As a common citizen who believes that civil society should have political leverage in state affairs, I see the currently renewed ruling of the Supreme Court of Appeal to review the Zuma’s case as not only legitimate, but also contributing to South African democratic development.
First, opponents argue that the judicial review would undermine South African developing democracy. However, the reverse should be true. Especially because South Africa is an developing democracy, civil society and the state should strive to develop mutual trust, which is a foundation for any healthy democracy. This can be done by having the two sides to cooperate on state decisions (and therefore giving the public more leeway to partake in political decision-making), rather than just having the public to delegate their decisions to the government which they distrust. This argument is especially valid when the decisions largely involve public interests, as in the case of Zuma’s pre-election corruption.
Second, the renewed ruling would help strengthen the accountability and transparency of future judicial processes. Perhaps the ruling is made more acceptable given it is a judicial review, but not a decision reversal. In fact, the court already declared that the judicial review does not challenge the merits of the decision, but the technical legal issues. A court statement said,
“We wish to emphasize that the decision taken by the acting national director of public prosecution on April 6, 2009, not to prosecute President Jacob Zuma, stands”
As the ruling requires portion of hitherto undisclosed documents backing up the prosecution decision to be made public, there shows the South African recognition of the need for transparent and accountable of the judiciary and hence the government.
Finally, the capability of the appellant and opposition party, the Democratic Alliance (DA), to influence political judgments which had been agreed upon but might be potentially flawed, would inspire the public to engage in evaluations of their government’s performance. By empowering the public to partake in political decision-making, it is hoped that the idea of “ruled by the people” would be nurtured in South Africa.
*************************
On another note, the allegation that the appellant and opposition party, the Democratic Alliance (DA), is using the appeal to gain political points and is therefore biased and wrong in challenging the initial ruling, is an illogical claim. Such allegation problematically suggests that because of the conflict of interest involved given DA’s role as the opposition party, the DA is partial when engaging in judicial judgments. Put differently, the allegation focuses on the DA’s role but not the merit of their appeal, which appears to be legitimate given the evidence on the cooperation between Zuma and the investigation teams to conceal his wrong-doing prior to the election.
****************************************** 2nd post (?)
I don’t have much to add on to my initial post, especially as other bloggers (so far I have found two…..) share my sentiment that the judicial review is a democratic thing to do.
Nonetheless, I find Nielc’s comment insightful given his consideration of “opposition” as “the proxy for democracy”. According to him,
“While it is true that the DA is an opposing political party, I don’t think the actions were entirely politically motivated. In a sense, it may be even more democratic, if the proxy for democracy is the degree of “opposition” that is faced by the ruling executive.”
While my initial post argues that the role of the DA as the opposition party has nothing to do with the legitimacy and validity of its appeals, the post does not concern the other side of the argument that, it is exactly because the DA is the opposition party, its appeals are rendered more democratic given their aim to challenge the ruling government/ party through democratic means (such as using the court by the DA). As such, because the DA has succeeded in appealing for reopening a closed case, not only its power as the opposition party, but also the democratic performance of South Africa, are confirmed and therefore reinforced.
Tags: 7 Comments
7 responses so far ↓
“infant democracy”
I wouldn’t classify South Africa as an infant democracy.
http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/saf2.htm
Right, I guess I should say it is a developing democracy!
well, i was actually pointing out that the “opponents” in
“First, opponents argue that the judicial review would undermine South African infant democracy.”
were wrong to say that : )
haha I mistook
I am actually unsure whether the “opponents” are referring South African democracy as infant or developing, but probably the latter is correct.
I am going to revise it a bit in my next post!
I’m gonna weigh in here and say that judicial review is undemocratic. And that is the point of it.
Back when a constitution is written, the people have made a consensus that they want to pre-commit themselves to a certain code of ethics. Even when democratic whims would violate them, these ethics are what makes the country what it is. Constitutional democracy means democracy until it violates the founding principles.
Its like Ulysses tying himself to the mast when he is passing the sirens. He knows he will be tempted in the future so he precommits not to let that temptation influence him to make rash decisions. A consitution is like tying yourself to the mast. Sure its undemocratic, Ulysses can’t do what he wants when he is tied up, but it is prudent, and that is what matters
Hi Justin, I guess you mean violating the judicial process equals violating the constitution and is therefore undemocratic?
I am aware that reopening a closed judicial case would create an example for the public to disrupt political decisions (for personal interests) in future. However, I have a hard time getting over the fact that the initial ruling was unjust and undemocratic in the first place, and should therefore be reviewed.
Hi Justin again. I meant I see your argument as totally valid. Yet from a citizen’s point of view, I find the judicial review a democratic decision.