Independent Electoral Commission
Review of State Institutions Supporting Constitutional Democracy
28 February 2007
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
AD HOC
COMMITTEE ON REVIEW OF STATE INSTITUTIONS SUPPORTING CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
28 February 2007
INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION
Chairperson: Prof K Asmal
(ANC)
Documents handed out:
Independent
Electoral Commission Response document
Relevant documents:
Terms of reference
Electoral
Commission Act 59-1996
IEC Annual Report 2005/06 (available at www.elections.org.za)
Audio Recording of
the Meeting Part 1 and Part 2
SUMMARY
The Electoral Commission was the eighth institution to appear before the
Committee. The addition of the adjective independent to the Commission’s
official name was discussed early on and its appropriateness agreed upon. While
most of the Commission’s processes appeared to be in order, the Committee was
concerned that it failed to adhere to the legislation related to conflicts of
interest. Matters related to the Commission’s international activities,
budgeting process, research activities and internal mechanisms for dealing with
conflict were also raised.
MINUTES
Prof Asmal’s opening remarks
Prof Asmal welcomed the Independent Electoral Commission’s (IEC)
delegation, which consisted of Dr Brigalia Bam (Chairperson), Adv Panzi Tlakula
(CEO), Mr Zolise Mafuga (CFO), Mr M Moepya (Commissioner), Mr Norman Du Plessis
(Commissioner), Mr F van der Merwe (Commissioner), Ms T Mpumlwana
(Commissioner) and Mr Courtney Samson (Western Cape Provincial Electoral
Officer). Prof Asmal explained that the Committee’s interactions with the
bodies under review should not be seen as an inquest but rather as an attempt
by the National Assembly to evaluate the efficiency, efficacy and relevance of
the institutions. He said that almost all bodies were different from each other
but pointed out that the Auditor General, Public Protector and IEC had special
functions. The IEC, which came into being very early on, was not a supervisory
body but had executive and administrative functions, which were very important.
As made clear by the Stilbaai case [Independent Electoral Commission
v The Langeberg Municipality (as successor to the Stilbaai Municipality)] the Commission was not an organ of state,
nor did it, as pointed out by the Constitutional Court, form part of the
cooperative governance structure.
Prof Asmal said that everyone knew that the foundation of democratic order
depended on the nature and the fairness, openness and efficiency of the
election process. He was surprised that the Commission’s Annual Report made no
reference to the praise all parties involved in the last elections had had for
the efficiency and independence with which the Commission had performed.
The Committee had tried to send all commissions the same questionnaire. Prof
Asmal complimented the Commission on the quality of their response, the
material that accompanied it, and particularly the candidness of their 2005/6
Annual Report.
Discussion
Prof Asmal noted that nowhere in the Constitution or enabling
legislation was the Commission referred to as the independent electoral
commission and wondered why the Commission had added the adjective.
Dr Bam explained that the Commission’s response was a joint exercise that had
been extremely useful, because it assisted them in their own review of the
Electoral Commission. She explained that when the Commission met after the 1994
elections they felt that independence was a very popular slogan that had
branded well and from which the Commission had benefited. There had also been
much enthusiasm about the establishment of a commission that was independent
and political parties liked the emphasis on independence. Judge Kriegler, who
chaired the commission at the time, felt that the Commission should remain the
Electoral Commission, but that they would use independent electoral
commission for branding purposes as well as for giving people confidence in
their independence. She said that since then many electoral commission
especially in Africa, referred to themselves as independent. The commission
tried to stick to Electoral Commission in many of their documents, but she
pointed out that Independent Electoral Commission was the more popular name.
Prof Asmal said that the Committee would discuss the matter and would note that
at the first opportunity the description should be changed to the more popular
Independent Electoral Commission.
Adv Tlakula pointed out that on all the Commission’s official documents it used
Electoral Commission, and that Independent Electoral Commission was used for
branding purposes.
Prof Asmal said that it was very important that the proper adjective be used.
It had been an oversight that in the many amendments to the Constitution, there
had been the adjective had not been added.
Ms J Matsomela (ANC) noted that Section 5 of the Electoral Commission’s Act
explained the Commission’s duties and functions. One of them was to undertake
and promote research in electoral matters. She wondered what key electoral
matters had required research since the Commission’s inception and what had
been learnt from such research.
Mr Moepya responded that the Commission had commissioned a few research
projects. The Commission had published the ones he would refer to. In 2002 the
IEC commissioned the Human Science Research Council (HSRC) to investigate the
potential impact of supplementary voting in the elections. They looked at how
they could maintain and perhaps increase voter participation.
In 2005 the registration and participation of young people was identified as a
challenge. The Commission then commissioned Millwood Brown and associates who worked
with youth organisations to find out what opportunities would best serve them
as they prepared for registration. This was perhaps the research that had been
the most useful in terms of increasing the registration among young people. All
the research was published.
In almost every election they had undertaken work with the HSRC. Well before
voting ti understand voters’ expectations and how they perceived
Prof Asmal wondered what kind of research the R4, 79 million spent on research
in 2006, had been used for. He knew that the HSRC was an expensive body, but he
found that R4,79 million was a huge amount to spend on research when others
were doing much associated research.
Mr Moepya said that the 2006 research was conducted on Election Day. They were
looking at how satisfied voters were with the election process. In that kind of
research representivity was important. The research had been costly.
Ms Matsomela wondered what possibility there was of the Commission setting up
its own research unit. She also asked them to explain what the Centre for
Elections and Learning did and whether there would be a connection between that
and a research unit.
Mr Moepya said that the Centre had been established in 2005. It would
increasingly be doing research. There may be opportunities to collaborate with
other research institutions. It was a new project and was a work in progress.
It had been identified as an area that would need resources so that it could
undertake more research.
Prof Asmal wondered whether there was any possibility of developing
relationships with the Electoral Institute of South Africa (EISA) especially in
terms of training.
Dr Bam responded that that the Commission was fascinated by the Nigerian model
and was looking at it very closely. Their department was attached to three
universities and they trained people throughout the year. Those universities
assisted with research also. This seemed to be something they might consider as
they conduct their organisational review, and strengthened the centre. Research
was not the Commission’s strong point at the moment and they were looking at
strengthening it.
Adv Tlakula said that the Commission worked very closely with EISA in some of
the projects it did. The Centre for Election Learning was operational. She
explained that for the 2006 election the Commission had introduced e-learning
that enabled people to go through a test of all the elections processes. She
herself had done it and felt that it was a training method that could also be
shared with its sister organisations across Africa.
Mr S Dithebe (ANC) wondered whether people would be able to access lessons
anywhere in the country.
Ad Tlakula said that the Commission was minimising contact learning which was
very expensive particularly during an election year.
Referring to the Commission’s mandate to develop and promote electoral
expertise and technology in all spheres of government, Ms Matsomela asked what
further activities beyond mere voter education had been undertaken.
Adv Tlakula responded that this might be one of the areas the Commission still
had to work on. It had developed electoral expertise in other spheres of
government. It worked with the Department of Education in conducting elections;
most of the presiding officers and deputy presiding officers were teachers and
principals of schools. The Commission had professionalised its training of
electoral officials and had registered nine unit standards in election
management. They had thus developed a pool of election management specialists.
This expertise was developed at local government level too, because elections
were conducted in conjunction with local governments. Municipal electoral
officers were mostly recruited from among municipal managers. The Commission
was small and had few full time officials and had always been aware that they
had to run elections in collaboration with others in the public service. The
Commission also worked very closely with the Department of Home Affairs in
compiling its voters’ roll.
Ms D Smuts (DA) wondered whether it would be accurate to deduce that the
Commission had not yet explored the idea of electronic voting.
Dr Bam responded said that the Commission had investigated how these systems
were used in other countries. Two representatives had gone to India where
electronic voting had been used for a long time. At that time the Commission
was trying to develop its own systems, and had had particular problems around
how to handle its registration problems, as well as problems with delimitation
and boundaries. Later she had been part of a team that visited the United
States to investigate the same electronic system. It became clear that South
Africa would have to coin its own electronic system, which would have
implications for the delimitation process. The Commission would, in the process
of its own review, consider this matter much more closely.
She added that there been hopes that by 2007 most of South Africa would be
electrified, which would have reduced the need to use battery operated
technology in the rural areas. The Commission might now revisit the notion and
try to develop a system that was suitable to the South Africa situation
particularly in relation to electricity.
Mr Moepya said that the Commission had considered electronic voting in 2002
when studying the potential impact of supplementary voting. At the time broad
issues of trust, reliability and access to electricity had not made the project
feasible and they had undertaken to reconsider it five years from then.
Prof Asmal commented that in Ireland some civil servants had induced the
Minister of Local Government to order an electronic voting system costing ε 25 million. After having already spent
that money, they took one look at the system and decided that it was not
feasible.
Ms Matsomela asked how effective the Commission’s internal project evaluation
system, called the ‘Project Charter System’ (PCS) was.
Adv Tlakula explained that as the name indicated the system was used to
evaluate the Commission’s projects. The Commission developed its strategic
objectives, which had clear indicators and measurable outcomes. All projects
were captured in the system, which was available to all staff. The Public
Service Commission helped the commission to monitor the implementation of every
project at every stage and to monitor whether each department spent the money
allocated for a particular project. Managers reported on their progress once a
month. The system worked very well, and benefited the organisation.
Prof Asmal noted that the Commission assisted with the elections of other
organisations (student representative councils, taxi organisations) and
provided technical, managerial and logistical assistance to electoral
commissions in other countries. He said that although this was very laudable
work, the Committee had to consider the efficient use of money as well. He
wondered what the legal basis for these other activities was and whether the
legislation should be amended to accommodate these additional activities.
Adv Tlakula responded that there was no legal basis supporting those
activities. The law required them to manage elections at local, provincial and
national level. However their mandate required them to also promote electoral
democracy. The Commission thus interpreted that mandate broadly and assisted
organisations with deepening democracy within their structures.
Ms C Johnson (ANC) noted that at the Commission’s new academy, the Centre for
Elections and Learning, many election officers from other countries were being
trained. She asked if this meant that the Commission saw its role and function
in Africa increasing.
Dr Bam responded that the Commission never realised or planned that it would
become so involved within the African continent. Many of the requests came
directly from electoral commissions themselves. Many, related to South Africa’s
foreign policy, came from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) itself. The
Commission had been looking at how it could strengthen the legality of the work
it did outside of South Africa. This was necessary due to the increase in the
number of such requests.
She added that while the money that had been used for the assistance given, for
instance in the Comoros and the Democratic Republic of the Condo (DRC), came
from the DFA, the Commission still had to make its own staff available to do
this work overseas. At a meeting with the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs
the matter of accounting for the money received to do the work, had also been
raised. She pointed out that there were also differences as far as the United
Nations’ and their own policies in terms of remuneration and protection of
officials.
Prof Asmal wondered whether there was an agreement with the DFA that covered
insurance, death and compensation. The Irish had given much money to the DRC
because of the South Africa electoral commission’s involvement. He said that
confidence could not be misplaced. It was important, in order to assess
efficient conduct of the Commission’s business, to determine whether there was
an agreement with DFA, as well as what discretion the Commission had to turn
down requests. He added that everyone wanted to help fellow African countries,
but he wondered what the memoranda of understanding contained.
Mr Moepya explained that there was an agreement between the DFA and the
Commission. It covered issues on how staff would be treated, whether they had
diplomatic or United Nations status, as well as all the benefits that were
entitled to them.
Prof Asmal requested that the Committee be provided with a copy of those agreements.
There were a number of other things such as repatriation, medical attention etc
that needed to be provided for. He assumed that there was no overall agreement
as far as the Commission’s discretion in responding to requests for assistance.
Ms Matsomela noted that in the Commission’s evaluation of the success with
which it carried out its functions, they referred to the debriefing of staff at
local, provincial and national level and the value of the HSRC survey of voter
needs and attitudes which the Commission used when developing its strategic
plan. She wondered whether the Commission could isolate the key challenges that
had, through these mechanisms, been identified.
Dr Bam explained that there was no provision catering for special votes within
local governments. This made it impossible to cater for voters that had special
needs. To access the Commission’s material, which was also translated, one
needed to be able to read. Reaching illiterate voters and communities, as well
as rural communities still posed a challenge. Infrastructure also presented a
big challenge - 65% of the voting stations were schools. Many schools still had
no running water or sanitation and were in very poor condition. This was not
ideal considering that people often had to wait in line for a long time before
being able to cast their votes. The long distances some people had to travel to
get to voting stations also remained a challenge. General understanding of the
electoral laws, even by political parties, also was poor. Intra-party tensions
still presented a big challenge.
Prof Asmal said that voter registration spoke to the Commission’s efficiency.
The Commission had indicated that registered voters had increased by almost 2
million since 2000. Had there been an increase in the percentage of voters vis
a vis the total number of eligible voters.
Mr Du Plessis responded that one had to consider the debate around how many
people there were in South Africa. There was much disagreement within
government on this matter. The death rate and the addition of new voters had
more or less remained the same. The Commission had conducted a door-to-door
survey in all the areas where less than 50% of eligible voters were registered.
The Commission estimated that at the moment about 83% of eligible voters were
registered. Census statistics indicated that there were about 100 000 non South
African adults in the country. This might also play a role. He pointed out that
a registered voter did not necessarily vote. South Africa compared more than
favourably to other countries and he felt that the registration methodology had
contributed to that success.
Prof Asmal commented that he had wondered why voter registration occurred only
every two or three years, and he had been told that those three or four days
spent actively campaigning for registration garnered more registration than the
municipal IEC offices that were open all year. Two major political parties had
confirmed this.
Adv Tlakula agreed and said that that was precisely why the Commission invested
much time and energy into that particular methodology.
Prof Asmal asked why the Commission was not far more aggressive in reporting
that South African democracy worked by emphasising that the number of
registered voters there far exceeded the number in mature democracies, and that
the 70,5% voting percentage was greater than those in most democracies.
Newspapers were negligent in reporting on this, because they did not know what
happened in other countries.
Adv Tlakula quipped that the fact that this success had not been published
could be ascribed to African modesty.
Prof Asmal responded that there was a place for modesty. He noted that the
media had already left the meeting and said that that was part of the problem:
the media did not want to publicise good news stories.
Mr J van der Merwe (IFP) denied that that was the case. Everyone wanted to hear
good news stories.
Prof Asmal said that the successes he had mentioned earlier were good news,
which they did not want to publish.
Ms Smuts asked if the registration figures for young people had been
disappointing.
Adv Tlakula responded it was “a huge success”. 53% of new registered voters
were young people between the ages of 18 and 35. She felt that was due to the
power of the campaign, which had been developed and led by young people.
Mr S Dithebe (ANC) wondered whether the delegation would agree that the
National Youth Commission (NYC) had complemented the Commission’s efforts in
that campaign. Prof Asmal added that the South African National Youth Council
was also mentioned in the report and asked the Commission to give greater
clarification around these collaborative efforts.
Adv Tlakula confirmed that the Commission worked very closely with the NYC who
had in fact initiated the interaction before the election to find out what
contribution they could make to ensure that young people registered. The
Commission had first met with the NYC only, and thereafter with both the NYC
and the Youth Council. A seminar had been held with all the youth formations
organisations within the country to brainstorm how they would encourage the
youth to participate in the election process as both voters and electoral
staff.
Ms Matsomela noted that the Commission had stated that it interacted with
several portfolio committees (Home Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Provincial and
Local Government) as well as the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA).
It had also identified some challenges in Parliament’s oversight mechanism
saying that portfolio committees lacked a holistic understanding of Chapter
Nine institutions. It had proposed an oversight mechanism that would facilitate
greater integration of Chapter Nine institutions’ reporting. She asked the
Commission to explain what it meant by “greater integration”. She wondered
whether the integration referred to common points of enquiry from the portfolio
committee or to commonalities between the different Chapter Nine institutions.
Dr Bam replied that at present the Commission reported to the Portfolio
Committee on Home Affairs, which had many other public entities reporting to it
too. She realised that Chapter Nine institutions had different mandates and
functions but they all had a particular responsibility and had to act
independently. The Commission would find it useful if it could report to a
committee that had an understanding of the issues Chapter Nine institutions had
to deal with. At present the institutions reported to their supervising
committee once a year. In addition to budgetary issues, matters such as
democracy and electoral systems, needed to be discussed and debated. They did
not expect Parliament to create a committee for each institution, but thought
that some form of specialised focus would be of assistance. She suggested that
there could perhaps be one Chapter Nine committee comprising of experts in all
the necessary areas.
Prof Asmal agreed that there were no simple answers. He appreciated the honesty
with which Dr Bam had answered the question. He agreed that there had been a
lack of focus on the Commission’s work.
He had noted that the response document indicated that when the Commission
suggested changes to legislation, those changes were not really considered. He
wondered if this was perhaps a sign that the National Assembly was not fulfilling
its oversight role. He urged the delegation to respond to this question
candidly.
Adv Tlakula did not think that that was the case. Normally the Commission’s
amendments were accompanied by a memorandum detailing why they made certain
proposals. Usually Parliament agreed with them.
Prof Asmal asked if it would be useful to submit an annual report that
reflected which proposals had been accepted and which had not. It would assist
in asserting their independence.
Ms Matsomela asked the delegation to elaborate on their response to Question 11
where they referred to the challenges faced by independent statutory bodies to
further concretise the collaborative vision of the Forum of Independent
Statutory Bodies (FISB).
Prof Asmal asked if the FISB was now defunct. The IEC was the first body to
refer to the FISB, which was a first attempt at having some kind of organised
collaboration. Membership was voluntary and some bodies had since fallen by the
wayside. Was there any formal collaboration?
Ms Mpumlwana explained that the FISB had been a South African Human Rights
Commission (SAHRC) initiative. The SAHRC had invited the bodies to join. It
operated at two levels – the secretariat and the commission. The IEC, SAHRC,
Commission on Gender Equality (CGE) and the Commission on Cultural, Religious
and Linguistic Rights still continued in the tradition of FISB. They met to
talk about matters of mutual interest and joint projects. One of the major
challenges was budget as commissions did not all have the same budgets and some
were thus unable to join in the realisation projects they had conceptualised
jointly.
Prof Asmal wondered how the budget interfered with the ability to collaborate.
Ms Mpumlwana replied that some of the projects needed to be funded and when they
conceptualised a joint project, it was difficult for some of these bodies to
get funding half way through the year in order to participate. One such project
was the recognition of those who had contributed to the culture of human
rights, gender equality and electoral democracy through an awards ceremony.
Joint research and newsletters had been anticipated but those were not
possible. Although not ideal, the institutions did continue sharing internal
newsletters via email.
Ms Matsomela asked if the FISB would continue operating and if the Commission
thought that it was adding any value.
Ms Mpumlwana said that the Commission thought that FISB was adding value. The
Commission would like South Africans to see Chapter Nines as a national joint
project. They continued with the FISB despite the struggle, because they
believed in it and wanted it to work.
Prof Asmal wondered whether the engagements were now informal.
Ms Mpumlwana replied that the engagements were informal because there were no
formal agreements.
Prof Asmal noted that there were no formal agreements and thus no deliverable
outcomes. Referring to the Commission’s indication that there was no overlap
between it and other bodies, he pointed out that the vote, which was contained
in the Bill of Rights, surely had to form part of the CGE and the SAHRC’s
mandates. The right to vote was the basis of everything people had fought for
and was but one example of such overlap. There was interrelationship on a range
of issues and he had been surprised to read that the Commission did not think
that there were overlaps with other bodies.
Adv Tlakula responded that perhaps the Commission had not phrased the response
clearly. The Commission felt that there were no overlaps as far as the
management of elections.
Ms Matsomela noted that the Commission had identified a gap between the legal
prescriptions in the relationship between the Commission and the CEO, the
Commission and administrative staff and, the CEO and the administrative staff.
She wondered why the Commission had made these distinctions. It appeared as
though clear lines of authority had been drawn but that in practice they became
blurred.
Dr Bam explained that the full-time commissioners, appointed by the National
Assembly were policy makers and monitored, supervised and advised the
Commission’s activities. The administration of the Commission’s operations and
finances was the responsibility of the CEO who was appointed by the
Commissioners. Problems arose when full-time commissioners, understandably, wanted
to “move into areas of activity” such as projects, instead of sticking to only
policymaking. The administrative staff felt that these commissioners were
interfering in their work, when they should be giving policy direction only.
Dr Bam explained that it was impractical to expect that commissioners should be
kept busy with developing and monitoring policy the entire time. Ideas came
from the commissioners while the administration was involved in realising them.
Tensions arose when commissioners continued wanting to give inputs and be
involved in the planning and realisation phase too. Staff sometimes became very
irritated when commissioners gave them instructions, while they were supposed
to take instruction from the CEO. The delegation of power from the Commission
to the CEO and from the CEO to the provincial offices also had to be taken into
account.
She said that many of these tensions were often also related to personality
clashes, opposing attitudes and individuals’ problems with power and authority.
The law was clear about the delineation of functions, but in practice other
factors needed to be taken into account. There was also a tension between the
part-time and full-time commissioners. Sometimes enthusiasm and impatience as
far as projects were concerned, impacted on working relationships.
Dr Bam concluded by saying that the problem with elections was that one could
not separate policy from operations. Elections were about operations. Things
had to move and could not merely be debated and intellectualised.
Prof Asmal commented that that was the most candid response on internal
conflict that the Committee had so far received.
Mr Dithebe said that he was becoming more and more convinced that organisations
that used the emotional intelligence instrument to maintain cohesion within
their organisations, rather than just relying on ability, might have the right
idea. He wondered what measures were being put in place to ensure that these
tensions were well managed.
Prof Asmal asked why after eight years, these measures had not yet been put in
place.
Dr Bam replied that the main reason for not having put measures in place for
resolving these tensions was that the Commission had developed a tradition and
a way of working that was very much related to leadership styles. She had
succeeded Judge Kriegler and was working with a different CEO. Dr Bam and Judge
Kriegler had had very different experiences, leadership styles and came from
different disciplines. She pointed out that in her position one did not always
follow the legislation but used one’s own experiences for guidance.
The addition of new teams and the relationship between full-time and part-time
commissioners could also cause further
challenges. She added that one's interest in the task one had to perform made a
big difference. The Commission had at some point requested Judge King to
intervene because they had never run a Chapter Nine institution. She assured
the Committee that the Commission continued to work on their internal
relationships and that they had, in the light of their own review, decided to
evaluate the area again and see if they were now ready to formally put down
details of what the roles of full-time and part-time commissioners should be.
Ms Smuts agreed that maturity and aspects of personality played a great role.
Although the law was clear as far as the delineation of powers and authority,
in practice things became hazy. Another institution had indicated that although
the CEO, under the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) reported directly to
National Treasury, the Commission was still held accountable if things went
wrong. They felt that this was a structural conflict between its enabling
legislation and the PFMA. The Commission clearly did not see such a problem.
Prof Asmal wondered whether the law was in fact very clear.
Adv Tlakula responded that the Commission was in a more favourable position
than the other Chapter Nine institutions that had laws that said the CEO, who
would be the head of administration and finance, should be appointed by the
commission. The Commission had in addition to that legal provision, a provision
that said that there should also be a chief electoral officer to whom specific
statutory functions were assigned. When it came to electoral operations for
instance the functions of the chief electoral officer and the Commission were
clearly indicated. Other Chapter Nines did not necessarily have their functions
clearly spelt out, but were delegated by the Commission. The Commission did not
have problems as far as how the functions of the chief electoral officer
related to those of the Commission. Their problems was more to do with the
functions of the chief electoral officer as the CEO.
These challenges were not insurmountable, and they had ideas on how the
commission could function in a way that would assist the administration in
setting policy and strategy. The administration needed the Commission’s input
on issues of operations such as compilation and maintenance of a voters’ roll.
If they could find a balance, they could move forward.
Prof Asmal said that there were a number of other questions on the direct
interrelationship between the functions of chief electoral officer and the
Commission. He quipped that the fact that women held the two most important
positions might have helped in avoiding serious conflict up until then. He
urged the Commission and the administration to “get their act together” so that
measures were in place to deal with conflict that might arise.
Ms Matsomela wondered how the Commission balanced its local responsibilities
with the development of its African and international relations.
Dr Bam responded that the only time the Commission had to seriously consider
how they would balance their responsibilities with their international
involvement was in the case of the DRC elections, which had been a huge
undertaking. After taking all administrative implications into consideration,
they assigned certain members of staff to the task.
The Comoros had been slightly different: the IEC and the South African National
Defence Force (SANDF) had run those elections on their own. The Commission had
been asked to assist in the elections but on arrival on the island, realised
that they needed to get additional staff to assist. The fact that the Commission
had no policies in place complicated matters. She added that demand for
international assistance was growing and the Commission was looking at
strengthening their international relations unit. The visits the IEC got were
also increasing. This had never been planned for within their international
relations unit. They now had to discuss with the DFA how they would best work
together. She assured the Committee that the Commission would not tamper with
the timeframes for its South African responsibilities. Although the Commission
was committed to assisting other African countries, South Africa was its
priority.
Prof Asmal noted that the Commission had not indicated if mechanisms had been
put in place to deal with conflict between the CEO and the Commission or
between the commissioners.
Dr Bam responded that the small size of the Commission was helpful. There were
only three full-time commissioners, which was better than having a large
number. The administration thus had to deal with the stress of only three
commissioners interfering with their work, or wanting to have a hands-on
approach. She said that commissioners did disagree amongst themselves and they
had developed a tradition of reaching a consensus, which was easy to do since
the Commission was so small. They all came from backgrounds that assisted in
mediation, and did not need a disciplinary committee.
The Commissioners and the CEO all sit in the same commission meetings. Everyone
had a chance to speak. The CEO had equal access to the commissioners through
the commission meeting. She can then bring what she wishes to be discussed to
that meeting. Dr Bam said that as the Committee could imagine, there were big
debates around staff bonuses and performance appraisals.
Prof Asmal said that he had raised the question more in relation to Section 82
(5) which stated that the CEO had to make appointments in consultation with the
Commission. He asked if this was not an area where the lines between the
Commission and the CEO were blurred – the Commission could not apply their
minds to scores of people being appointed.
Dr Bam said that the Commission had many examples where agreements around
appointments had been reached. Sometimes certain shortlisted candidates were
turned down after a series of discussions. There was much consultation on the
appointment of senior staff.
Adv Tlakula added that the Commission had developed appointment systems. At a
policy level the Commission had taken a decision that the IEC would not appoint
election officials who were not registered voters. Once they had a list of
people that qualified, they took the names to the Commission so that
appointments could be made. Appointments were dealt with systematically.
Ms Matsomela asked whether the Commission had a code of conduct.
Dr Bam responded that the Commission had a code of conduct for both the staff
and the commissioners.
Ms S Rajbally (MF) commented that at every election, people were turned away
from voting stations because they were not registered to vote in those areas.
She wondered how the Commission would address this problem in future elections.
Mr Du Plessis replied that the biggest difficulty was election officials
“ability to follow an alphabet”. Things such as people getting married, and not
remembering to change their name on the voters roll when the names on their IDs
changed, also contributed to the problem. The Commission had now decided to
keep the voters roll for a particular district on the registration scanner. The
scanner then read the ID and the person’s location on the voters roll was
identified and the voter could then be directed to the correct station. This
did not solve all the problems, but 75% of the problems appeared to have been
dealt with through the use of the so called “zip-zip machine”.
Mr S Simmons (UDSA) asked if it had ever been necessary in terms of the code of
conduct, to take action against staff members. Prof Asmal added that the Annual
Report had made reference to some “fiscal shenanigans”.
Adv Tlakula replied that although the amounts involved appeared to be
insignificant, they felt that there was a need to take action and to recover
the finds, precisely because the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) required
that action be taken.
Prof Asmal noted that Commissioners had to seek authorisation from the
President if they wished to have any activities outside their normal role.
Where could one find out if
commissioners had had been granted authorisation for external interests
such as large shareholdings or company directorships. The Annual Report
indicated that one of the functions of the Commission was to promote small
business development and Black Economic Empowerment (BEE). 339 of the 441 (to
the value of R60 million) contracts awarded were awarded to BEE companies. He
wondered how one could find out that there was no conflict of interests in the
awarding of the contracts.
Dr Bam responded that the Commission had never actually sought written
authorisation from the President. The Commissioners disclosed their interests
in a register that was kept at their offices. Certain offers were simply turned
down because the Commission realised that it would be impossible for them to be
involved. As far as serving on various boards in South Africa, the
Commissioners took the decisions themselves.
Prof Asmal pointed out that Section 9 of the Act was very clear in that it
required presidential authorisation for the holding of any other office. The
Committee needed clarity on why the Commission did not comply with this
requirement.
Dr Bam responded that the Commission probably defaulted in this regard because
of the new requests for them to serve on BEE company boards, which had never
before been made. Many agreed to serve on these boards and did not seek
permission from the President.
Prof Asmal pointed out that conflict of interests could arise. The Commission
disposed of a fair amount of money through contacts. The Committee would
consider if such matters should be included in the Annual Report. He felt that
disclosure should be public and that the register should be kept with the CEO
and not within the human resource department. The Public Service Commission
kept the register for all civil servants. Under the freedom of information
legislation, which the Committee would also carefully consider, there was
absolutely no reason that that information should not be available. In many of
the Chapter Nine institutions the information was completely inaccessible. It
was an essential part of democracy that the commercial links of those who made
the system work, had to be transparent. All commissioners’ interests should be
disclosed. He reiterated that the information, which should be updated
annually, be kept with the CEO, so that those who want the information could
access it.
Mr van der Merwe added that the IEC could look at the disclosure forms that
Parliament used.
Prof Asmal agreed and said that the Committee would discuss the matter and
would probably come to a fairly quick decision as far as the Commission’s
disclosure of interest was concerned.
Ms Matsomela noted the amount of work the Commission did to ensure that
communities, especially the special focus groups, were aware of the elections.
She wondered then what caused the steady decline in voters from election to
election.
Mr Moepya responded that declining voter participation was not unique to South
Africa. Initially everyone took part in the elections, but as the democracy
matured, numbers declined. The Commission had undertaken interventions among
special focus groups, and addressed potential areas of improvement via
research. It was not necessarily the case that people were not given the
opportunity to vote. The Commission made an effort to mitigate the declining
interest.
Prof Asmal asked if two or three times a year the Commission should not perhaps
invest in radio broadcasts that would remind people to register or update their
details if necessary. The radio would reach most people. This would also raise
consciousness. He said that for democracy to work one needed people to be actively
involved despite the fact that politicians did not necessarily want that.
Consciousness-raising should be a permanent endeavour and not something
undertaken every four years.
Ms Rajbally agreed that voter education should be done annually. She suggested
that pamphlets be issued and that free community newspapers as well as shops
and other businesses be approached to assist.
Ms Matsomela asked what the Commission did to follow up on complaints made by
the public and Prof Asmal asked if they kept a record of complaints.
Dr Bam replied that most complaints were related to operations and came from
political parties.
Prof Asmal said that there was a process for dealing with complaints from
political parties. He asked about the process for dealing with complaints from
the public such as those who felt that they had been robbed of their vote.
Dr Bam responded that many such complaints were received particularly after
elections. After the 2006 elections especially, many independent candidates
complained about all kinds of things. Some people went to the Commission’s
offices and the Commission tried to respond to the best of their ability. She
said that the most useful complaints came from the political parties. The
process for dealing with these complaints was much more systematised. The
public normally complained through letters or lodged complaints at provincial
offices.
Prof Asmal suggested that the figures for informal complaints were reported in
the Annual Report so that one could see whether there was an increase. A
breakdown of the nature of the complaints might also be useful.
Prof Asmal then steered the questioning to the relationship between the Head
Office and the nine provincial offices. He wondered how information was shared,
how the budgeting worked, and who ultimately had authority over these offices.
Adv Tlakula responded that there were nine provincial offices, all reporting to
the chief electoral officer. They submitted monthly reports that detailed their
implementation of projects as well as how they were spending their budgets.
Their performance was also evaluated. Budgetary allocations were made per
province as well as per project – this meant that there was a budget for
delimitation and voter registration, which was divided amongst the provinces.
Though the system appeared to be working, there was room for improvement.
Mr Dithebe noted that the HSRC had prepared a very useful report with regard to
voter trends. The report indicated that 96,3% of the respondents had the green
bar-coded identity document. Those who did not have the IDs cited
inaccessibility and expense as major stumbling blocks. He asked if such
information was shared with the Department of Home Affairs (DHA), so that the
IEC could make a fair assessment of how many people registered between
elections.
Adv Tlakula confirmed that the Commission shared such research information with
DHA. The initiative to issue free IDs resulted from such research. Towards
elections the Commission registered people wherever IDs were issued.
Mr Du Plessis added that although registration facilities were available at all
municipal levels, the rate of registration was low – about 5000 to 6000
registrations every month. At present the death rate stood at 40 000 a month
which meant that the Commission had a net loss of 30 to 35 000 voters monthly.
The Commission had on previous occasions tried a newspaper campaign outside of
the election period but that had not been too successful. However, due to
funding limitations, it had not explored systematic campaigning that would
allow them to establish a rhythm. This was an avenue that could be explored.
Ms Matsomela pointed out that, unlike many of the other bodies, the Commission
had a direct link to the National Treasury. What recommendations about budget proposals
could the Commission make for bodies that were not in their position?
Dr Bam replied that the Commission’s direct link to National Treasury had a
long history attached to it. It was not automatic and had even involved a court
case. She would share her opinion on the matter at a later stage.
Prof Asmal requested the Commission to explain their budget process in detail.
Mr Mafuga explained that each project in the project charter system was costed.
It included the administration expenditure of the provincial offices. It then
went to the CEO for evaluation, and from her to the Commission for approval.
Once approved, this three-year budget was taken to the National Treasury where
the budget was extensively discussed. After these discussions the budget went
through the normal budgetary process.
He suggested that other Chapter Nine bodies also advocate for a direct line to
National Treasury. In the Commission’s experience, the support received from
the home departments was not as strong as it should be.
Prof Asmal pointed out that National Treasury’s stance now was that there
should be no home departments and that Parliament should fix the budgets of
Chapter Nine bodies. He asked if the delegation felt that that Parliament,
Parliament through a committee or Parliament following the approach the
Commission already had in place, should fix the budgets.
Adv Tlakula responded that so far the direct approach had worked well for the
Commission.
Ms Smuts said that she hoped that other institutions would also be able to
follow the Commission’s approach. She noted that in their protocol for their
relationship with the Executive, they stated that they would not be prescribed
to. The submission indicated however that the Commission would pursue a
cooperative and supporting relationship with independent state institutions and
government. They then continued to quote the principles of cooperative
governance as contained in the Constitution.
Prof Asmal pointed out that there was a reference to the fact that the Commission
would provide appropriate guidelines in all sort of situations. This did not
appear to be particularly irksome.
Mr F van der Merwe said that the statements should be read in the context of
the entire Chapter. The Commission wanted to point out that the three spheres
of Government were independent of each other, and that the Constitution made
provision for additional independent bodies. Although these bodies were
independent from each other and could not influence each other irregularly,
they served under the same Constitution and should thus support each other in
the governance of the country. International interaction should thus, for
instance, be conducted in consultation with the government and should not
transgress international policy.
Prof Asmal said that there were many different views about how public bodies
should exist. He added that cooperation was different from cooperative
governance.
Returning to the budget, Prof Asmal noted that the Commission claimed that they
had managed to contain growth in the budget over the last six years and that
costs in real terms had dropped. However, the Annual Report stated that from
2001 to 2006 expenditure had increased from R251 million to R923 million.
Mr Mafuga replied that it was necessary to be aware of the cyclical nature of
the Commission’s operations and therefore its budget. Comparisons ought to be
of equivalent years. Such a comparison would reflect that the expenditure had
indeed decreased.
Prof Asmal said that since he was a layman he would have to consult on the
issue. Moving to the next question he noted that the Commission received
sponsorships. He asked who the sponsors were and asked if accepting
sponsorships did not impact on the Commission’s independence.
Adv Tlakula replied that the Commission had an international donor agency,
which sponsored its voter education only. The Commission had taken a conscious
policy decision that they would not accept sponsorship of their operations. At
elections, commercial companies could buy advertising space next to the leader
board at election centres.
Prof Asmal asked if it was a good idea for the central democratic event to be
sponsored commercially. He left the Commission to ponder this question.
He noted that in both 2005 and 2006 the Commission had spent R10 million on
computer equipment and asked if the Commission was not perhaps too
“technologically evolved” for a developmental state.
Adv Tlakula explained that each staff member had a computer because in their
business one would not survive without one. In 2003 the Commission changed
their hardware because it was five years old. With the introduction of the new
Microsoft software (Vista), they would have to upgrade their hardware again in
2008.
Ms Smuts asked if open source would not be an option.
Mr Du Plessis responded that open source had not been an option at the time of
their establishment. Having developed so many home-grown systems within a
particular medium, redoing them in open source would cost more than replacing
the hardware.
Prof Asmal commented that COSATU had said that the Commission was too
technologically invested which was why he had asked the question.
He asked whether it was true that the Commission had spent R216 million on
consultants in 2006, and R109 million in 2005. The Public Service Commission
had carried out an investigation on consultants. He wondered if these
consultants added value to the Commission.
Adv Tlakula pointed out that 2006 was an election year and that the Commission
being a small institution expanded during these times when they needed
additional IT and finance assistance. In 2005 additional assistance was needed
during the registration weekends.
Prof Asmal thought it necessary that the Commission give a breakdown of what
the consultants did in the Annual Report so that people could understand that
most of the money had gone towards payment for services related to the
elections.
Prof Asmal then moved to the R640 000 spent on remunerative allowances and R4,8
million on gratuities in 2006. He asked if these payments were bonuses. He
asked if the benefits mentioned in the Annual Report were for part-time or
full-time commissioners.
Mr Mafuga explained that R641 000 was spent on overtime payments for permanent
and temporary staff. The gratuities were paid when people left the Commission.
Prof Asmal asked to what the allowances mentioned on page 23 of the Annual
Report referred.
Mr Moepya explained that the allowances referred to the moneys paid to election
officials who during election periods had to be relocated to areas where they
were needed.
Prof Asmal noted that R960 000 had been spent on benefits to commissioners.
Adv Tlakula explained that the commissioners received a basic salary equal to
those of judges as well as benefits equal to those of directors general.
Ms Smuts noted that Section 219 of the Constitution said that a framework had
to be set up to look at the salaries of judges and all independent
commissioners. The Commission benchmarked its salaries correctly and she was of
the opinion that the many court cases the Commission had been involved in, and
their judgements, had contributed to their budgeting processes working
correctly. She felt that other bodies could perhaps follow the Commission’s
appointment process.
Prof Asmal said that there was a great divergence amongst bodies and it led to
enormous problems in the bodies. In the end these divergences proved to be
subversive.
Dr Bam added that a panel of their peers interviewed candidates for IEC
commissioner positions. A Constitutional Court judge chaired the panel.
Prof Asmal said that the Committee would consider the idea of their peers
appointing commissioners. He thought it necessary to remember that many of the
systems were put in place during the “first flight of enthusiasm”.
Ms Smuts explained that an NGO had at the time suggested that the IEC
commissioner appointment panel consist of their peers and a constitutional
court judge. It had worked well.
Prof Asmal said that the Committee would note this point. He thanked the Commission
for the frankness of the responses. If the Commission wanted to add anything to
the submission, they could do so. Unlike some of the bodies that had been
looked at, the Commission was working towards achieving democracy. The
Committee would report to Parliament on the areas that needed strengthening and
might require statutory change. He assured the delegation that Parliament
invested much hope and aspiration in the Electoral Commission.
The meeting was adjourned.
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
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.