Success of South Africa’s Constitution must be measured against ANC government’s violations

Cosmik Debris

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
8,680

Translation:

A constitution determines the framework and rules within which a constitutional dispensation ought to function. In South Africa’s case, the Constitution is much vaunted, some even say that it is the best in the world. The truth is, however, that our Constitution must be measured against the ANC government’s violations over the past 25 years, which render it little more than a worthless document in practice.

All the problems currently faced by the country were caused by the government within the very framework, and despite the various provisions, of the Constitution.

In fact, it seems that South Africa’s Constitution is two documents rolled into one. The one encapsulates the best international prescripts for a good, modern government. That is the good part.

Each of these provisions are, however, accompanied by a qualification aimed at redressing the so-called injustices of the past and these qualifications eclipse the good part in all respects. That is the other part.

One such an example is Section 217, which deals with procurement. It stipulates that procurement must take place in accordance with the internationally accepted norms of being fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective. But, of course, it is subject to the qualification of redress.

It has paved the way for all the corruption and state capture that have ravaged the country over the past 25 years – as has now been revealed to the Zondo Commission.

Section 55 deals with the powers of Parliament and Section 92 determines the accountability of the executive authority as well as the Members of the Cabinet, collectively and individually, to Parliament. This raises the question of how many ministers from the ruling party resigned voluntarily over the past 25 years because they accepted responsibility for irregularities?

The answer is none. Not a single one.

Mention must be made of expropriation without compensation. In other words, the confiscation of property. People must be under no illusion; it is the property of white people that will be targeted. This is despite all the fundamental provisions in the Constitution about the supremacy of the Constitution and the law.

There is no other country in the world, which has a modern Constitution, that makes provision for the expropriation of a certain part of its population’s property without compensation based on race.

The Constitution is supposed to unify South Africans. It does not. True democracy is not only having the right to vote, but also that the rights of minorities are protected and promoted.

After 25 years, there is no reason to celebrate South Africa’s Constitution. The ANC’s corruption, incompetence and oppression of minorities within the framework of the country’s Constitution has made it impossible.

It will inevitably lead to the fall of the ANC as government. And it is not a question of if, but when. The Constitution will not be able to save the ANC then.
 

grok

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
23,794
Is the Constitution worth the paper it's written on?
The problem is the ANC who sat around the negotiating table with everyone else to draw it up, then wiped their asses with it when they got power.

Looking back it was Mandela who negotiated, but the radicals who presidented (or, to be honest, let the Guptas president while they were stealing).

We were too innocent back then, believing the ANC lies, and that they can be trusted at their word.
Who coulda even thunk that it was the president himself that slid the blade between the ribs?
Naw fam, there is something seriously wrong in this country.. but it is not the constitution.
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
42,037
The problem is the ANC who sat around the negotiating table with everyone else to draw it up, then wiped their asses with it when they got power.

Looking back it was Mandela who negotiated, but the radicals who presidented (or, to be honest, let the Guptas president while they were stealing).

We were too innocent back then, believing the ANC lies, and that they can be trusted at their word.
Who coulda even thunk that it was the president himself that slid the blade between the ribs?
Naw fam, there is something seriously wrong in this country.. but it is not the constitution.

The public interest will tell you it is WMC.
 

ForceFate

Honorary Master
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
30,251
The problem is the ANC who sat around the negotiating table with everyone else to draw it up, then wiped their asses with it when they got power.

Looking back it was Mandela who negotiated, but the radicals who presidented (or, to be honest, let the Guptas president while they were stealing).

We were too innocent back then, believing the ANC lies, and that they can be trusted at their word.
Who coulda even thunk that it was the president himself that slid the blade between the ribs?
Naw fam, there is something seriously wrong in this country.. but it is not the constitution.
I think the wheels started coming off in the mid-2000 when the dominant lobbyists were promoting his candidacy. He was touted as the man who's going to champion the plight of the poor and marginalised, unlike Mbeki, who was seen as elitist and globalist.
 

Kodi

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2021
Messages
622
Is the Constitution worth the paper it's written on?
Our Constitution isn't the problem. It's the motives and morals of those empowered to discharge the constitutional mandate who are wholly responsible. However, it seems we incapable of holding those responsible accountable.
 

Cosmik Debris

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
8,680
Our Constitution isn't the problem. It's the motives and morals of those empowered to discharge the constitutional mandate who are wholly responsible. However, it seems we incapable of holding those responsible accountable.

A constitution that provides for "fair" discrimination is not the problem? Who gets to decide what "fair" is? A constitution with limitations to rights? Who gets to decide the limits?

It was written with ambiguity in mind so that whoever was in power at any time could decide whatever suits them.
 

Kodi

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2021
Messages
622
A constitution that provides for "fair" discrimination is not the problem? Who gets to decide what "fair" is? A constitution with limitations to rights? Who gets to decide the limits?

It was written with ambiguity in mind so that whoever was in power at any time could decide whatever suits them.
The bill of rights is written with sufficient robustness to make principled determinations whether such discrimination is fair, on a case by case basis.

But the issue is bigger.

Our fight should be against the main enemy, corruption. That includes cadre deployment, nepotism, cronyism etc etc.

Our fight is a moral one. No Constitution can turn an immoral society into a moral one. In a sense, every Constitution is potentially not worth the paper it's written on.
 

Cosmik Debris

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
8,680
The bill of rights is written with sufficient robustness to make principled determinations whether such discrimination is fair, on a case by case basis.

But the issue is bigger.

Our fight should be against the main enemy, corruption. That includes cadre deployment, nepotism, cronyism etc etc.

Our fight is a moral one. No Constitution can turn an immoral society into a moral one. In a sense, every Constitution is potentially not worth the paper it's written on.

So. according to you freedom of speech can be limited? Who decides the limit?
 

scudsucker

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
8,188
How? Any suggestions? I would if I could. But the ANC needs me to claim my pension and won't let me take my money out of SA. I'm an economic prisoner. Can you help me leave then?
If you can't help yourself, why would you expect anyone else to help you?

If I helped you that would be (gasp) socialism!


Sometimes most times being a right winger sucks.
 

Kodi

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2021
Messages
622
So. according to you freedom of speech can be limited? Who decides the limit?
Can any Constitution guarantee your right to life?

There are no absolute rights in the complete sense. Every right, including your right to life, can be infringed dependent on the circumstance, such as self-defense for example.

Who gets to determine which rights, and under which circumstance, that right may be derogated, ultimately vests with the people.
 

RedViking

Nord of the South
Joined
Feb 23, 2012
Messages
38,477
What constitution? Of such thing I have heard none. Not that I care what the VF+ has to say
 
Top