How could the decision to re-open Zuma’s corruption case in any way be construed as un-democratic?
Quote from the Mail & Guardian: “‘It is clear that democracy can be undermined by simply approaching courts to reverse any decision arrived at by a qualified organ of state,’ spokesperson Jackson Mthembu said on Tuesday.”
So what Mthembu is saying is that it would be more democratic if “qualified organs of state” could not ever be over-ruled by other “qualified organs of state”? This is a logical fallacy if I’ve ever heard one. The statement doesn’t even make sense. It’s hardly a violation of democracy when a previously binding decision is over-ruled. In fact, that’s why democracies have a separation of powers: nothing should be absolute or completely invulnerable to change. Even constitutions can be amended. The term “constitutional democracy” isn’t entirely accurate if the judiciary is separate. However, if the judiciary isn’t separate, democracy will be compromised and the law may become stagnant and archaic.
According to the Times Live:
“Zuma has throughout questioned the DA’s motives, arguing that the case involved more than his personal financial affairs and could be a national embarrassment. He said that, if the DA were successful, sensitive and confidential NPA data about other people would also be exposed. Zuma asked the court to dismiss the DA’s application, saying that if it did not, not only would his image be tarnished, but so would that of South Africa and the NPA.”
… Is he joking? Because “embarrassment” isn’t really valid ground on which to claim that a corruption case should not be re-examined.
Upon doing a bit more research and reading my classmates’ blogs, I still feel the same. I don’t even see how re-opening the case could be construed as un-democratic. Even if the opposition is politically motivated and wishes the case to be re-opened because it will reflect badly upon Zuma, this doesn’t make it non-democratic. All I see here is a non-sequitur. “It will gravely embarrass the President, therefore it is undemocratic.” “It is in the opposition’s best interest for the case to be re-examined, therefore it is undemocratic.” Huh??