Talk:Elections in South Africa

Biased.
Hi, this article is biased. Regards, Gregorydavid 08:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel free to fix any problems you see in it. You can add to the article, but you'll need to explain what parts are biased here on the talk page. -- Jeandré, 2006-03-06t19:51z

Hi, sometimes one has to have a look at exactly what the links say before reaching a conclusion. I tried to incorporate one of the advantages of the proportional system.. sounds more optimistic? Regards Gregorydavid 22:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

One-party dominant state
The opening paragraph included the sentences "South Africa is a democratic but one party dominant state with the African National Congress in power. Opposition parties are allowed, but are widely considered to have no real chance of gaining power."

The article on Dominant-party system says "Under what has been referred to as "electoralism" or "soft authoritarianism", opposition parties are legally allowed to operate, but are considered too weak or ineffective to seriously take power, most often through various forms of corruption and constitutional quirks that purposely undermine the ability for an effective opposition to thrive." Electoralism is described as "a "half-way" transition from authoritarian rule toward democratic rule".

This is not an appropriate description of South Africa. While the ANC is a dominant party, and is not likely to be replaced in government any time soon, this is not caused by corruption or the constitution. It's also not a dominant party system; the dominance is not systemic. Opposition parties achieved about 33% of the votes and I doubt the Democratic Alliance would like being referred to as "weak or ineffective". There's also a chance that a future split in the ANC could lead to a new opposition party on the left, or even a new governing party. None of this translates to a dominant-party system.

Hence, I've removed the claim from the opening paragraph. I don't believe it should be restored unless a reliable source can be provided describing South Africa as a dominant-party system. Otherwise, this categorisation is original research. Zaian 09:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "most often through various forms of corruption and constitutional quirks". SA is an exception, still a 1 party dominant state but not for one of the common reasons: while there is much corruption that's unlikely why the ANC received 69% of the votes; and the constitution is also much more democratic than even most western nations'. The most likely reason for the ANC's popularity is that they, like the ZANU-PF, helped liberate the country from the racist colonizers, and is therefore given a blank cheque by the voters.
 * When we find sources, we can qualify it explaining it's nature, and that it's not the normal election fraud or disenfranchising laws. -- Jeandré, 2007-05-27t10:21z
 * "most often through various forms of corruption and constitutional quirks". SA is an exception, still a 1 party dominant state but not for one of the common reasons: while there is much corruption that's unlikely why the ANC received 69% of the votes; and the constitution is also much more democratic than even most western nations'. The most likely reason for the ANC's popularity is that they, like the ZANU-PF, helped liberate the country from the racist colonizers, and is therefore given a blank cheque by the voters.
 * When we find sources, we can qualify it explaining it's nature, and that it's not the normal election fraud or disenfranchising laws. -- Jeandré, 2007-05-27t10:21z


 * I interpret the opening paragraph of the one party dominant state different from you, Zaian. You quote the second sentence as if it is a clarification of the first sentence.  I read the second sentence as a description of a subclass of what is described in the first sentence.  In other words, to my mind, the article does not say electoralism or soft authoritarianism are synonyms of dominant-partyism, but that electoralism or soft authoritarianism are common subtypes of dominant-partyism (but not necessarily the only types).  The salient definition of dominant-partyism is in the first sentence, namely "a party system where only one political party can *realistically* become the government".  South Africa has such a system, IMO.  My2c.  -- leuce (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Election Results
I've removed the 2004 section since it is already comprehensively covered in a page of its own. For the same reason the 2009 section should also be removed. In the mean time I've changed the heading more appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RudiBosbouer (talk • contribs) 06:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Elections in South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060305022448/http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/suffrage.htm to http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/suffrage.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

My name is Taimen
My name is Taimen 102.164.215.188 (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Life orientation grade 11
EXPLAIN THESE ELECTION ARE HELD EVERY FIVE YEARS 41.242.160.178 (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Why it is important to vote in the National election 197.184.169.139 (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Notice of elections
Notice of elections 41.164.147.130 (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Pre Union history section is overly long and general
I made some edits in an attempt to clean it up, but it reads more like a general history of South Africa. I believe it should be a more focused summary of the passing of laws. Distance1969 (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)