Why+a+protest+non-vote+is+useless,+Ebrahim+Hassen

//Please read and pass on. Apologies for cross postings. A little late to make this argument, but better late than never. I have not had time to edit this article.//

=Why a protest non-vote is useless= On election day, voting is but one of the activities. For the thrifty middle classes supermarkets will be selling discounted goods, for the aspirant label conscious middle class there is a massive discount on clothing. For the intellectual left, there is a colloquium organised by the Centre for Study Civil Society, focused on works the of Harold Wolpe, Guy Mhone and Rosa Luxemburg. (These scholar activists I think would much rather be voting.) Some might even skip all of this, and enjoy a skinny latte or a selection of DVD’s. To vote and to shop, or to vote and attend a colloquium, to vote and escape to the melodies of Javed Akhtar, to vote and to marvel at the new Kwaito mix is absolutely fine. But not to vote, out of choice is an entirely different matter. It is a democratic right not to vote, but it is the wrong choice, especially if it is protest vote. But the problem of not voting should not be exaggerated. The projections in the Sunday Times are that an amazing 70% of the electorate will turn up for the local government elections in 2006. That would be truly wonderful. This article focuses on a section amongst the remaining 30% (some of whom are dear friends and family) that see not voting as a kind of protest vote. There are two different arguments in this regard amongst my friends and family. On the one hand, there is the ‘left’ argument that the African National Congress no longer represents a viable left option, and there is no other credible left party. On the other hand, there is the middle class argument that little has changed, and that to vote is meaningless. Both arguments with their many differences, share a surprising complicity:- a perception of being powerless in shaping the future, and a vigorous critique that service delivery has not improved. Middle class minorities (and communities define themselves in this way) argue that their vote is meaningless, as they are powerless. Yet, there is ample evidence that middle class minority communities have benefited from the transition to democracy. Tax cuts, low interest rates, and a growing black middle class (which both buys and sells to each other)  means that more cars are being sold, house prices are rocketing and personal income for the middle and especially the upper classes has been increasing. So we are asked to accept that the powerless have reaped the rewards of the transition. An implausible argument, as the power of a growing middle class is at the centre of government activities. Think about that as you buy designer labels or monthly groceries at discounted bulk prices on election day. The left argument for not voting centres on the perception that the ANC has sold out, and that a mass based worker party has not emerged. The substantiation is that centralisation has increased, and that ANC has adopted policies that are neo-liberal. There are finer and important points to make on the trajectory of the ANC, but in terms of a protest vote two factors stand out. First, we must not make the mistake of assuming that the ANC has not undergone policy changes since 1996, when government adopted the GEAR policy. The shifts in policy may be incomplete and inadequate given the challenges of poverty, inequality and unemployment but there has been a leftward shift. (We can debate its meaning) For instance, the ratio of taxes in relation to GDP has finally gone beyond the GEAR targets, but the deficit remains very small by every standard. In another instance, the fire sale of state owned enterprises has not materialised, but unions are engaged on the details of restructuring. This might be to paraphrase a friend criticism of seeing the redistributive trees without seeing the neo-liberal forest. Secondly, and in response to this criticism of not looking at the bigger picture, is to point out that these changes were catalysed due to the campaigns of unions, churches, NGOs and the left within the Alliance. The mobilisation of people to stop privatisation and budget cuts has been an important part in voicing dissatisfaction with government policies. Protest non-voters must consequently challenge there assumptions that the ANC is not moveable and inherently pro-capitalist. Moreover, we might still want to argue – as we should – that the ANC needs a more redistributive stance, but we must recognise that there is a cautious embrace of more redistributive policies. It is cautious because the state still does not adequately fund key asset building programmes like housing and land. So there is much left to do before we can say we have a viable development programme in South Africa. The point being made is much more modest: - there have been incremental but significant changes that open the space for a more redistributive politics in South Africa. Consequently, voting because there is no change in policy is too ignore ten years of policy development arising from the struggle against GEAR. As Marxist say, that would be ahistorical and not dialectical. Of course, most leftys in the SACP, COSATU and ANC will have no such contextual crises, and will be proudly voting – after all winning the vote was part of a left project. We must thus ask if there is a wider disconnect between left protest no voters, and the lived experiences of workers.

Even if you disagree with this argument, leftist have a wide choice of parties to support. Of course, there is no mass based worker party with a socialist agenda standing for elections, so deal with or transform that objective reality. But, Azapo, PAC, and even the Operation Khanyisa Movement provide left alternatives, depended on ones ideological perspective and assessment of the future. Rather vote for one of these parties, and divide the opposition, than not vote. The implication is that every ‘lefty’ that does not vote reduces the voter turnout, which favours the Democratic Alliance. So the smart thing is to vote even if only tactically, especially in Cape Town. If you think that such a tactical consideration devalues your principles. Think again, a vote to keep the DA out, keeps out an anti-poor, pro-capitalist party, and shows solidarity with an agenda that provides ‘exit path out of poverty’ (to use the parlance of some NGOs) The more compelling argument is that services have not improved, and thus people will not vote. The protest on services have given government a very welcomed wake up call. People are demanding their rights in the so-called hot spots. It is a product of democracy to see poor communities – whatever the organising bases – standing up to government. Government seems confused on how it deals with these new forms of organisation. Why for instance must Abhlali Abahlali Base Mjondolo, Durban’s shack dwellers movement, take local government to court to hold a march? Surely, they have a democratic right to march, and the council the responsibility to listen. I am not sure of the context of the shack dwellers march, but democratic local government should provide a space for protest, and nurture critical voices. But new forms of organisation in working class communities are good for democracy as local government will have to negotiate in future not only with well organized and resourced residents associations, but with vocal but less resourced organizations of the poor. That is positive for democracy in our country, as poor people find voices and power through organisation. The implication is that newly elected ANC councils will be forced to understand and influence these emerging organisations of the poor, and that provides an opportunity to reconnect. South Africa is divided on questions of service delivery. In the recent Markinor survey, 48% of South Africans are unhappy with the performance of the country’s 284 municipalities. Some 45% of respondents were positive about the work done by local authorities, while 7% were undecided. I would probably be in the undecided category. The billing fiasco in Johannesburg seems to have been sorted out, and Metro Police are way too efficient in issuing tickets, the decentralised People’s Centres offer courteous and efficient services; and the Johannesburg Zoo offers a greatly improved service. My main gripe is that Metro Bus does not run daily bus routes to Lenasia, or any other area in the south of Johannesburg. So at a personal level, I would say there are areas of improvement but also areas where I would like to see improvements. Pushed to make a choice, I would probably say service delivery has improved.

But the restructuring in Johannesburg has created an insulated bureaucracy, which is unable to communicate effectively. The City of Johannesburg has lost its way on communication despite some impressive and not so impressive results. In a sense they are lost in the tyranny of Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s). Perhaps, the councillors spend too much time attempting to make sure that stand alone companies, like City Power, are doing their work, and not enough time communicating with the public. I am not sure why the City of Johannesburg fails to communicate, especially since it has some good achievements. In this regard, the Mayor’s report called ‘Reflecting on a solid foundation’ makes for interesting reading. It is filled with the stuff which allows citizens to connect directly with the council, and at face value some impressive delivery results. A couple of snazzy billboards and radio adverts cannot compensate for the human touch. Some of the radio and billboard adverts speak of growing jobs, increased economic growth, a stronger capital budget, and other issues. If one tries to separate the spin from the reality, there has been some good improvements in service delivery, but of course many challenges remain. The problem is that neither the challenges or the achievements have been communicated effectively. This is not just a subjective opinion, as the Gauteng government survey of citizens views of local government shows. (If anyone doubts that the City of Johannesburg has made some improvements in service delivery, please check out the Mayor’s report at http://www.joburg.org.za/city_vision/finalterm_report.stm )

But it does not need to be that way. For example, take Wayne Minnaar, the Metro Police media spokesperson, or as we like to call him the ‘spinner-kop’. Minnaar makes for excellent radio, as he engages with listeners. The important thing is that he is communicating, and is perhaps the best communicator in City of Johannesburg. Councillors could take a leave out of his book – clear messages, on both the complex, and on the day-to-day (it rains in Johannesburg and he is on radio urging caution from drivers). That is what local government is about, visibility, communication and action. Jameel Chand, is another effective communicator for Johannesburg Water. We may not all agree with prepaid meters, or the concession agreements for water in Johannesburg, but at least we have most of the information on which to make an assessment. Both Jameel and Wayne are of course paid to communicate, but what about our councillors. There are some councillors – and Lenasia has many of them – that take the time and effort to communicate with voters, and support civil society initiatives. But there are many that do not do the basics – letters to knock and drop newspapers, following up on complaints, participating in IDP processes. Those councillors that have failed to communicate and perform should not be given another chance. But you have to vote to get new, hopefully more competent councillors. Beyond communications, there is the worrying trend of Johannesburg Water and City Power. Both private companies or utilities, they were established with the promise of more efficiency and better delivery. Instead, Johannesburg Water faces a growing non- payment problem, and City Power has not undertaken the required repair and maintenance activities. And of course there is the introduction of pre-paid meters, which cut off supply based on affordability. So the continuation of supply and extending it to people, via these utilities requires significant changes if delivery is to be sustainable. It requires rethinking utilities as a model to improve service delivery. So even if one is frustrated by service delivery levels, to abstain from voting is to accept the status quo. More importantly, not voting strips citizens of there right to hold councillors accountable, and to demand improvements in service delivery. Democracy after all comes with responsibility. And if you really think your ward councillor has not done any work, or that a political party has failed you, the challenge is to organise and mobilise. Before ending, let us ask whether the ANC is soft on corruption. At a recent wedding, I debated the question (or rather tried to get a word in on a table where the conversation was bitter, and the Biryani tasty). The specific issue was Jacob Zuma. The evidence presented that the ANC is soft on corruption, was that Jacob Zuma was not in jail. This irrationality stems from the either the fact that some people do not understand the rule of law in a democracy, or more worrying from a deep seated quest for vengeance against ANC leaders, or perhaps just all black leaders. The people making these arguments will probably never vote, complaining is so much easier. But let’s recap. Jacob Zuma has lost his position as Deputy President of the country, as it is not correct for a politician to be in office whilst facing serious corruption and rape charges. So Zuma will have his day in court (hopefully with less singing, or at least a more appropriate song), as it is his right and will be subjected to the rule of law. Firing or ‘releasing’ a Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa is a tough stance. The broader issue whether the ANC has done enough to combat corruption does have a clear answer. There has been several prominent persons who have faced trials on corruption charges, for instance the members of parliament in the so-called ‘Travelgate’. At local government level in Johannesburg, there has been a significant tightening of procedures to stop corruption. Perhaps, the best safeguard is that newspapers without fear expose corruption. So the ANC has been tough of corruption, but it battles an accumulation regime in our society that prizes wealth over values. This is a difficult battle to fight, and the victor still undecided. Perhaps, the ultimate confusion for not voting is it sends a protest message to the ANC. The results of the election, will show only that X% of eligible voters have not voted. As Amos Masondo or (hopefully) Nomaindia Mfeketho analyse the results of the elections, they will have no way to interpret the meaning of why some people chose not to vote. It could well be a minority middle class protest vote, or a disillusioned leftist vote, or maybe just a lazy apathetic citizenry. So to protest without giving a clear message is merely to waste energy. A vote even if it is not for the ANC, is a better way to give expression to your feelings. There is thus a difficult choice then of voters to chose who they will vote for to register a protest, and (more positively) a better future. There are choices to be made, and don’t be fooled choices in a democracy are never easy. Not voting to register a protest, is to abscond on our collective responsibility for our country.
 * See you at a voting station!
 * Ebrahim-Khalil Hassen is a senior researcher at the National Labour and Economic Development Institute and writes in a personal capacity.
 * Ebrahim-Khalil Hassen is a senior researcher at the National Labour and Economic Development Institute and writes in a personal capacity.