We chose proportional representation to mirror the country we were becoming -- and it worked. But the bargain left a gap: inclusion without a direct line to the people elected to serve us. Justice Albie Sachs argues it is time to complete the design we deferred.

This Op-ed was inspired by conversations with Justice Albie Sachs, recorded for the Constitutional Insights series by the Inclusive Society Institute.

South Africa's democratic miracle began by choosing inclusion first. In the early 1990s, the seemingly obvious route -- small single-member constituencies where the top vote-getter takes the seat -- was rejected. As Sachs recalls, that model distorts the national will and sidelines smaller voices. We adopted national proportional representation so the first Parliament would mirror the country in its full pluralism while drafting the Constitution. It succeeded: the centre held because everyone could see themselves in the room.

Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines

That inclusive choice came with a trade-off we promised to resolve later. Proportional representation tells us what South Africa thinks. It does not tell us who to call when the water runs brown or the clinic closes early. The hope was that party branches would nominate grounded local leaders onto national lists, keeping MPs answerable to communities. Politics took another course. Slates hardened, gatekeeping centralised and the shift to a mixed system -- local representatives with a proportional top-up, as in Germany -- never arrived. Incumbency did the rest. The system that delivers you power tends to be the system you...