The One South Africa Movement (OSA), now known as Build One South Africa (BOSA), is the knife in our toolbox meant to fix South Africa’s political system by cutting out the middlemen: political parties. Although BOSA is an activist movement rather than a traditional party and—like ActionSA—has no parliamentary seats, it has caught my attention due to its vision aligning closely with my own. As far as I’m concerned, OSA/BOSA is the first of its kind to break away from a political party (in this case, the DA) with a mission to “take out,” not only its parent but all political parties. Based on this mission, I believe the movement considers the corruption inherent in party politics central to the lack of progress on resolving the land question.
I find it ironic that within a drafted take on political parties’ visions relative to the future of South Africa, it is that of, not simply a non-party-like organisation, but an anti-party-like movement that is most hopeful. OSA beholds a future wherein individual citizens, as part of their respective communities, become active political participants in their governance. A political system the movement calls “direct democracy” which is devoid of political parties thereby narrowing the gap between citizens and government. Acknowledging their idea as not entirely new, since independent candidates have been standing for elections, primarily locally in municipal councils, for some time now; this movement’s proposed political system restructuring aims to address an innate problem the parties have.
As I’ve discussed in my previous reports, establishing a political party to serve the interests of communities automatically creates a gap between that party and those it is meant to serve. This, because the very act of establishing it necessitates that it have its own identity, vision and mission – all of which will inevitably deviate from those of the communities it serves. As a result, a conflict of interest will gradually develop as the party slowly differentiates its survival from that of those it serves. The communities, of which it was initially a part when founded, later become as clients with interests, not only different from its own but that which it couldn’t care less about. This gap then goes on to become a breeding ground for all sorts of self-serving/corrupt activities and ‘sub-cultures’ that, in turn, feed into socio-economic inequalities. It is in this sense that OSA considers the very existence of political parties its target problem.
The shortcomings of previous attempts at self-governance via bypassing political parties were characterised by lower-revel organisation. This movement points out that, although progress was made by way of independent candidates winning over municipal wards, their victory was short-lived when their ambitions were later undermined by those political parties after they won over the entire municipal council. The advantage enjoyed by political parties here being that of proportional representation (PR) vote. You see, South African local councils/municipalities are categorised into those for larger metropolitan areas and those for smaller communal areas. Our local elections decide our governance via these institutions by individuals and political parties for whom we choose to vote.
The selection system for local government elections is the mixed‐member proportional (MMP) system. Voters cast two ballots: one to elect a ward councillor via first‐past‐the‐post (FPTP) and another for a political party’s PR list. In local municipalities, 50% of seats are filled by ward winners (FPTP) and 50% by PR allocations. In district councils, 60% of seats are filled by councillors appointed by the local municipalities (deriving from their ward results), and 40% of seats are allocated directly via district‐level PR lists.
Having individual candidates working alone to contest single-member districts/wards and seats on local councils worked fine for accessing the FPTP half of local council seats; but alienated those districts and wards from the remaining PR half which rendered them ineligible to contest for seats at district council and provincial legislature levels, where seat allocation uses only the PR method. This is where the Electoral Commission Act’s section 15A presents an opportunity for the average citizen to, as per the OSA Movement, take back his/her responsibility to partake in directing the future of his/her community and South Africa as a whole. OSA’s contribution to South Africa’s future does not end with its subtraction of the political party from our electoral system; but its replacement with a new type of political organisation: the section 15A association that is an alliance of single-member individual candidates and other municipal stakeholders. Section 15A allows for an organisation not registered as a traditional political party, such as the association already mentioned, to contest local elections.
This proposal offers a benefit by removing the conflict of interest inherent in establishing an identity separate from that of its constituents as would entail the founding of a political party with its constitution and organisational structure. A benefit that would mean closer ties between individual candidates and their constituents; ties useful in slanting risk-reward considerations, relative to corruption by these candidates, more toward the risk side of the ratio. What differentiates this consortium from a political party is that it is not so much an organisation (in any traditional sense) but more akin to a medium of communication, a tool/platform carrying a mission relevant to all stakeholders for its electoral campaign. Unlike a political party, this association is not alive so-to-speak; it does not bring with its establishment a hunger to endure that becomes central to political parties taking on a life of their own. No, its existence is temporary as per its mission not to outlast its purpose: to contest for local and district councils’ PR seats and make it possible for individual candidates to gain a majority therein.
Our ignorance has kept political parties relevant by maintaining our dependence on them to materialise our dreams for us but OSA’s mission is to decouple us from their teat. Awaken us from our slumber and have us politically active again as agents of our future instead of just spectating as our lives pass us by. As I understand it, the operational model of this movement is similar to the business model of television broadcasters: the latter enables private advertisers greater reach to domestic markets for a fee while the former does the same but for a conglomerate of single-member districts or wards represented by individual candidates. These section 15A conglomerates representing specific communities may also be regarded as private advertisers because they aim to attain votes for council seats (customers for profits in terms of private companies) by campaigning (advertising in terms of private companies). OSA becomes, not only their broadcaster in helping plan out and execute their campaigns, but their guide and mentor: holding their hand through the entire process in educating and up-skilling them on the political process and how to exploit it. It is not clear to me what ‘fee’ they will ‘charge’ for their services in this regard but whatever the cost to these organisations I expect would be detailed within the memorandum of understanding the movement requires of them to sign to receive their support.
A more accurate comparison of what OSA does is to the services offered by a marketing agency as shown by the list of support services it offers for which the 15A association must sign. What I consider to be some form of legally binding contract, this memorandum intrigues me for it itches my brain with the question: ‘aside from carrying out its mission in materialising its vision, what does the OSA movement want to gain for providing its services?’. In other words, why is there a need to have these associations sign what seems to be a form of contract?
The way I see it, Mmusi’s founding of the OSA movement is quite innovative. The movement itself is an organisation meant to endure for its vision is long term; it has its hierarchy, mission, and values which one would expect to align with those of most, if not all, communities in our country but which I still regard as separate from them because it is not a given that that will always be the case. In this sense, it is a political party that is also a movement; two descriptors when mixed produce a mercenary political party or a private political company (PPC) relative to what a private military company (PMC) does. OSA aims to help establish and empower innumerable 15A associations representing communities across the country by taking over for them the party side of politics, so they won’t have to deal with it. Its services will liberate individual candidates from identity constraints present in the formation of partnerships amongst themselves and have them collaborate, temporarily, while protecting their true loyalties to their constituents. The abovementioned memorandum, I assume, ensures that communities’ political ambitions don’t clash with its vision of a South Africa governed by its people through direct democracy.
OSA is the first political movement I know whose founding is an acknowledgement of the very existence of political parties as the corruption problem. They are not corrupt, as in it is not their behaviour that makes them criminal enterprises but their very nature – their existence. Yes, power is most effectively and efficiently wielded when centralised but, as per natural law: all possible mechanisms of action have their limits. I have discussed in my other party reports the conflict of interest inherent in founding a separate organisation to serve another – organisations must do for themselves based on the quality of relationships amongst their members. Communities are organisations as they are, they simply need to tidy up their processes by coming together for meaningful cooperation. It is unnecessary and inefficient to have a few of their members branch off to establish a new organization in their service; this is shown by the resultant difficulties concerning accountability.
I have alluded to Dunbar’s number as a guide to the limits of power centralisation. I was speaking to the need for the degree to which power is centralised concerning the management of our country to be reduced. OSA’s mission to bring political office close to its constituents is the diluting of power into more stakeholders as political actors. It is demystifying the office’s elitist facade by breaking the ignorance barrier in educating me, you – the common citizen, that you are responsible for the future of which you dream. Although all-in-all, the dilution of power does not go far enough, in my opinion, OSA represents the brightest hope for our future as a country since its efforts are the furthest we have come. The future we need will require everyone to pitch in so education will be key to breaking our collective ignorance-based fear preventing us from proactively taking up our responsibilities in building it. In our current awareness state, we are unworthy of our power thus are not ready to wield it; a mentor to guide us is what we need today, and this makes OSA the organization prescribed by our guardian angels.
Other Articles
African Independent Congress (AIC) Party Report
Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) Party Report
