Submitting my first written piece to a newspaper

A couple of weeks ago I took the took the plunge and submitted a piece of writing to the M&G online. Sadly I didn't hear back from the editor. I suspect my one inaccuracy - the bit about the the Constitutional Court handing down judgment on the 4th of March put the editor off. It was a silly mistake to make, I should have checked my facts more carefully. I'm not sure how I got such a simple fact wrong. Oh well, lesson learned.

It was dissapointing not to hear back from the M&G, but nevertheless feel good about writing the piece and submitting it. It was my first step towards having a piece published, I'll get there in the end. I feel like the experience had a lesson to teach me - sometimes it's worth while starting at the bottom. Obviously it would have been fantastic to have the M&G publish my article, but there is also something to being published by the Grocott's. Had I already had an established body of published work, the M&G editor would have been far more likely to get back to me or read on past my one factual inaccuracy.

So I'll start at the bottom and work my way up. I'm onto a good thing and one day I'll celebrate having my first piece published by the M&G.

Here is the piece that I submitted:

The right to vote and the IEC’s ‘unofficial’ actions: cause for concern?

On the 4^th of March the Constitutional Court will finally either confirm or put paid to the hopes of many South Africans living abroad that we be allowed to vote in the upcoming elections.

As an English teacher in South Korea, I had resigned myself to observing the build-up to the April elections as an outsider, unable to exert my vote’s influence on events within my home country. That changed with Judge Piet Ebersohn’s February 9^th ruling that South Africans living abroad be allowed to vote.

In the wake of this judgment, and in anticipation that the Constitutional Court will confirm Judge Ebersohn’s ruling, the Democratic Alliance has been encouraging South Africans living abroad to apply to the Independent Electoral Commission to take part in the Special Vote. If permission is granted the individual will be excused from voting at their regular polling station. For those of us that wish to vote this would give us the option of making a journey to London, Cairo, Seoul, or another South African foreign mission to vote.

Physically applying for the Special Vote is as simple as filling out a basic one page form and faxing it through to the IEC. Unfortunately the broader issue is not as clear.

While the DA claims that the IEC had been ‘unofficially’ accepting applications, but will not process them until the 4^th of March – the date that the Constitutional Court hands down it’s judgment – the IEC’s own website clearly states that South Africans living and working abroad cannot vote. For many of us living outside of South Africa the internet remains the most convenient way to access information from home, and given that South Africans living and working outside the country are not yet allowed to vote, there is little reason to further investigate the possibility of voting beyond periodically checking the IEC’s website.

This gives rise to a number of difficulties.

Firstly, the IEC cannot process applications for the Special Vote from people living and working abroad until the Constitutional Court hands down judgment, but applications for the Special Vote closed on the 27^th of February. Should the Constitutional Court confirm Ebersohn’s ruling the IEC will then have to reopen applications for the Special Vote if it is to avoid unfairly discriminating against all those who were unaware that applications were being ‘unofficially’ accepted.

If the IEC has indeed ‘unofficially’ been accepting applications, it may well have done so in anticipation that the Constitutional Court will confirm Judge Ebersohn’s ruling; which may well force it to make hasty provision to accommodate the many South Africans scattered across the globe that wish to vote.

Failure to do so will result in absurdity. The majority of South Africans living and working abroad will not have applied for the Special Vote; and with the application deadline having passed we will remain unable to vote.

Perhaps the IEC, in ‘unofficially’ accepting applications prior to the finalisation of legal proceedings, simply wanted to avoid being swamped by a rush of applications in the event of a positive ruling that would force it to reopen applications. Although this would contribute to a smooth run up to the election, ‘unofficially’ accepting applications nevertheless remains inappropriate.

Unfortunately, as a public institution dedicated to ensuring free and fair elections, that produce credible results, the IEC cannot have the luxury of acting ‘unofficially’ – its policies, reasoning and actions must be clear and understandable to all if it is to maintain it’s own credibility and remain immune to questions and accusations.

Finally in acting ‘unofficially’, and in leaving it up to political parties to publicise this, the IEC is effectively delegating an aspect of it’s voter education to political parties. While parties undeniably play a role in voter education the IEC cannot divest itself of this responsibility. Voters are entitled to know the ground rules from the IEC itself. Publicity by political parties is in addition to, not instead of, the IEC meeting its responsibilities.

If acting ‘unofficially’ results in the IEC being too coy to make its practices known, and if political parties are the only means of communicating important information to the public, the IEC has failed to fulfil its mandate.

It is possible that the Constitutional Court will not extend the right to vote in the elections to those of us living and working abroad. In which case the IEC will discard the applications that it received up to the 27^th of February, and one may argue that no harm came of the IEC’s decision to ‘unofficially’ accept applications.

As one of South Africa’s premier public institutions though, it remains critical that we continue to hold the IEC to the highest of standards, and in doing so not tolerate ‘unofficial’ decisions – irrespective of the intent.