Roots Republic

Voting from the Far Side
By Toni Parsons

South Africans living around the world number well into the hundreds of thousands. London alone is so chock full that Wimbledon and Earlsfield have been colloquialised as Wimblefontein and Earlsveld. Australia, Canada and the US have surely been privy to a similar level of infestation by boerie eating sun lovers who flatten their vowels.

Reasons for leaving are as varied as the people who have gone. Misconceptions such as ‘he left for fear of the Swart Gevaar’ are perhaps not null and void, but certainly a little short of the truth in many cases. Moreover, there is a large proportion of expats who have a long term plan to return and invest money into the economy when they do and contribute to a positive future for the country.

Why, then, are South Africans with valid ID books or passports not allowed to vote if they do not reside permanently in SA?

Government employees (however long they plan to stay away) can vote from abroad, as can those who are temporarily absent. Voting happens at embassies, and the South Africans who staff the embassies (presumably) man the voting.

According to the constitution, all South Africans are entitled to a free and fair vote. However, subsequent to the Mbeki regime, said constitution was amended, employing the current restrictions. Reasons for these restrictions are not clear, other than for some - rather embittered - people hypothesising that it was a tactical measure by the ANC to ensure that it retained the majority rule. This assumes that all expats would be voting for a non-ANC party; an argument that falls into the bin with those who believe that leavers (a) are white and (b) did so because of a political distaste for the ANC. As I said, into the bin.

The most prevalent argument for the restrictions is that taxes paid by South Africans living at home should not be used to fund voting abroad. Those who stand to gain from the remote vote being instated will not have to live with whatever changes are put into effect as a result of the election, and who do not pay tax themselves.

However, since the election occurs overseas for government employees and temporary absentees, I fail to see how allowing others to vote would involve massive additional funds. Furthermore, despite being allowed a ‘free and fair’ election, I believe that expats would be more than happy to pay a nominal fee for the privilege of being able to vote from abroad, and would be more than happy to make the effort to do so at the same place that absentees and government employees do.

While this argument should not be swayed with numbers alone, it may be pertinent to mention that in the US elections in November, approximately three million Americans of voting age were abroad. They were permitted to either post their vote or cast it via an ‘e-vote’ system. If they dropped off their ballots at a US embassy, they did not have to pay the (on average $2) postage fee. Just over five hundred votes swung the 2004 American elections – three million votes clearly matter to the American idea of democracy.

In a democratic country smaller than some American states, a few hundred thousand votes are important. Along with that, the South Africans with no intention to return home and no interest in the country are unlikely to make the extra effort to register and to vote. Those with vested interests should be allowed the opportunity to have a say in the country they plan to return to. If South Africa has any interests at all in a ‘Homecoming Revolution’ in any shape or form, it would be wise to formally acknowledge the importance of South Africans, and give them the chance to feel as though they are involved. Getting people involved is far more likely to pull them home than casting aside their rights to vote.

Do you feel strongly about South Africans being given their constitutional right to vote from abroad?
Sign the petition along with other actively involved South Africans:
http://www.mypetition.co.za/index.php?page=sign_petition&petition_id=77