-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What's the most interesting small town you've visited in South Africa?
Referendum call
- Thread starter neio
- Start date
arf9999
MyBroadband Member
A majority in parliament...
kilps
Expert Member
That's one thing which I don't understand - how can our constitution be changed without a public referendum ... oh hang on, then our ministers woudn't be able to change it at every turn - what are we on at the moment? 12 ammendments?
kilps
Expert Member
So why don't we do that over here? I am sure 100 000 is manageble...neio said:
Darth Garth
Executive Member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2004
- Messages
- 6,207
- Reaction score
- 268
neio said:
And since when ???.
So name these countries please where this happens as are you are talking out of your depth again and confusing constitutional amendments with recall elections or ballot propositions/initiatives.
Moederloos
Honorary Master
I would imagine (but open to correction) that the reason for the referendum would also be a factor.
Free AIDS drugs for all (or a shower in every home) vs Contacting the little green men that live on the sun as a (whacked out!) example...
Free AIDS drugs for all (or a shower in every home) vs Contacting the little green men that live on the sun as a (whacked out!) example...
Moederloos
Honorary Master
For the eloquent, journalistic types (Debbie2, AntiThesis?), it seems a shame that South Africa's referendum is absent on the wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
An edit may be in order?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
An edit may be in order?
Darth Garth
Executive Member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2004
- Messages
- 6,207
- Reaction score
- 268
neio said:
Swiss is a very loose confederation with the cantons having a very high degree of autonomy compared to say the US or German states or our provinces.
In our case referendums can only be called the govt and must be gazetted and the results are non-binding on the govt and is an alternative and much quicker and less costlier than calling a snap election to place a major political decision before the electorate where the govt feels it needs their backing.
One does not do it lightly.
We had one in 1960 to decide on becoming a republic and one again in 92 on reform.
Of course the one in 1992 was thanks to presidential decree. However, today the president does not have the power to call a referendum, it is up to the NEC, and they're a right toothless bunch. Besides, the ANC actually has a perception it's doing a good job.tibby.dude said:
Darth Garth
Executive Member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2004
- Messages
- 6,207
- Reaction score
- 268
neio said:
You can vote ... for now
.Debbie
Banned
AFAIK....
ONLY the President of South Africa has the power (via the Constitution) to call a referendum. This loose thing called "the government'.... no, they do not have such power afaik, and if I am wrong on this then in all probability a 2/3rds majority would probably be required.
Just because there are amendments does not mean the Constitution has been changed willy-nilly. Constitutional Amendments in SA, which require a 2/3rds majority of both houses (colloquial 'parliament' and NCOP), have all been relevent and democratic thus far.
I cannot find fault with what Tibby.dude has said, except for his reversion to his old ways of using three question marks (what's up with that???
)
In contrast, one may like to call up the American Constitution and the number of amendments passed on it (some twenty-something, the first ten [constituting USA's 'Bill of Rights'] which were passed pretty much immediately after the Consitution came into existence). The USA Consitution, in existence since 1776, is often referred to as a 'living constitution'. This is because it is so skant that it continues to be relevent throughout the centuries even without amendment's being passed willy-nilly. This is not necessarily a good thing, because the very quality that makes this constitution 'time-proof' is also the quality that leaves it open to abuse via (i.e. "We the people" has, at various time's in the USA's history, been used to exclude certain groups of people based on race, nationality, gender).
As for arguments about the lack of direct democracy in SA..... we are getting there, be patient and hold onto that vision of mass participation. You need also to be able to distinguish between the different 'forms' (for lack of a better word) of democracy. In SA, we are big on the participative representative democracy - far more so than in comparable 'third wave' democracies (i.e. those countries that became democracies around the time of the fall of communism). There are hundreds of ways you can participate in law-making and policy-making in SA, from attending local EIA/SIA discussion to commenting on Green Papers and other laws.
And one final thought on this- remember that in the USA and Europe democracy has been around for centuries. In the rest of the world we are playing catch-up. We are still learning. As I have said before on the forum, democracy is not a 'cut-and-paste' system - i.e. you cannot take the processes and application on democracy from one country and transplant them onto another country and expect the same results. Democracy must necessarily be tailored to each country. On the bright side, we have achieved here in SA what it took Europe and the USA literally hundreds of years to do.
ONLY the President of South Africa has the power (via the Constitution) to call a referendum. This loose thing called "the government'.... no, they do not have such power afaik, and if I am wrong on this then in all probability a 2/3rds majority would probably be required.
Kilps said:
Just because there are amendments does not mean the Constitution has been changed willy-nilly. Constitutional Amendments in SA, which require a 2/3rds majority of both houses (colloquial 'parliament' and NCOP), have all been relevent and democratic thus far.
I cannot find fault with what Tibby.dude has said, except for his reversion to his old ways of using three question marks (what's up with that???
)In contrast, one may like to call up the American Constitution and the number of amendments passed on it (some twenty-something, the first ten [constituting USA's 'Bill of Rights'] which were passed pretty much immediately after the Consitution came into existence). The USA Consitution, in existence since 1776, is often referred to as a 'living constitution'. This is because it is so skant that it continues to be relevent throughout the centuries even without amendment's being passed willy-nilly. This is not necessarily a good thing, because the very quality that makes this constitution 'time-proof' is also the quality that leaves it open to abuse via (i.e. "We the people" has, at various time's in the USA's history, been used to exclude certain groups of people based on race, nationality, gender).
As for arguments about the lack of direct democracy in SA..... we are getting there, be patient and hold onto that vision of mass participation. You need also to be able to distinguish between the different 'forms' (for lack of a better word) of democracy. In SA, we are big on the participative representative democracy - far more so than in comparable 'third wave' democracies (i.e. those countries that became democracies around the time of the fall of communism). There are hundreds of ways you can participate in law-making and policy-making in SA, from attending local EIA/SIA discussion to commenting on Green Papers and other laws.
And one final thought on this- remember that in the USA and Europe democracy has been around for centuries. In the rest of the world we are playing catch-up. We are still learning. As I have said before on the forum, democracy is not a 'cut-and-paste' system - i.e. you cannot take the processes and application on democracy from one country and transplant them onto another country and expect the same results. Democracy must necessarily be tailored to each country. On the bright side, we have achieved here in SA what it took Europe and the USA literally hundreds of years to do.
Last edited:
Just done my research. I agree with Debbie:
Section 84(2) of the Constitution has reference to the powers of the president. Point (g) specifies the ability of the president to call a referendum. The only other reference to referendum in the constitution refers to the ablility of a premier of a province to call a referendum. I haven't as yet checked the Constitutional Amendment Acts.
Edit: Neither the first, second or third amendment (bill) have any reference to referendum.
Section 84(2) of the Constitution has reference to the powers of the president. Point (g) specifies the ability of the president to call a referendum. The only other reference to referendum in the constitution refers to the ablility of a premier of a province to call a referendum. I haven't as yet checked the Constitutional Amendment Acts.
Edit: Neither the first, second or third amendment (bill) have any reference to referendum.
Last edited: