Independent Electoral Commission on its roles, mandates and challenges

Home Affairs

19 August 2014
Chairperson: Mr L Mashile (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) briefed the Committee on its roles, mandates and challenges. The presentation outlined the legislative mandate of the Commission, and stressed that it was, in terms of section 181 of the Constitution, one of the institutions that strengthened constitutional democracy. Section 190 required it to manage elections of national, provincial and municipal legislative bodies in accordance with national legislation, ensure that elections were free and fair; and declare the results with a prescribed period. The functions of the IEC were defined in section 5 of the Commission Act, 1996. The statutory requirements were that there should be five members of the Commission, of whom one must be a judge, who were appointed by the President after a public process had been followed. Commission members were appointed for seven years, and this term could be renewed once. The IEC appointed its Chief Electoral Officer, who in turn appointed other officers and employees, in consultation with the Commissioners. The Commission had three Deputy Chief Executive Officers, who in turn managed the divisions of Corporate Services, Outreach and Electoral Operations. One Provincial Electoral Officer was in each provincial office, and there were 234 local offices and a staff establishment of 1 034 positions. The functions of the different divisions were outlined, and it was explained that the Electoral Operations facilitated participation of voters in regular, free and fair elections, using sustainable systems and processes. The Outreach division informed and educated the public on electoral democracy, with a view to strengthening participation in electoral processes, and there was substantial stakeholder liaison. The budget of the IEC for the period 2014 to 2017 was R1.6bn. It was noted that the commissioners attended to different provinces and the committee structure was described.

IEC aimed, in its Vision 2018 statement, to be a pre-eminent leader in electoral democracy, and at an internal level, it aimed to strengthen governance, institutional excellence, professionalism and business processes. Some of the challenges were outlined, and these included the need to timeously find the right formulae for determination of councillors and ward delimitation, the need to close the gaps by actively seeking youth participation in elections, on an ongoing basis, to consolidate legislative amendments, particularly of the Municipal Structures Act and the Municipal Electoral Act, and to deal with demarcation disputes and protests that tended to spill over into elections. IEC also needed to address  infrastructure disparities between established and informal settlements, strengthen liaison with unrepresented political parties, and be vigilant on voter registration in the lead up to contentious by-elections.

Members were generally appreciative of the presentation, although the EFF member questioned its relevance, saying that the IEC had presented nothing new and he wondered if any real value was gained from it. He would have liked to have scrutinised the budget, asked what invitation had been issued to the IEC and what this meeting hoped to achieve. The Chairperson explained that the budget, Annual Performance Plan and annual performance would be considered on other occasions, and confirmed that the IEC had given a presentation in line with the invitation from the Committee. The EFF Member asked for clarity on whether the court case involving the Chairperson, following the report of the Public Protector, had been finalised, and was told that there were still other issues that the IEC wished to place before the court. Other Members questioned whether it was correct in principle to confine the checks on free and fair elections to the process at the voting stations, commenting that issues such as bussing in of people to certain areas to skew the numbers, distribution of food parcels, and extensive advertising (sometimes using party colours) by government departments prior to elections did not pose a threat to the freedom and fairness. They questioned whether the recommendations made by a previous ad hoc committee that had considered the IEC and other Chapter 9 institutions had bee implemented, particularly in respect of voter registration, asked what voter education initiatives were in place, and suggested the need to revise the systems around voting at stations. It was strongly suggested that Parliament must consider the position of the IEC Chairperson, after all legal processes had been finalised, and IEC was asked to indicate the costs, and who would be paying. Members also asked about the results, transparency and financial implications for voters abroad, how the infrastructural challenges were being addressed, how many vacancies had been filled, what was happening in regard to committees that the IEC Chairperson was chairing, who was doing the review of the necessary legislation, and how the IEC could act to minimise the risk of demarcation disputes affecting the elections. Comments were made on the need to clarify the figures, and to minimise spoilt papers, and the EFF Member objected to alleged lack of competence in ensuring that all processes were correctly followed, and asked why other challenges that were known had not been brought out in the presentation. Members also asked for clarity on the use of extra staff during elections and the dangers should these people strongly state their support for one or another party, and asked whether unions were asked to provide temporary workers.  

The Committee adopted the minutes of the meeting on 29 July.
 

Meeting report

Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) briefing on roles, mandates and challenges
Mr Terry Tselane, Deputy Chairperson, Independent Electoral Commission, thanked the Chairperson and the Committee for the opportunity to present on the roles, mandates and challenges facing the entity (IEC or the Commission).

Mr Mosotho Moepya, Chief Executive Officer, IEC said that the Commission (now commonly referred to as the “Independent Electoral Commission”) was established by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. The Commission was independent and subject only to the Constitution and the law. It should be impartial in exercising its powers and perform its functions without fear, favour or prejudice. It was accountable to the National Assembly (NA).

IEC was one of the institutions that strengthened constitutional democracy, as set out in section 181 of the Constitution. Other organs of state, through legislative or other measures, should assist and protect the Commission to ensure the independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness of the institution. No person or organ of state may interfere with the functioning of the Commission. In terms of section 190 of the Constitution, the IEC must manage elections of national, provincial and municipal legislative bodies in accordance with national legislation, ensure that those elections were free and fair, and declare the results of those elections within a period that should be prescribed by national legislation (which should be as short as reasonably possible).

The duties and functions of the Commission were defined in section 5 of the Commission Act, 1996. These made reference to:
- managing any election
- ensuring that any election was free and fair and promoting conditions conducive to free and fair elections
- promoting knowledge of sound and democratic electoral processes
- compiling maintaining a voters' roll, by registering eligible voters, using data available from government sources and information furnished by voters
- compiling and maintaining a register of parties
- establishing and maintaining liaison and co-operation with parties
- undertaking and promoting research into electoral matters
- promoting the development of electoral expertise and technology in all spheres of government
- continuously reviewing electoral legislation and proposed electoral legislation, and making recommendations
- promoting voter education
- promoting co-operation with and between persons, institutions,    governments and administrations for the achievement of its objects
- declaring the results of elections for national, provincial and municipal legislative bodies within seven days after such elections
- adjudicating disputes which may arise from the organisation, administration or conducting of elections, which were of an administrative nature
- appointing appropriate public administrations in any sphere of government to conduct elections when necessary

Section 2 of the Commission Act, 1996, included the holding of a referendum as one of the mandates of the Commission.

Mr Moepya dealt with the appointment of members of the Commission. The IEC consisted of five members, one of whom should be a judge. Commissioners were appointed for a term of seven years, which was renewable only once. The process was a public one, which culminated in the appointment by the President. A new Commission was constituted on 4 November 2011. The current Commissioners were: Adv FDP Tlakula (Chairperson); Mr IT Tselane (Vice-Chairperson); Judge GM Makhanya; Rev BB Finca; and Ms R Taljaard.

The Commission appointed the Chief Electoral Officer. The Chief Electoral Officer was the head of administration, and accounting officer of the Commission. The Chief Electoral Officer also performed other duties and functions assigned to him or her by the Commission, the Commission Act, or any other law. This included appointing officers and employees of the Commission, in consultation with the Commission. The staffing establishment provided for three Deputy CEOs – one each for Corporate Services, Outreach and Electoral Operations. There was one Provincial Electoral Officer for each provincial office of the Commission. There were 234 local offices. The organogram provided for 1 034 positions.

He explained the function of the different divisions. Corporate Services provided enabling business processes and systems in respect of financial management and information and communication technology, legal services, human resources management and facilities management, to efficiently and effectively support the core business of the Commission. The Electoral Matters facilitated the participation of voters in regular free and fair elections, using sustainable systems, people and processes. Activities included are the delimitation of boundaries, maintenance of the national voters’ roll and the planning and co-ordination of activities during registration week-ends, on Election Day and special voting days, as well as for home visits. Logistics and Infrastructure provided logistics, warehousing and distribution infrastructure such as voting stations and municipal electoral offices, electoral materials and equipment as specified in the bill of materials and voting station staffing plans.

The CEO said that in terms of Outreach Civic and Electoral Democracy Education informed and educated the public on electoral democracy with a view to strengthening participation electoral processes. Research optimized available data in order to inform organisational planning and other decision making processes. The Communications division actively supported the Commission’s efforts to strengthen electoral democracy and ensured free and fair elections. It worked to protect and enhance the image of the Commission through strategic communication with the Commission’s stakeholders, including political parties. Stakeholder Engagement and Liaison engaged and liaised with a set of stakeholders nationally and internationally, in order to promote knowledge of and adherence to democratic electoral principles, and promoted collaboration with when necessary.

The IEC’s budget for 2014/15 to 2016/17 amounted to R1.6bn. In terms of the Vision 2018 statement, the Commission aimed to be a pre-eminent leader in electoral democracy, and here, he reminded Members that it was an independent constitutional body which managed free and fair elections of legislative bodies and institutions through the participation of citizens, political parties and civil society in deepening electoral democracy.

The strategic goals of the Commission were to strengthen governance, institutional excellence, professionalism and enabling business processes, at all levels of the organisation. In achieving the pre-eminence referred to earlier, it would be strengthening cooperative relationships with political parties and strengthening electoral democracy.

Members of the Commission had allocated provinces between themselves in order to ensure effective oversight. Commissioner Tlakula was allocated Western Cape, Free State, and Limpopo; Commissioner Tselane was allocated Gauteng, North West, and Northern Cape. Commissioner Finca was allocated Eastern Cape, Kwazulu-Natal, and Mpumalanga; and Commissioners Taljaard and Makhanya, who were not full-time, worked across all provinces as their schedules permitted. The Commission had established the following Commission Committees: Election Management Committee – Chairperson: Commissioner Tlakula; Finance, Risk and Compliance Committee – Chairperson: Commissioner Tselane; Governance and Ethics Committee – Chairperson: Commissioner Tlakula; Human Resources Governance Committee – Chairperson: Commissioner Tselane; Outreach, Communications and International Relations Committee – Chairperson: Commissioner Finca; and the Research, Publications and Knowledge Management Committee – Chairperson: Commissioner Finca.

Mr Moepya concluded that the challenges of the Commission included timeous finalisation of formulae for the determination of councillors and the ensuing delimitation of wards. There was a need to close the voter registration gap (by enrolling the youth). Legislative amendments had to be consolidated, and it was necessary to review certain aspects of the Municipal Structures Act and the Municipal Electoral Act before elections. He pointed out that demarcation disputes tended to have spillover effects on the electoral process, leading to tensions and protests within communities, diminishing participation by observers, meaning a greater presence and participation of party agents. Other problems included the infrastructure disparities between established and informal settlements, urban and rural areas, the need to strengthen liaison with unrepresented political parties, and ensuring vigilance on the registration of voters ahead of contentious by-elections.

Discussion
The Chairperson was appreciative of, and commended this presentation. He suggested that Members raise any points needing clarity before moving to the discussion of the roles, mandates and challenges that had been presented to the Committee. However, he wanted to stress that the Committee should be careful to recognise the distinction between the executive functions of the IEC, which the Committee played no role in, and policy matters.

Mr G Gardee (EFF) said that he was not sure whether at this point the Committee should welcome this presentation. In previous meetings, Members had agreed that the IEC had missed the main point – for reasons best known to the Chairperson of the Commission – to place the budget of R1.6 billion under scrutiny, to allow Members to decide whether or not to support that budget, but this was now “ water under the bridge”. He noted that he was already aware of the roles and responsibilities of the Commission, and had heard nothing new.

Mr Gardee thus suggested that the meeting be postponed for a while, to clarify how the Commission came to be present, who invited it, and what the purpose was of the invitation and what it hoped to achieve. This report was simply telling Members what they already knew. In fact, it was the Commission which had certified that the results of the 7 May 2014 were free and fair, which was its role and responsibility.

Ms D Raphuti (ANC) thanked Mr Moepya and welcomed the presentation from IEC.

The Chairperson said that he had clarified at the start of the meeting that the Committee had missed the opportunity to engage with the IEC on the budget process, so the Committee expected now to hear engagement on the role and the mandate it had, and the budgetary allocation to support that, which was what the IEC was asked to present. The Committee had also invited the IEC to bring any relevant matters requiring action to its attention, and the Commission had indicated the challenges that it had, and explained how it was handling those challenges. However, Members were free to raise any questions or seek clarity on the way in which challenges were being handled, for further information, and also suggest anything for the IEC to take back and consider, especially in relation to its challenges, to seek improvement, as this was a prime function of the Committee.

The Chairperson said that there would be another opportunity to engage with the IEC when dealing with its annual report, which entailed all the work that had been done in the past, as well as the Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR) process, where an evaluation of the work that the IEC had done would be given to the Committee. The closing date for submission of the annual reports was end of September. He noted that the Committee Members should distinguish between the work of the BRRR, and what was presented in the Annual Performance Plans (APPs).

The Chairperson confirmed that the IEC was, in this meeting, definitely doing what was expected of it; namely setting out the role, its mandate, and the challenges within the roles and mandate in executing the work. The table that included resource allocations reflected the amounts that had been allocated to the Commission for the next three years. In the following year, it would need to provide ample motivation for the numbers, to convince the Committee to improve the allocation, but for the moment that figure was merely be noting. The IEC had been instructed to make a certain presentation, and that was what had been done.

Mr Gardee wanted his concern to be recorded, as he felt that it was said that it was very disappointing for the Committee to have invited such an important institution as the IEC to use its resources simply to come and tell the Members what they already knew.

Mr Gardee asked whether the case of the Chairperson of the IEC, which was before the Court, had been concluded. On 13 August 2014, the Constitutional Court dismissed the attempt to appeal the ruling of the lower court, so he enquired why the IEC was now telling the Committee that the matter was still before the court.

Mr Tselane said that Mr Gardee’s point was correct as it related specifically to the matter of the Chairperson of IEC. However, it should be remembered that there were number of issues that emanated from the Public Protector’s report, and on several of those the Commission had taken a decision to approach the High Court to deal with the issues. The judgment had been handed down specifically in relation to the Chairperson of IEC.

Mr Gardee asked what other matters were before the court emanating from the Public Protector’s report; the public seemed only to be aware of the matter involving the Chairperson of IEC.

Mr Tselane reiterated that there were a number of issues that came out of the Public Protector’s report. One of these related to the review of the lease of the IEC, which was not something the Commission could take on its own, and it had been advised by Senior Counsel that, in order to deal with the specific recommendations of the Public Protector, it was important to take that matter to the High Court. The IEC was in the process of finalising that issue for submission to the High Court.

Mr M Hoosen (DA) thanked the Commission for this report, which would give him the opportunity to raise some issues that were long overdue and which he had raised personally over several years. The first related to the question of free and fair elections. The IEC had adopted the attitude that in order to achieve a free and fair election, it should focus on the electoral process itself, from the time a person entered a voting station to the time he/she left it. However, there were in fact many other things that took place during an election campaign, which were outside the electoral process as such, that influenced the credibility of the results. He believed that the IEC placed insufficient emphasis on these. For instance, during the 1994, 1996 and 1998 elections there was lot of political turmoil during that time, and the IEC had played a very active role in engaging security services to ensure there was a conducive environment for free and fair elections to take place. IEC must be given credit for this, but should recognise that if the principle could be used in those elections, it should also be carried through to every other election.

Another issue was distribution of food parcels during the election campaign, which was a serious matter, but which he was not sure whether the IEC itself took seriously enough. It said this was a political issue that the political parties should resolve through the courts, but in his view, this was merely “passing the buck”. Distribution of such parcels impacted on the work the Commission was doing, and on the credibility of the election campaign, and he would thus urge that the IEC must take that matter, as well as anything else affecting the credibility of elections, more seriously. He gave another example that during the election year some government department made massive investments and set aside large funding for advertisements, and that skewed the election process by favouring the one political party over the other, which was not acceptable.  One case in point, during the last elections, took place at eThekwini Municipality. Originally the branding of that municipality was blue, but suddenly massive investment was made into advertisements on council-related activities, suddenly changing the brand colour to yellow. Yellow posters and yellow T-shirts were distributed in their thousands in that particular municipality. Reading between the lines, this had affected the credibility of the electoral process.

Mr Hoosen also said that, in respect of voter registration and voter education, the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee chaired by Prof Asmal, to consider the Constitutional institutions, had made a number of recommendations and highlighted lack of innovation on the part of the IEC. He asked whether the Commission had taken those recommendations seriously, and what IEC’s plan was to implement those recommendations, particularly since there were now more innovative ideas around voter registration.

Mr Hoosen noted that the IEC had put lot of emphasis on educating people on how to vote. He asked if the IEC did not think that the whole question of voter education should be taken to a much broader level, considering also why people would vote. Linked to this, he noted that the presentation had said that in the next elections, people would not be permitted to vote wherever they pleased, as had happened in this one. He asked why the IEC had not taken that step before. Surely it was possible for the IEC to send an SMS indicating that a voter was registered in a particular voting district, as this would save the IEC officials an enormous amount of frustration when voters arrived at a voting station to discover they were not registered in that district. It was much simpler to inform voters in advance.

He also asked for more detail on the forms which had to be filled for registering in another voting station. During both the recent and the 2009 elections, there were problems with numbers of forms, and he wondered if this system could not be changed.  

Mr Hoosen cited the continuing phenomenon of bussing in voters. One case in point was in KwaZulu-Natal where the results of the elections were challenged because there were irregularities and bussing in of voters. This was happening across some political parties, in order to skew the result to favour one political party over the other in that area. He asked what active steps the IEC was taking to prevent this recurring in the future, and particularly for the 2016 elections.

Mr Hoosen suggested that Parliament needed to look at the matter relating to the Chairperson of the IEC, provided that all the legal processes had been exhausted. He suggested that the Speaker of Parliament should appoint an ad hoc Committee to look at the rulings of both the Constitutional Court and that of the Electoral Court, as well as the Public Protector’s report, and the NA should deal with this as a matter of urgency in order to avoid any damage to the credibility of the IEC.

Ms N Mnisi (ANC) welcomed the presentation from IEC. She asked if the IEC was ready to deliver on its mandate for the 2016 elections. She also asked what the challenges, the achievements and financial implications were for the IEC in terms of South Africans who voted abroad.

Ms Mnisi pointed out that in slide 25, it was said that there were infrastructure disparities between the established and the informal settlements, namely the urban and rural areas. She asked what initiatives were  in place and what was still needed to address this issue. Possibly the IEC needed more than the current 234 offices.

Ms Mnisi asked how many of the 134 vacant posts reported in November 2013 had been filled and whether there were challenges on this point.

Ms S Nkomo (IFP) thanked the IEC for the input it presented to the Committee although there were quite a few important matters she wished to raise. She noted that the budget of IEC focussed on the two outer years but it would be important that the Committee should be given a financial report to give an understanding of the Auditor-General’s opinion on the previous year, before moving to discuss the current year, to apprise Members of the state of the financial management in the IEC.

Secondly, she said that if there were challenges with the Chairperson, then it would seem that the Chairperson was probably not fulfilling the chairing functions on the Commission’s Committees, and she asked who was handling this and dealing with her matters in the Western Cape, Free State and Limpopo.

Ms Nkomo asked who was reviewing certain aspects of the Municipal Structures Act and the Municipal Electoral Act, when and how much of that had been done, and to whom it would be referred, to ensure that something was done on that.

Ms Nkomo noted that demarcation disputes tended to spill over into the electoral process and wondered if  there was any report from the IEC which would explain this, and which could be referred to relevant bodies.
She also asked how serious the tensions and protest from communities were, how prevalent they were, and how accurate the inputs were that were made to the IEC on these issues. It was necessary to find a process that would diminish the number of protests. She also asked what was being done about the lower numbers of  outside observers during the election time, pointing out that there were Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) that could help in that regard, who were good but lacked funding to ensure that they could become more effective.

Ms T Kenye (ANC) also spoke to this point, and asked whether there was an intensive control system on the ballot papers, because it would be regarded as a fruitless expenditure if those ballot papers were not controlled.

Ms T Kenye (ANC) asked why there was a discrepancy between the budget allocations to IEC by the National Treasury (NT) and the budget vote of 2014/15. The figures cited by the IEC and National Treasury did not match.

Ms Kenye asked how the IEC could minimise the numbers of spoilt ballot papers, since she believed this was related to voter education, especially among the youngest, first time voters in every election.

Ms Kenye was concerned about the transparency of the votes done abroad, because there were no numbers made available on how many votes were lodged from South African voters who lived abroad.

Mr Gardee asked how much had been paid in defence of the Chairperson of the IEC in court, and asked whether the Commission intended to pay the costs of the Constitutional Court judgement against the Chairperson of IEC.

Mr Gardee asked what the costs implications were to the Commission for the use of public servants, directly or indirectly, during the elections, and how comfortable the Commission was in using public servants who declared their support for one political party, following directives from their unions.

Mr Gardee asked the Commission to give its “post mortem” evaluation of the 7 May 2014 elections.

The Chairperson interjected at this point, saying that the Committee should please stick to the issues on the agenda. The IEC had already responded on some issues, during the Annual Performance Plan, yet the same issues were now being raised again through the back door. He appealed to Members to be mindful of the matters, so that it would not be necessary to call them to order. Mr Gardee was capable of differentiating between the role of IEC, and its mandate, and he should please focus on these and the challenges put to the Committee, which was the reason for the IEC being called today.

The Chairperson noted that in respect of the question around the Chairperson of the IEC, no report had yet been sent to Parliament, and it was not as yet before the Committee for discussion. The Committee would wait for the processes to be completed, and a report sent to Parliament, whereupon the Speaker would decide how the matter was to be dealt with.

Mr Gardee asked why the IEC had not raised other known challenges – such as the incompetence of the IEC auditors and capturing staff who, despite very clear regulations, massively captured results slips which were neither signed by the presiding officer nor party agents.

He asked on what line items the Commission intended to spend its budget. There were no projections.

Mr D Gumede (ANC) thanked the IEC for the presentation and for handling the recent elections on 7 May 2014. The ANC had complete confidence in the Commissioners of the IEC, election after election. The essential point was whether the systems and mechanisms ensured that the results correctly indicated whether there were free, fair and credible elections. He thus asked what systems and mechanisms were in place, and how IEC could assure this democratic nation that the results were free, fair and credible.

Mr M Figlan (DA) thanked the IEC for the presentation. He asked whether the 134 staff members of IEC occupied the whole of the 234 offices nationwide. He asked whether there was a database for the people employed as casuals, and how they were employed to run the elections.

The Chairperson said that, when responding to questions, the Commission should restrict its answers to those directly related to the presentation. Others could be raised when the APP was discussed.

Mr Tselane confirmed that, listening to the debates and discussions, it was clear that IEC needed to engage in considerably more interaction with the Committee, especially its new Members, to familiarise themselves fully with the work of the IEC. He committed the IEC to making itself available whenever the Committee required its services or required it to participate in discussions. As it had done with the previous Committee, the IEC would be inviting Members to its offices, to become more familiar with the processes and the systems, to ensure that the Committee was familiar with its work, which would also make it more readily understandable when the IEC presented to Parliament again.

Mr Tselane spoke firstly to the questions around the credibility of IEC elections. The systems put in place were such that people would not be able to tamper with the results. Everything that IEC did was transparent and everything started at the voting station level. At the voting station level, after people had voted, the results were counted and announced on site, and a results slip was signed by the party agents who were present. The results were also posted outside the venue, so that people could see the outcome. The results same slip was also photocopied and sent into the system so that those actually at the voting station could look at the slip, and ensure that the figures tallied with what was on the system. In addition to that, IEC had tried to put every possible safeguard in place, and use auditors, to ensure that nothing was going wrong in the processes. It was hoped that all of this could assure the nation that whatever was read out as the election result reflected the will of the people and the way that they had voted. IEC would, of course, continue to improve the systems in the lead up to the 2016 elections, and would, as it moved forward, check any weaknesses and ensure that whatever gaps existed were closed.

Mr Tselane said that the question of bussing in voters had in fact been included as a challenge in the report. This was a matter that the IEC had also raised with the political parties. It was important for the political parties to understand that, whatever happened in the elections, they bore the same responsibility as did IEC. It was not the IEC, but the parties, who bussed people in, attempting to influence the results. It was important for the political parties to work with the IEC at all times, and not try to “cheat the system” for their  own benefit. IEC could have included many other challenges also, but it had selected those which it felt were most relevant for the meeting today.

Mr Tselane confirmed that the IEC had done an assessment on the last elections. Reports would be made available to those who participated in party liaison committees. The results and recommendations came from a strategic session where IEC was assessing the outcome of the elections and possible improvements that could be made.

Mr Tselane noted the reference to the unions, but said that the IEC did not use unions. The issue had been raised by EFF, the DA and the IFP. The IEC was looking into the matter. However, he reiterated that the IEC did not engage the services of unions, and it was important, when political parties spoke to these matters, to reflect exactly what was happening. The IEC was sometimes using teachers. However, teachers were organised under different unions, and some (although only a relatively small number) were not unionised at all. The IEC did not ask anyone which unions they were affiliated with. On the day of the elections, there would  263 000 people working for the Commission. Only 18 000 of these people were teachers, and, as previously stated, the IEC had no idea who was and who was not unionised. It was important for the IEC to reflect upon what was happening, and the IEC was dealing with this and would, in due course provide a report on how it was dealing with that particular issue.

Mr Tselane noted that the CEO had just informed him that he was not sure what the situation was with the legal fees, but at an appropriate time that information would be conveyed to the Committee.

Mr Tselane said that the issue of South Africans voting abroad was related to transparency. There was a recommendation that IEC must ensure that people understand what was actually going on. The results of the ballot papers cast in missions abroad were brought to South Africa, and sorted at one voting station, where political party agents would be present and would observe the counting of the ballots, and where those particular results would be announced. He could provide the results to the Committee at a later stage.  

Mr Tselane said that there were lot of programmes that IEC had put in place on voter education, particularly for the youth – including School Democracy week with the Department of Basic Education, the  Social Media where the youth had been very active, particularly on Twitter and Facebook, colloqiums were running with Student Representative Councils (SRCs) and youth ambassadors were employed by the IEC. It was using all these mechanisms to try to make sure it had more youths to participate in their processes.

Mr Tselane then answered the concerns about the diminished interest of outside observers. He pointed out that in general,  international observers would go to areas where there were conflicts and numerous problems. This did not mean they would not pay attention to South Africa, and there had been around 90 international organisations observing the recent elections. There was thus clearly interest, but the level of interest was not as high as in the previous elections; people felt that the South African democracy was stable and there were not many problems. However, the Commission had partnered with National Democratic Institute (NDI), a US based institute that was coordinating the observer missions in South Africa, and which was holding up South Africa as a good example. The NDI would be in South Africa in September to coordinate discussions with observers and observer organisations, and IEC would work closely with it.  From the point of view of the IEC, one of the best safeguards was the presence of party agents at the voting station level, as well as its own domestic observers who were present at all times to observe that processes were correctly carried out

Mr Tselane said that once the IEC had identified particular challenges, it would then send its suggestions to the relevant structures who would redraft the legislation, and present it to the NA.

Mr Tselane confirmed that the IEC was ready to deliver the 2016 elections. At a technical level, it did not have problems, because it understood the business much better. There was a pool of electoral expertise running the business, and the IEC had capacity to run the elections. However, it was important to note that the IEC had other dependencies also – for instance, it required certain things from the Demarcation Board, which must, after doing its work, communicate the information timeously to the IEC, so that it could then factor this into the IEC systems. He reiterated that at a technical level, there was no doubt about the capacity of the IEC to run elections, and it was using its expertise and its past experience and understanding to do so properly.

The Chairperson thanked the delegation and said the Committee looked forward to future engagements with the Commission.

Minutes of 29 July 2014
Members adopted the Committee minutes from the meeting on 29 July, without amendments.

The meeting was adjourned.
 

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: