Electoral Reform Consultation Panel

The Electoral Reform Consultation Panel published its final report in August 2025. 

A nine-member body, the ERCP was appointed on 28 May 2024 in terms of the Electoral Amendment Act, 2023 to conduct a comprehensive review of South Africa’s electoral system and provide recommendations for potential reforms. The composition of the ERCP is as follows:

1. Adv Richard Sizani (Chairperson)

2. Adv Pansy Tlakula

3. Ms Mmatsie Mooki

4. Ms Tomsie Dlamini

5. Dr Michael Sutcliffe

6. Mr Simon Mamabolo

7. Mr Michael Hendrickse

8. Mr Norman du Plessis

9. Dr Albertus Schoeman

The Panel’s functions are outlined in Section 23 of the Electoral Amendment Act. They include:

to independently investigate, consult on, report on and make recommendations in respect of potential reforms of the electoral system for the election of the National Assembly and the election of the Provincial Legislatures, in respect of the elections to be held after the 2024 elections.

The Act required the ERCP to submit its final report to the Minister of Home Affairs 12 months from the 2024 election, but on good cause could request an extension of up to six months. In February 2025, the Panel requested a three month extension based on high public demand to expand its public consultation program. The final report was submitted on 29 August 2025, based on the extension granted by the Minister.

The work of the ERCP followed several phases:

a) Guiding Principles: The ERCP formulated a set of guiding principles to use in evaluating electoral system options.

b) Call for written submissions: A public invitation for written submissions was issued on 26 August 2024 with an initial deadline of 30 September 2024 and later extended to 31 October 2024. This was accompanied by advertisements, both on print and electronic media, interviews and op-eds by Panellists.

c) Discussion Paper: The ERCP published a Discussion Paper on 26 November 2024 aimed at providing the necessary context for South Africans to engage meaningfully on the topic of electoral reform as a precursor to public consultations. The Discussion Paper set out the background to the ERCP, introduced key electoral system design considerations and set out the Panel’s public consultation process. A summarised version of Discussion Paper was translated into nine official languages reflecting the most widely spoken linguistic groups.

d) Public Consultations: The ERCP’s public consultation process included both community and sectoral consultations. Sectoral engagements, both virtual and physical, started in late November 2024 and ended in March 2025. Community consultations started in January 2025 and ended in March with the ERCP visiting communities throughout the country to elicit people’s views on the electoral system and reform. As part of the consultation process, the ERCP planned a public opinion survey. Despite the development of the survey questionnaire, the Department of Home Affairs was unable procure a service provider to conduct the survey before the end of the ERCP’s term.

e) International Conference: The ERCP’s consultation process ended with a two-day conference, 9-10 April 2025. The conference brought together key stakeholders including political parties and civil society organisations among others to discuss electoral reform and hear from local and international scholars on key considerations for South Africa.

f) Research: The ERCP conducted research throughout its term based on a research program agreed at the start of its term. Key research topics included: a mapping exercise to systematically benchmark the South African electoral system against countries using similar systems; electoral system modelling using 2024 election results to understand the potential effects of different electoral models; evidence for the effects of electoral system design on the attainment of the guiding principles; the history of previous reviews and electoral reform in South Africa; international trends in electoral reform and electoral reform case studies; and a systematic review of public submissions to understand common themes emerging from written submissions and the public consultation process.

The legislation stipulates that the report should make recommendations of possible options for electoral reform, including:

a) Reasons, potential advantages, and disadvantages;

b) legal and constitutional implications; and

c) financial implications, for each proposed electoral system or electoral reform identified by the ERCP.

The Act recognises that a situation may arise in which panel members may express divergent views on the electoral system options. In the event of any such disagreement regarding the possible options and recommendations for electoral reform, the Act states that, “the report may be divided into different sections setting out the different views of the members.” While the Panel endeavoured to present a unified set of recommendations, a group of panel members tabled an Alternative Report in the days prior to the report’s finalisation, diverging from an originally agreed process. Different views on the content and recommendations of the Panel’s final report have consequently necessitated the submission of an Original and Alternative Report in terms of the relevant legislation.

This is the Original Report. It starts in Chapter 2 with South Africa’s long journey to universal franchise and the country’s first democratic election in 1994. This includes examining the origins of the system adopted in 1994 as part of South Africa’s democratic transition. Chapter 3 considers the recommendations of previous commissions since 1994 to strengthen South African democracy. Looking ahead to the next thirty years of democracy, we must reflect on where we are heading and whether our institutions are capable of meeting the aspirations of South Africans.

Chapter 4 introduces fundamental concepts in electoral system design. This includes the research evidence for how the various elements of electoral systems impact the realisation of our country’s founding constitutional values as set out in the Panel’s guiding principles. A central finding is understanding the mechanisms behind a two-tier compensatory system, which leads to outcomes identical to a straight nationwide allocation. In such systems, the size of constituencies becomes irrelevant to the final results and overall proportionality of the system as long as enough compensatory seats are allocated at a second stage to correct for any disproportionality at the constituency-level. This leads to the realisation that the underlying constituencies used in our current system can be made smaller to bring representatives closer to voters without any trade-off in proportionality or the inclusivity of election results.

Chapter 5 considers inputs from the public and critical stakeholders. This includes over 360 written submissions and events across all nine provinces to hear the views of communities on the question of electoral reform. Overwhelmingly, these discussions were dominated by concerns over the relationship between voters and public representatives. Citizens feel disconnected from their representatives and that representatives are not accountable to them.

Chapter 6 evaluates three electoral system options against the Panel’s guiding principles based on the research evidence presented in Chapter 4. The three options include:

• retaining the current system with minor adjustments

• introducing smaller multi-member constituencies to bring representatives closer to voters

• introducing single-member constituencies with a compensatory element for overall proportionality

The evaluation of options finds that all three options would be equally proportional and result in the same overall political outcomes. No party would be advantaged or disadvantaged by adopting a different system. On most measures, the three options would meet the guiding principles to the same or similar extent. The main area where options diverge is on the extent to which they foster an effective accountability relationship between voters and their representatives. On the question of accountability to voters, the current system performs the weakest and presents limited advantages that the other options considered do not offer to the same degree or greater. In several ways, our current electoral system is an outlier compared to similar systems used internationally. This includes using the largest constituencies and largest compensatory tier among equivalent proportional representation systems – the combination of which is unnecessary for achieving objectives of inclusion and proportionality. The reform options we propose would achieve the same objectives and overall proportionality while bringing representatives significantly closer to voters and strengthening the accountability relationship. In light of these findings and the concerns emerging from public consultations, we strongly recommend that Parliament consider electoral reforms to strengthen the relationship between voters and their representatives.

Two electoral system options are recommended for Parliament’s consideration:

• The introduction of smaller multi-member constituencies with 300 constituency seats and 100 compensatory seats. This system would require minimal delimitation of constituencies and would use existing local government boundaries to determine multi-member constituencies. This electoral system could be deployed concurrently for national and provincial elections using the same or similar constituency boundaries.

• The introduction of 200 single-member constituencies and 200 compensatory seats to return overall proportionality. This system would require an extensive delimitation process to determine the boundaries of constituencies. These constituency boundaries would need to be updated between elections in response to population changes. Separate boundaries for single-member constituencies would be needed at the provincial level if this system were deployed concurrently for national and provincial elections. This introduces a level of complexity to such a reform and should be carefully considered.

These recommendations are presented for the consideration of the Minister of Home Affairs and Parliament. They are supported by:

• Adv Richard Sizani, Chairperson of the ERCP

• Ms Mmatsie Mooki, Convenor of the Conference Working Group,ERCP

• Ms Tomsie Dlamini, Convenor of the Public Consultation Working Group, ERCP

• Dr Albertus Schoeman, Convenor of the Research Working Group, ERCP

Read the ERCP's final report here.