The Mechanics of Proportional Representation under Judicial Scrutiny
Voters cast ballots for political parties rather than individual candidates in a proportional representation system. This foundational principle emerged on Tuesday at the Electoral Court during the Democratic Alliance’s legal challenge against four rival parties for submitting candidate lists with only a single name.
The Democratic Alliance Challenges Single-Name Lists
Judge Lebogang Modiba noted this structural reality while hearing the DA’s application against the MK Party, the EFF, ActionSA, and the GOOD party ahead of the 2026 local government elections. Modiba pointed out that voters select parties on a proportional representation ballot, stating that candidates only become relevant when seats are actually allocated after the vote.
The DA challenged the four opposition parties for submitting proportional representation candidate lists containing just one name across dozens or hundreds of municipalities. The DA argued that this practice hid councillor candidates from voters, violating transparency requirements and unlawfully misusing mechanisms intended to handle unexpected electoral outcomes. Item 17 of the schedule to the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act allows the Electoral Commission of South Africa to ask a party to supplement its list after an election if it wins more seats than named candidates.
Global Comparisons and Legal Sparring in Court
During the virtual sitting heard by Modiba alongside Judge Nobahle Mangcu-Lockwood and Professor Moses Phooko, advocate Anton Katz argued for the DA that voters deserve to know who occupies candidate lists. Katz told the court that the DA legal team searched globally and failed to find another proportional representation system where list candidates remained unidentified.
This issue needs to be tested in a court of law so that it is clear before this election and the next.It is very odd to not name your PR representatives.Should voters know who the PR reps are or should they be kept in the dark?Lets see what the courts say.
Mangcu-Lockwood questioned the DA’s legal basis, asking what specific rules the parties had contravened. Katz’s answer on the contravention was unclear.
Defense Counsel Push Back Against Transparency Claims
Opposing counsel pushed back against the allegations of bad faith and legal invention. Advocate Johan de Waal, representing the GOOD party, stated that his client had been entirely open about submitting single-name lists without any attempt at concealment. De Waal added that calling this strategy dishonest was insulting, noting that standard published candidate lists provided no personal details about nominees anyway.
Advocate David Borgström, representing the Electoral Commission of South Africa, argued that upholding the DA’s interpretation would force the commission to prematurely determine how many seats parties might fill, a task he described as entirely inappropriate and outside the commission’s remit.
Arguments on Voter Choice and Reserved Judgment
Advocate Mfesane Ka Siboto of the EFF acknowledged that the public has a compelling argument regarding the right to know candidates, but pointed out that the remedies sought by the DA failed to address that issue. ActionSA advocate Mfundo Salukazana echoed that sentiment, noting that voters ultimately choose a party and can punish organizations they dislike at the ballot box. Salukazana called the DA’s approach cynical.
Advocate Michael Bishop countered for the DA, arguing that the Constitution requires parties to declare their candidates before elections because voters factor those individuals into their decisions. Following arguments from all sides, the Electoral Court reserved judgment.
