Why a referendum on nuclear power would strengthen democratic institutions in South Africa

Growing reports of protests and demonstrations against delays in the release of US election results or even demanding a halt to vote counting altogether suggests that the admirable restraint and respect for the democratic process which the American public has displayed thus far is starting to fray in the face of the many legal challenges mounted by President Trump as well as several inflammatory statements he has made denouncing the electoral process and the manner in which voting has been conducted. Though it is well within the rights of every candidate to question and contest practices that render results produced by the voting system less than rigorous; indeed, some would go so far as to say that it is incumbent upon them to do so; making baseless allegations and launching frivolous lawsuits risks undermining public trust in the institutions which are responsible for ensuring the integrity of the US’s electoral system and reassuring the public that elections are not only free and fair but that results are an accurate reflection of the popular will. Doing so will be a loss for all Americans, regardless of political affiliation. To see just how much Americans stand to lose should the public lose faith in these institutions and begin to doubt their independence, one need only observe the violence that has engulfed the Ivory Coast during the run-up to the poll that was held on 31 October and following the release of election results that declared Prime Minister Ouattara the winner of a landslide electoral victory of over 94% that secured him a third term in office.

For now, indications are that the institutional bedrock upon which America’s electoral system rests will withstand assaults by President Trump and various supporters. Its resilience is due in no small part to the fact that there are sufficient numbers of leaders on both sides of the political divide that respect these institutions and publicly profess confidence in their rulings. This is key to the success of any poll, where success is measured here in terms of the degree to which the public is willing to accept the outcome of said poll. It is not enough to establish institutions; they have to be seen to be non-partisan and leaders across the political spectrum must acknowledge that they are prepared to defer to the competence and expertise of the public servants who run them for them to be credible.

Sadly, in light of the revelations of the depth of maladministration and corruption at several state institutions that has been uncovered by the ongoing Zondo Commission here in South Africa, this is likely to prove to be an extremely difficult challenge here. Under these circumstances, the probability that those who hold competing views on controversial issues that divide the country, such as nuclear power for example, would be willing to submit these issues to a referendum, let alone accept the outcome of any referendum thereon, is likely to be slim. More so in the case of nuclear power, considering that support for a referendum is likely to be already low given low levels of public knowledge of nuclear power and limited scope for popular input into nuclear decision-making. If so, this might serve to diminish popular support for a nuclear referendum in the first place.

Faced with this scenario, detractors of using referenda to settle divisive issues could argue that doing so is a foolhardy exercise. A number of arguments can be made against this position. The case of nuclear power is used to illustrate these arguments. Firstly, given the stakes involved in any nuclear build programme, a nuclear referendum might actually provide the catalyst for governments and leaders to invest in the development of the institutions which safeguard the polling process. As pro and anti-nuclear leaders must secure a mandate from voters, they are likely to expend greater efforts than they otherwise would to ensure that the institutions responsible for collating results accurately capture the wishes of the population. Consequently, lobbying for a referendum may lead to the development of more robust institutions and the strengthening of existing ones. More insidiously, arguing along these lines is akin to submitting to a spirt of defeatism which, if unchecked, gradually gives way to apathy — the greatest threat to democratic values and usurper of citizens’ right to public participation in any society. Lobbying for more direct democracy in the form of a referendum is a way for citizens to mitigate these trends.

These are but some of the reasons why calling for a referendum on nuclear power in South Africa is, arguably, still a worthy endeavour in spite of the many challenges which beset public institutions in South Africa and the internal and external risks which threaten them. They are also some of the reasons why this author will continue to support the call for a referendum on nuclear power in South Africa. Will you?