I write this at the time where UCT students have just finished voting for their favourite independent candidates and political parties towards the SRC elections. It comes as no surprise that the composition of UCT SRC leadership is always competitive and the whole country takes great interest in its proceedings as the top university in South Africa and Africa as a whole.
The aim of this artefact is to ascertain as to which of the electoral processes is relevant at UCT in the current disposition. Whether UCT should use a purely political party-based system or an independent-based system or not?
Throughout my undergraduate at UCT and even currently as a postgrad candidate, the controversy around this matter has never came to a rest. It is for this and many other reasons that I took interest in writing about it.
The current structure of the electoral process at UCT is one of a mixed system which accommodates both political parties and independents to contest for SRC seats. There are two major political rivals at UCT namely the South African Student Congress (SASCO) and Democratic Alliance Student Organisation (DASO). Agang South African Student Organisation (Agang SASO) emanating from the newly formed party by Dr Mamphele Ramphele has just recently gave birth at UCT just over a month ago, however, hasn’t shown its interest in contest for SRC election perhaps because of its infancy stages.
For many years the two dominating student political parties have gone neck on neck with each other in quest of getting the majority in the SRC. The 2013-14 SRC election results yet again demonstrate that only 4 of SASCO members made it to the SRC while DASO managed to secure 6 seats. Their vibrancy and their commitment in trying to shift UCT policies over the years have earned them the recognition and the legitimacy to perhaps want this university to purely adopt a political party-based system. These parties have in the past found themselves been frustrated by independents who ran for SRC with the ambitions of holding executive positions, a good example of such independents are the likes of the former SRC president Mr Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh and the current president Mr Lorne Hallendorff. These candidates proved beyond doubt that there is space for an independent-based system and its leadership can be just as effective if not better. It also became evident with the 2013-14 SRC election results which show yet again that independents won the majority of seats in the SRC. Some of the independents got together under the auspices of BLVCK which managed to get all of its 4 candidates safe into the SRC, while the other 4 independents made it too leaving the SRC dominated by 8 independents in total. The rest of the seats are shared between SASCO and DASO who differ with each other by a small margin of candidates, two to be precise.
To respond to the topic at hand, a lot of factors must be taken into consideration. Some of these factors include; the values of democracy, the advantages and disadvantages of the two electoral systems.
The Values Of Democracy
Briefly, making reference of the work done by my learned friend Mr Sifiso Ndaba who is based at UCT, he articulated referencing other scholars that there is indeed a high degree of consensus among the scholars of political systems that any system premised on democracy should be bent on promoting the values of democracy. These traditional core values of democracy are liberty; participation; representation; accountability; responsiveness, and equity.
The two values that hold more premises to me in this regard are accountability and responsiveness. The former referring to a duty to explain one’s conduct and being subject to monitoring and evaluation by the electorate. In the context of UCT, this refers to how much the system allows the students to keep their representatives accountable to their actions. While the responsiveness in this case means that a student elected body can act as a responsive agent to the demands of their fellow students. The assumption here is that the SRC should play this role better because both the student representatives and students are subject to the same processes, laws and policies of the institution.
The Electoral System
The party-based system: Advantages and Disadvantages
This is beneficial because political parties offer support to their student political wings and candidates become more aware of what is going on in the university political arena, compared to an independent whose focus on the student politics might be periodical.
Moreover, continuation in the student governance is very important. In stances where a political party fails to make it to the SRC, the political party will still exist, this provides stability to the broader political system of the university, whereas, if the independent is unsuccessful the ideas, vision and policies he/she had in mind is more likely to evaporate.
Ndaba continues to articulate that disadvantages; however, are that, politics is good for a campus, but when parties see campus as places of development for aspirant politicians, and as a campus for parliamentary politics, the student body becomes divided. Also, most political parties are from outside UCT, they can, instead of looking after the student needs, push for party’s national agenda. Political based system makes it hard for a person who is a political party representative, to be held accountable by the students directly, as they are accountable more to their political party.
Independents-based system
The good thing about this is that, this system is very suitable for an environment that is characterised by diversity. Indeed, UCT is one the most diverse student body in the country. This allows even the groups that do not feel that they are being accommodated by the current political parties to participate in the system. Moreover, an independent system allows an individual to stand for, and advocate for what they personally believe in, without having to assimilate, and ‘parrot’ some of the policies he does not believe in.
Independent system promotes ability for one to think and act as one wish. Moreover, this system allows even the students that might feel that neither existing parties are representing their ideologies, views, and policies to participate.
Summary
My sentiments regarding the above–mentioned topic are in alignment with those of my learned friend Sifiso Ndaba and I conclude therefore to say that there is not best electoral system between the two and in answering whether UCT should use a purely party-based system or an independent-based system or not? The answer emanates from the discussion above and the empirical evidence provided that UCT SRC electoral system does not need to be changed purely to a party-based system or purely an independent-based system. My views are that it can still achieve the two democratic values (accountability and responsiveness) based on its current mixed electoral system still in place.
By: Thabang Motapanyane
Related articles
- Exposing UCT Exposed (thecheshirecat01.wordpress.com)
- Pink Week, What A Great Affair, – Not so ‘Frivolous’ For Some (pamstar.wordpress.com)
- UCT ‘needs more black students’ (iol.co.za)
The Colloguy 
The touched topic at hand, is profound! The Student Representative Council have more than influence on the institutional governing policies, values such as accountability or responsiveness….they directly influence the thought system and culture for student life at large.
And this is why it is imperative to analyse the formulation of such council. Political parties share and drive mandates that are half from the students and half from the Western Cape government. Nevertheless, an independent representative can as well address mandates on a very narrow scale hence chances of chance are to be high.
I think having both systems in place is critical, as it would allow interests to be covered holistically, nonetheless, I believe more control should be based on governing the SRC more intensely. Policies and procedures be formulated and put in place in spearheading the SRC in a democratical leadership direction.
As the saying goes, “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it”. You touched on the fact that UCT is such a diverse place which is is crucial. Basically, the SRC electoral system currently in place is working well to cater for this diversity, it’s great that both party alligned students and independents can run side by side for SRC positions. The results just go to show that it’s ultimately anybody’s game! That’s always a good thing.
I think both systems are good and nothing need to be changed.
The SRC is the highest decision making of student governance and is supposed to coordinate the various student organisation or societies( shows diversity) in way that associations affiliated under the council make a significant contibution to a student life. I believe its crucial to have cordial relations between bodies without discrimination of what so ever( independent or political) as long as it caters for students. so i believe the current system is doing well.
Good point made chief! as a university that strives on integration, it only seems appropriate that our SRC reflect the same values our University holds.
I feel that politically affiliated parties prioritize their own mandates over the issues that directly affect students on campus, independent parties seem to put the issues of students first.
The “dual system” that is currently in place works and need not change. It also seems to be the fairest to those who wish to run for SRC. We can’t possibly force people to affiliate themselves with parties because that means having to uphold the ethos and values of that party, some of which the particular candidate might not really stand for.
But if I had to choose between an independent-system and a party-system, I’d go for the independent one. Like Godwin said “politically affiliated parties prioritize their own mandates”…they’re too focused on beating the competition in terms of seats as opposed to having the interests of the students at heart #MyHumbleOpinion
I think UCT should just use which ever system puts the students first. The SRC is for the students and not a battle between any parties.
In order for us to understand the rational of using political parties as “locomotive tool” to SRC elections in our institutions in Post-Apartheid Era one need to understand first the history of student activism in relation to the political organization. During apartheid times student politics had a different meaning when compared to post-apartheid. Students felt compelled to enter into being part of the liberation struggle, which in turn gave them an identity and shaped today’s leaders. Student structures enabled the youth of Soweto to take to the streets in 1976. It was the students who made townships ungovernable in the mid-80s instigating the series of states of emergency that marked that era. Students understood the politics of their country. But they would not have had any impact if their approach to issues of national interest if their efforts were individualistic as is the case with today’s youth and student’s .All what the students of the 1976 achieved came through working as a collective in student political organisations like SASO and others but not through individualistic effort.
In addressing this issue, many critics who argue against the use of political parties for SRC elections have variously indicated that the changing nature of the student body and the diverse aspirations of students mean that political parties no longer have a role to play in the present day because we are no longer in a struggle. However, I argue that SRC elections should be party based because our institutions of Higher learning must be understood in relation to the conditions which are internal and external to it (Political,Enviromental,and Social).Secondly, most Higher Educational institutions have not fully transformed themselves and they cannot realistically solve societal problems such as the ability of working class learners to pay their fees as a result student political organizations play a role. Furthermore, Higher Education institutions have, for the most part, done their best to respond to student demands, although they have not necessarily responded speedily and without being pressurized to act in a particular manner by student organisations.
In addition to that student political organizations act as a complement to the policies of the government and in support of national political efforts to steer the higher education system more closely in order to ensure that future labour-market needs are met. But, along with this, High Education institutions have also increasingly raised their fees, become selective in who they admit and have generally moved in the direction of treating students as customers who pay for specific services. In this sense, the privatization and individualization of Higher Education services has actually run parallel to efforts to realize national interests, which is one of the reasons the paper argues that student political bodies are best served by student political organizations when compared to independent candidates whose interest lies in winning popularity contests and in promoting socially-oriented individual interests.
Further, many students, including those in SRC, come to University with a limited understanding of what one needs to know and how one must act to become a citizen. Their grasp of citizenship is often very isolated, rooted in a belief in the primacy of individual rights (a belief reinforced by the market). Through this private lens, students political organizations try to define what counts as citizenship and what the experience of higher education might mean. Student political organizations have a significant role in challenging students’ private, individual, rights based by helping students develop a public, social imagination, and an understanding of how and why securing rights benefits a larger community. Further, they help students by informing students of a set of civic duties, through modeling the right way to be in a community, particularly on how to subordinate individual desires to a larger public purpose—even while living in a market economy that defines success by the fulfillment of those individual desires.
The hybrid of both systems probably came about as a resolution between the two systems. It appears to be functioning properly and I haven’t heard anyone complain about it, so I think we are fine and should just leave it like that.