South African Democracy – Mini Assignment 11
I am firmly of the view that this ruling, although going through a non-democratic courts system, still embodies the very essence of democracy. The important thing to remember is that we aren’t talking about pure democracy, where decisions are made by the majority with no concern for any other limiting factors. We are talking about a consitutional democracy. This is an important distinction because this country has given a set of rules for itself so that democrtic whims do not allow the country to stray off its founding principles. Waldron called this precommitment.
In this case, the precommitment is the constitutional promise that all people will always be subject to the same law. Even if the democratic organs of the state prefer this man not to be indicted, the principles laid down and entrenched by the nation’s founders are what ultimately set the boundaries. One can look at this as an impediment to democracy, sure, but one must also consider that the pure democracy which this type of precommitment prohibits is what aristotle would call democracy, the tyranny of the many.
The courts are there to make sure that politicians do not step outside the bounds of this precommitment. They are undemocratic, yes, but that is the point. While they may limit pure democracy, their primary purpose is to make sure that South African Democracy stays at a consistent quality.
April 12th, 2012 at 9:28 pm
Nice perspective, I really like your take on the debate. You make the very good point that while the courts may indeed by un-democratic they are check against Aristotle’s idea tyranny of the many. A constitutional democracy is definitely the key aspect of this debate that the ANC does not want to recognize. However, while I support this ruling–I also think there is a danger in allowing the courts to scrutinize every decision an elected leader makes.