Defence of our society lies in informed citizenry

The freedoms of expression, association, etc as well as the principles of natural justice, like “you cannot be a judge in your own case” and “hearing both sides before making a judgement” are among the fundamental principles enshrined in our constitution. These principles apply to every citizen, natural or corporeal as well as every state institution including the executive, parliament and the judiciary. The sum total of all these principles is the promotion of an open and democratic society. I would like to emphasise the “OPEN” part of our society. It is my belief that a secretive and closed society stands no chance at being democratic. In everything we do as responsible citizens, we have to ask ourselves, am I promoting the society as envisaged in our constitution or undermining it? Again this question applies to everybody, but most importantly to those the society has entrusted with our wellbeing.

In a professional world the mantra is “get the best man/woman for the job”. All things being equal, the determination of who is best for the job is objective and transparent and based on qualities and qualifications that, over time have been established as needed in the performance of the specific job. This is not necessarily the case when it comes to political appointments. Everybody is guaranteed freedom of association and to contest whatever public political office there is in the country, political deployments aside. More than often the success in politics is based on the charisma of the candidate and the emotional wooing of the electorate. This does not always bring about quality leadership, as we can see from the current leaders of our government, however, the process is protected in our democracy and guaranteed in our constitution.

The question arises as to how we protect ourselves against inept leaders, who at best will be more preoccupied with covering up their failures, or their corruption, or both. The answer lies in the separation of powers, again protected under our constitution. The defence of our society lies in the informed citizenry. When you take the sum total of the statements and actions of the ruling party you clearly arrive at the point where you become petrified about the future of our democracy. Even more scary is the lack of understanding or probably the deliberate disregard of the separation of powers and the mandates, purpose and product that each power should deliver on. Where the democratic elections have produced an outright winner the cabinet is normally made up of only ruling party members. So there is nothing sinister about what we currently have in South Africa. The general members of the ruling party would now watch to see if their leaders are delivering on their promises (they can always resort to internal party processes to arrest any leadership delinquency).

However, the general public has to ensure that the ruling party does not go about delivering on their promises in an illegal manner. Therein comes parliament as an overseer of executive decisions and policies. Because parliament is not only made up of ruling party members but also the opposition parties, the system is designed not only to keep cabinet in check but the proper execution of the parliamentary mandate. What recourse does the general public have when even parliament fails to safeguard the constitutional guarantees. The last refuge becomes our judiciary. The importance of the separation of powers becomes even more obvious and important in keeping our democracy alive and state institutions in check. If there was ever a doubt about how the ruling party always wanted to have control over the judiciary, the recent pronouncements by government spoke persons that the executive plans to review how the decisions of the Constitutional Court have affected the ordinary citizens, should place those doubts to rest.

Unlike in politics, the judiciary ought to be appointed exclusively based on skill, knowledge of the law and experience. Citizens have options to appeal decisions to the highest court in the land and reasons are always given for judgements, unlike political decisions. When the politicians talk about reviewing judiciary pronouncements, on what basis, criteria and for what purposes are they even thinking of undertaking such a dangerous and precedent setting agenda. Certainly this is not provided for in the constitution and can only be looked at as an unprecedented attempt to interfere with the judiciary. When you look at the timing of this so-called review and the passing of the State Information Bill, you cannot be blamed to see this as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary as it is clear that this Bill will end up in court. Politicians are appointed based on promises, they therefore are subject to delivery reviews to see how their policies have affected the ordinary citizens. On the other hand judges are appointed based on skill, knowledge and experience and what is required of them is to uphold and advance the law. I am of cause discounting the embarrassment that characterised the appointment of the current chief justice of the constitutional court.

Sipho Puwani is an admitted attorney and conveyancer, with a passion for socio-economic development initiatives and human rights. Puwani believes in our constitution and in democracy.