The constitution is too important a matter to be left to lawyers and politicians alone. This is no fancy speak; in fact I don't recall being more serious in this space than I am now, writing this post.
This weekend I had a rare privilege of reading one of the speeches written by the late Robert Sobukwe. If you can, do get a copy of that booklet of speeches by one of this country's foremost leaders. Sobukwe writes, in this particular speech, to set out the policies of the PAC - "to set the record straight" as he puts it.
On the issue of rights of the citizens under a new constitution (speaking prospectively of course) he says that the PAC would not consider minority or group rights. He goes on to say that it is the view of the PAC that granting and guaranteeing individual civil liberties would be the highest order of rights for the citizens. He says that in a free South Africa there would be no need for group rights as each individual citizen would be assured civil liberties.
I do not do Sobukwe justice in my paraphrasing of some of the views he expresses in this particular speech but I urge you to find and read it. A copy of the booklet of speeches may be found at bookshops and at the Market Theater precinct.
It is in the context of reading this speech that, as I have always believed, the short-comings of our constitution became clearer than before to me. I suppose that when one has been deprived (of anything really), even the smallest token resembling that which you have been wishing for would suffice. Of course hindsight is perfect vision and it is of course easy to sit in the comfort of my home and muse about the past as if I am an expert of sorts. For the record, I am no expert. I am a keen student of events.
This weekend I had a rare privilege of reading one of the speeches written by the late Robert Sobukwe. If you can, do get a copy of that booklet of speeches by one of this country's foremost leaders. Sobukwe writes, in this particular speech, to set out the policies of the PAC - "to set the record straight" as he puts it.
On the issue of rights of the citizens under a new constitution (speaking prospectively of course) he says that the PAC would not consider minority or group rights. He goes on to say that it is the view of the PAC that granting and guaranteeing individual civil liberties would be the highest order of rights for the citizens. He says that in a free South Africa there would be no need for group rights as each individual citizen would be assured civil liberties.
I do not do Sobukwe justice in my paraphrasing of some of the views he expresses in this particular speech but I urge you to find and read it. A copy of the booklet of speeches may be found at bookshops and at the Market Theater precinct.
It is in the context of reading this speech that, as I have always believed, the short-comings of our constitution became clearer than before to me. I suppose that when one has been deprived (of anything really), even the smallest token resembling that which you have been wishing for would suffice. Of course hindsight is perfect vision and it is of course easy to sit in the comfort of my home and muse about the past as if I am an expert of sorts. For the record, I am no expert. I am a keen student of events.
The constitution of this country was born of negotiations which were meant to end the struggle, apartheid, poverty, etc. Moreso, the constitution was meant to end all forms of discrimination and to bring the nation together. You will therefore appreciate my confusion as I try to make sense of Proportional Representation. This system of voting is meant, among others, to protect the rights of minorities lest they get overrun by the black masses and become the new-age dispossessed.
What group rights such as proportional representation and the "vote for the group" rather than the individual has done is to perpertuate the very divisions that the constitution was meant to eliminate.
The result is that there is no division between the party and the government. Maybe there shouldn't be such a division but the problem here is that the executive is not accountable to parliament (representatives of the South African people) but to the party. This is no small matter. It is government of the organisation, by the organisation for the organisation. The people do not matter that much.
It is for this reason that you should not leave the constitution to the lawyers and the politicians alone. This document ultimately determines how you live your life and carry on your trade, raise and educate your children. It is a document that ought to give you the power to choose who should be in charge of public health and education. Under the current system, the political party not you, makes that choice. Loyalty to the party (whichever party that may be) is rewarded at the expense of your vote.
This will remain the case, for as long as group rights are prioritised above individual rights as it is under our divisive constitution. A constitution that is apparently one of the best in the world. Best for who really? Definitely not for the people.
Posts
Youare so onpoint it is not funny. Personaly I believe rhetoric is more powerful then academics. Academics trigger the mind but rhetoric trigger actions. The issue of our 'anti-people-constitution' (my view) is deep and hurtful. Even the fact that our legal system is based on a 'Roman/Dutch' law add insult to injury. My view is that all institutions that came as a result of the 94' compromise needed to be revisited after 10 years. Mainly because more people especialy in my township of KwaMAshu are asking me what is Democracy? Whaat is the Constitution? What is Institutionalising? All these are imposed as concepts and systems, so where is FREEDOM TO DETERMINE YOUR FUTURE?
ReplyDelete