alone to contest single-member districts/wards and seats on local councils worked fine for accessing the FPTP half of local council seats; but alienated those districts and wards from the remaining PR half which rendered them ineligible to contest for seats at district council and provincial legislature levels, where seat allocation uses only the PR method. This is where the Electoral Commission Act's section 15A presents an opportunity for the average citizen to, as per the OSA Movement, take back his/her responsibility to partake in directing the future of his/her community and South Africa as a whole. OSA's contribution to South Africa’s future does not end with its subtraction of the political party from our electoral system; but its replacement with a new type of political organisation: the section 15A association that is an alliance of single-member individual candidates and other municipal stakeholders. Section 15A allows for an organisation not registered as a traditional political party, such as the association already mentioned, to contest local elections.
This proposal offers a benefit by removing the conflict of interest inherent in establishing an identity separate from that of its constituents as would entail the founding of a political party with its constitution and organisational structure. A benefit that would mean closer ties between individual candidates and their constituents; ties useful in slanting risk-reward considerations, relative to corruption by these candidates, more toward the risk side of the ratio. What differentiates this consortium from a political party is that it is not so much an organisation (in any traditional sense) but more akin to a medium of communication, a tool/platform carrying a mission relevant to all stakeholders for its electoral campaign. Unlike a political party, this association is not alive so-to-speak; it does not bring with its establishment a hunger to endure that becomes central to political parties taking on a life of their own. No, its existence is temporary as per its mission not to outlast its purpose: to contest for local and district councils’ PR seats and make it possible for individual candidates to gain a majority therein.
Our ignorance has kept political parties relevant by maintaining our dependence on them to materialise our dreams for us but OSA’s mission is to decouple us from their teat. Awaken us from our slumber and have us politically active again as agents of our future instead of just spectating as our lives pass us by. As I understand it, the operational model of this movement is similar to the business model of television broadcasters: the latter enables private advertisers greater reach to domestic markets for a fee while the former does the same but for a conglomerate of single-member districts or wards represented by individual candidates. These section 15A conglomerates representing specific communities may also be regarded as private advertisers because they aim to attain votes for council seats (customers for profits in terms of private companies) by campaigning (advertising in terms of private companies). OSA becomes, not only their broadcaster in helping plan out and execute their campaigns, but their guide and mentor: holding their hand through the entire process in educating and up-skilling them on the political process and how to exploit it. It is not clear to me what ‘fee’ they will ‘charge’ for their services in this regard but whatever the cost to these organisations I expect would be detailed within the memorandum of understanding the movement requires of them to sign to receive their support.
A more accurate comparison of what OSA does is to the services offered by a marketing agency as shown by the list of support services it offers for which the 15A association must sign. What I consider to be some form of legally binding contract, this memorandum intrigues me for it itches my brain with the question: ‘aside from carrying out its mission in materialising its vision, what does the OSA movement want to gain for providing its services?’. In other words, why is there a need to have these associations sign what seems to be a form of contract?
The way I see it, Mmusi’s founding of the OSA movement is quite innovative. The movement itself is an organisation meant to endure for its vision is long term; it has its hierarchy, mission, and values which one would expect to align with those of most, if not all, communities in our country but which I still regard as separate from them because it is not a given that that will always be the case. In this sense, it is a political party that is also a movement; two descriptors when mixed produce a mercenary political party or a private political company (PPC) relative to what a private military company (PMC) does. OSA aims to help establish and empower innumerable 15A associations representing communities across the country by taking over for them the party side of politics, so they won’t have to deal with it. Its services will liberate individual candidates from identity constraints present in the formation of partnerships amongst themselves and have them collaborate, temporarily, while protecting their true loyalties to their constituents. The abovementioned memorandum, I assume, ensures that communities’ political ambitions don’t clash with its vision of a South Africa governed by its people through direct democracy.
OSA is the first political movement I know whose founding is an acknowledgement of the very existence of political parties as the corruption problem. They are not corrupt, as in it is not their behaviour that makes them criminal enterprises but their very nature – their existence. Yes, power is most effectively and efficiently wielded when centralised but, as per natural law: all possible mechanisms of action have their limits. I have discussed in my other party reports the conflict of interest inherent in founding a separate organisation to serve another – organisations must do for themselves based on the quality of relationships amongst their members. Communities are organisations as they are, they simply need to tidy up their processes by coming together for meaningful cooperation. It is unnecessary and inefficient to have a few of their members branch off to establish a new organization in their service; this is shown by the resultant difficulties concerning accountability.
I have alluded to Dunbar’s number as a guide to the limits of power centralisation. I was speaking to the need for the degree to which power is centralised concerning the management of our country to be reduced. OSA’s mission to bring political office close to its constituents is the diluting of power into more stakeholders as political actors. It is demystifying the office’s elitist facade by breaking the ignorance barrier in educating me, you – the common citizen, that you are responsible for the future of which you dream. Although all-in-all, the dilution of power does not go far enough, in my opinion, OSA represents the brightest hope for our future as a country since its efforts are the furthest we have come. The future we need will require everyone to pitch in so education will be key to breaking our collective ignorance-based fear preventing us from proactively taking up our responsibilities in building it. In our current awareness state, we are unworthy of our power thus are not ready to wield it; a mentor to guide us is what we need today, and this makes OSA the organization prescribed by our guardian angels.
Commentaires