PRETORIA, Gauteng — ActionSA has formally pushed back against the Democratic Alliance’s (DA) urgent Electoral Court challenge over proportional representation (PR) candidate lists, dismissing the allegations as a hypocritical attempt to disenfranchise a quarter of the South African electorate.
The DA recently filed an urgent application in the Electoral Court, accusing ActionSA, the EFF, the MK Party, and the GOOD party of deliberately concealing their PR candidates from voters until after the elections. However, ActionSA leadership strongly defends the party’s candidate selection policies, arguing the process is entirely democratic and legally sound.
Merit-Based Candidate Selection
ActionSA National Chairperson Michael Beaumont clarified that the party’s approach to PR lists is explicitly outlined in its candidate selection policies. According to Beaumont, ActionSA populates its PR lists after the elections by ranking the performance of ward candidates who do not secure ward councillor seats.
Beaumont argued that this merit-based approach allows voters to directly influence the PR list based on local ward performance and service delivery ideas. He contrasted this with what he described as the DA’s top-down approach, criticizing figures like Helen Zille for generating PR lists in a “smoke-filled room” without voter input.
Accusations of Hypocrisy and Double Standards
Escalating his criticism, Beaumont accused the DA of utilizing the exact same legislative mechanisms they are now challenging in court. He revealed that ActionSA researchers have identified at least 13 municipalities where the DA submitted only a single name on its PR list. Under current electoral legislation, if the DA secures two or more councillor seats in these areas, the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) will invite them to supplement their lists.
“The supplementation of lists is a part of our legislation… and there’s nothing wrong about it,” Beaumont stated. He pointed out that the DA utilized similar supplementary list tactics in KwaZulu-Natal for the NFP in 2016 when the party failed to register on time.
Furthermore, Beaumont criticized the DA for failing to amend the electoral legislation despite holding the Home Affairs Ministry—a custodian of electoral laws—within the Government of National Unity (GNU) for the past two years.
Alleged Motives and Disenfranchisement
Addressing the underlying motives behind the court application, Beaumont suggested the DA is attempting to strip parties representing 25% of South African voters of their right to participate in forming municipal councils, including the election of mayors and speakers.
He drew a sharp historical parallel to argue that the DA’s reliance on the courts to block votes they cannot win mirrors the discriminatory “qualified franchise” of the past. Historically, this system excluded black South Africans from voting based on property ownership and education requirements, a dynamic Beaumont argues the DA is attempting to recreate through legal maneuvering.
IEC Concerns and Campaign Focus
The legal dispute comes amid broader concerns raised by IEC Commissioner Janet Love, who recently highlighted three major issues threatening the electoral process: political violence, the defacing of campaign posters, and political parties sniping at each other rather than presenting clear policy proposals to voters.
While Beaumont agreed that such political infighting is unhealthy for the democratic project, he maintained that ActionSA was merely reacting to the DA’s aggression. He noted that he was actively campaigning in the rural Eastern Cape to offer alternatives to collapsed municipalities when he received the DA’s court papers.
“I didn’t conjure up an electoral court case to try and disenfranchise a group of political parties,” Beaumont concluded. He urged the public to review the IEC’s website to verify the PR lists themselves and hold the DA accountable at the ballot box for what he described as cynical and anti-democratic actions.
