Margaret Ferguson Kin Bentley writes that proportional representation is to blame for the political rot in South Africa and refers to the success of direct representation under the pre-'94 government, in "Proportional representation to blame for the rot" (April 25).

I have followed South Africa's political scene with interest, having served as the equivalent of a (Liberal Democrat) regional politician in the UK. Having worked hard for the new party for whom proportional representation was and is a cornerstone of their policy, I believe that direct representation throws up as many anomalies, but they are just different.

While I agree with Bentley that direct representation should create more individual accountability, which is sorely needed here, you only have to look at the UK as it approaches national government elections to see the other distortion.

During the presidential-style debate between the leaders of Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, the leader of the Liberal Democrats did so well that the fortunes of the party have consistently risen since in polls taken, to the point that the Conservatives show the highest percentage votes, with the Liberal Democrats a close second and Labour trailing in third position.

But the irony is that this would not translate into the Conservatives winning the election: the likely scenario would be for Labour to retain the greatest number of parliamentary seats of the three of them, despite coming third in the overall percentage vote, and thus form a minority government. What nonsense!

Thankfully, Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, has said that on no basis would he work with Labour should the British public so clearly show, by placing Labour in overall third place, that they did not want a Labour government.

So what is the answer in order to try to gain more individual accountability and a voting system that reflects the overall will of the people?

There are a number of systems of proportional representation being used in the world, and some effective ones too, where a proportion of the MPs are elected as constituency MPs for the accountability side, and a certain percentage represent pure party representation in order to reflect the country's support for a particular party. That is what I would like to see in South Africa, and in the UK.

As far as Bentley's assertion that direct representation probably creates more political interest and debate with "constituency-based meetings held in halls", the world has moved on from there and the younger element looks to more modern means of communication.

One must also not forget that accountability means different things to different people, as I have discovered here.

The deep-seated cultural belief in ubuntu, though it has some excellent characteristics that have sadly been lost in Western society, also has its drawbacks when it comes to individual accountability - the emphasis being on communal accountability.

I see this reflected in the political structures in South Africa. In addition, a sophisticated voting system requires a high standard of debate and working together and not seeing the opposition as Public Enemy No.1, but rather as making a contribution to good governance.

In South Africa, opposition is the enemy, and I understand that it relates to historical tribal style leadership. But for a democracy to grow and mature effectively, there must to be a new attitude to the opposition.

Lindiwe Sisulu's disappointing treatment of COPE's motion of no confidence, referred to by Paul Ngati in his letter, "Defence minister takes flak" (April 25), was an example of that dismissive and disparaging attitude to an opposition party.

My final comment relates to Xolela Mangcu's article, "ANC pays the (lesser) price of inaction" (April 25), where he mentions the social psychology of South Africa that historically focuses on the individual leader, and gives examples, both black and white.

This psychology distorts the picture for good corporate governance.