I am by no means an expert in South African politics. Actually, I know next to nothing about it unfortunately. But after reading those two articles, it seems unfathomable to me that the Supreme Court ruling could be considered undemocratic. I think that this case has actually proven the strength of democracy. The most significant reason being the simplest: Jacob Zuma is president, but he still ought to be subject to checks and balances to make sure he never acquires extreme power. I think that the ruling just goes to show that South African Democracy is doing well. The most important reason being that “it confirms that a decision to discontinue a prosecution is reviewable by the courts,” which is a fundamental ‘check’ to prevent abuse of power by political authorities. However, upon reading about the case some more, I realize that this is really just the tip of the iceberg as Zuma and the NPA is going to use every trick in the book to delay proceedings so that Zuma can serve a second term. This is obviously going to be made much easier given the fact that Zuma has the financial ability to make this a reality.
For people to suggest that “democracy can be undermined by simply approaching courts to reverse any decision arrived at by a qualified organ of state,” is ridiculous. I don’t see how any of this is undermining democracy, instead I think it strengthens it. Even if the opposition in the case is fuelled by political motives to get Zuma out of office, re-opening the case for these reasons and to draw negative attention to Zuma is not undemocratic. Sheesh.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.