scholarly journals The protection of fundamental rights in the Netherlands and South Africa compared: can the many differences be justified?

Author(s):  
Gerhard Van der Schyff

This contribution considers the protection of fundamental rights in the Netherlands and South Africa. Both countries strive to be constitutional democracies that respect basic rights. But both countries go about this aim in very different ways. These different paths to constitutionalism are compared, as well as the reasons for these differences and whether it can be said that these differences are justifiable. This is done by comparing the character of the rights guaranteed in the Dutch and South African legal orders, the sources of these rights and the locus or centre of protection in both systems. The conclusion is reached that no single or perfect route to attaining the desired protection of fundamental rights exists, but that one should always enquire as to the state of individual freedom and the right to make free political choices in measuring the worth of a system's protection of rights.

Obiter ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mokgadi Margaret Mokgokong ◽  
Moses Retselisitsoe Phooko

The history of South Africa is an unpleasant one. It was a society based on racial segregation with the promotion of Afrikaner culture and the Afrikaans language above all other languages. This can be traced to the architect of apartheid, the Afrikaner National Party, which introduced apartheid. Afrikaans-speaking people, through the Afrikaner National Party, dominated South Africa politically. Their language too, was promoted above all other languages. For example, Afrikaans enjoyed more privileges than other languages in that it was used for drafting laws, as the language of record in the courts and was also the only compulsory subject for learning. The apartheid government, through its racial policies, used the Afrikaans language as a tool to control Black South Africans in almost all spheres of life, including education, which had to be undertaken in Afrikaans. It is therefore no surprise that there were five universities that offered education mainly in Afrikaans. These are Stellenbosch University, University of the Free State, University of Pretoria, Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education (now North-West University) and Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit (now University of Johannesburg). The use of the Afrikaans language as an instrument for social control was not sustainable. The new constitutional dispensation ushered in an era wherein respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms is at the top of the South African agenda. The right to further education is constitutionally recognised in section 29(1)(b) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. Section 29(2) of the Constitution further recognises and embraces the diversity of South African society and provides that “everyone has the right to receive education in the official language or languages of their choice in public education institutions where that education is reasonably practicable” (s 29(b) of the Constitution). The State has an obligation to take reasonable measures on a progressive basis to ensure that further education is available and accessible (s 29(1)(b) of the Constitution). In ensuring “effective access to and implementation” of the right to further education, It is notable that, in its endeavour to make further education available and accessible, the State is required to consider several factors such as language policies. In an effort to facilitate the realisation of the right to further education, the Higher Education Act (101 of 1997) was enacted in order inter alia to “redress past discrimination and ensure representivity and equal access to higher education institutions” (preamble to the Act).In the UFS case (CC), the Constitutional Court applied section 29(1)(b) of the Constitution, which provides for the right to further education and the “right to receive education in the official language or languages of [one’s] choice”. This note centres on this decision and seeks to critically discuss and analyse both the majority and minority decisions of the Constitutional Court. The question presented is whether the Constitutional Court has given the public a solution to the issue surrounding the use of either Afrikaans or English as a language medium of instruction in the higher education sector and what the effect of this has been on the development of other languages. The case note is divided into five sections. The facts of the case, the issues put before the court for consideration and the finding of the court are discussed in part 2. Part 3 contains an analysis of the minority and majority judgments. Part 4 considers whether the court has given us any solutions. Part 5 sets out the authors’ recommendations and their conclusions.


Author(s):  
Bongani C Ndhlovu

This chapter analyses the influence of the state in shaping museum narratives, especially in a liberated society such as South Africa. It argues that while the notion of social cohesion and nation building is an ideal that many South African museums should strive for, the technocratisation of museum processes has to a degree led to a disregard of the public sphere as a space of open engagement. Secondly, the chapter also looks at the net-effect of museums professionals and boards in the development of their narrative. It argues that due to the nature of their expertise and interests, and the focus on their areas of specialisation, museums may hardly claim to be representative of the many voices they ought to represent. As such, the chapter explores contestations in museum spaces. It partly does so by exploring the notion “free-spokenness” and its limits in museum spaces. To amplify its argument, the chapter uses some exhibitions that generated critical engagements from Iziko Museums of South Africa.


1986 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-228
Author(s):  
A. Roy Eckardt

“According to a long-standing Christian tradition relating to oppression, a particular tyrant or a particular tyrannical regime ‘forfeits the moral right to govern and the people acquire the right to resist.’ And this is the state of affairs in today's South Africa… Radical South African liberation thinking-praxis goes much farther than the non-revolutionist Social Gospel tendencies of much American black liberation thinking.”


Obiter ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-274
Author(s):  
Lindelwa Mhlongo

The right to vote in South Africa is one of the fundamental rights recognised by the Constitution. South Africa ran its sixth election on 8 May 2019. Since the birth of democracy in 1994, it has had four presidents, two of whom did not serve their full term in office. Former President Thabo Mbeki resigned after he was recalled for using the country’s law enforcement system to undermine Jacob Zuma’s chances of succeeding him. He resigned with nine months to go in his second term in office. Mbeki’s successor, former President Jacob Zuma, also resigned from office during his second term with 14 months to go. Several stinging criticisms were levelled against him. For example, he was accused of tribalism and being a “ruralitarian” who lacked urban sophistication to understand and lead a large economy such as South Africa. He was also accused of benefiting his family through creating business opportunities for them and directing development projects to his home village. Furthermore, his government was accused of being weak on corruption, and being easily influenced by the communists. In light of the above, the question that begs for an answer is: does the current South African system of government and electoral system provide for high-level political accountability? In answering this question, further ancillary questions are posed throughout the article. What informed the drafters of the Electoral Amendment Act 73 of 1998 to choose the current electoral system? Is it time for South Africa to review its electoral system? How can South Africa increase the level of political accountability of the President?


Afrika Focus ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Angelo Dube

The right to participate in elections is one of the cornerstones of any democratic country. This is true of South Africa’s electoral process, which was put to the test in the case of National Freedom Party v Electoral Commission in 2016. To promote free and fair elections, certain safeguards must be put in place. These include notifying the Electoral Commission of an intention to participate in elections through the payment of a deposit on a specified date by the party intending to participate in elections, and the publication of an election timetable by the government. This research has found that once published, the Electoral Commission has no power to change the electoral timetable. The only remedy for a party that fails to comply with the electoral prescripts such as the payment of an electoral deposit lies under section 11(2)(a) of the South African Local Government: Municipal Electoral Act. Additionally, it found that the concept of free and fair elections takes into account the interests of all parties concerned, and not just that of the party that alleges unfairness stemming from the exclusion. Whilst the exclusion of a party can lead to the violation of certain fundamental rights, such as the right to regular free and fair elections, and the right to vote, it is important to note that this case clearly establishes the legal position that a party’s failure to comply with the legal prescripts, will bar that political party from obtaining a remedy for exclusion. KEY WORDS: ELECTORAL COMMISSION, ELECTORAL TIMETABLE, FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS, CONDONATION, NON-COMPLIANCE.


1972 ◽  
Vol 1 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 25-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadine Gordimer

This is the text of an address given earlier this year in South Africa which illustrates some of the problems connected with the South African government's plans to abolish the right of appeal against decisions brought by the State Publications Control Board.


Afrika Focus ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-58
Author(s):  
Angelo Dube

The right to participate in elections is one of the cornerstones of any democratic country. This is true of South Africa’s electoral process, which was put to the test in the case of National Freedom Party v Electoral Commission in 2016. To promote free and fair elections, certain safeguards must be put in place. These include notifying the Electoral Commission of an intention to participate in elections through the payment of a deposit on a specified date by the party intending to participate in elections, and the publication of an election timetable by the government. This research has found that once published, the Electoral Commission has no power to change the electoral timetable. The only remedy for a party that fails to comply with the electoral prescripts such as the payment of an electoral deposit lies under section 11(2)(a) of the South African Local Government: Municipal Electoral Act. Additionally, it found that the concept of free and fair elections takes into account the interests of all parties concerned, and not just that of the party that alleges unfairness stemming from the exclusion. Whilst the exclusion of a party can lead to the violation of certain fundamental rights, such as the right to regular free and fair elections, and the right to vote, it is important to note that this case clearly establishes the legal position that a party’s failure to comply with the legal prescripts, will bar that political party from obtaining a remedy for exclusion.


2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamil Mujuzi

South African law provides for circumstances in which victims of crime may participate in the criminal justice system at the investigation, prosecution (trial), sentencing and parole stages. In South Africa, a prison inmate has no right to parole although the courts have held that they have a right to be considered for parole. In some cases, the victims of crime have a right to make submissions to the Parole Board about whether the offender should be released on parole. Section 299A of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 provides for the right of victims of crime to participate in parole proceedings. The purpose of this article is to discuss section 299A and illustrate ways in which victims of crime participate in the parole process. The author also recommends ways in which victims’ rights in section 299A of the Criminal Procedure Act could be strengthened.


2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Desiree Lewis ◽  
Cheryl Margaret Hendricks

Alongside the many structural and political processes generated by the #FeesMustFall student protests between 2015 and 2016 were narratives and discourses about revitalising the transformation of universities throughout South Africa. It was the very notion of “transformation,” diluted by neo-liberal macro-economic restructuring from the late 1990s, that students jettisoned as they increasingly embraced the importance of “decolonisation.” By exploring some of the key debates and interventions driven by the #FeesMustFall movement, we consider how earlier trajectories of feminist knowledge-making resonate with these. The article also reflects on how aspects of intellectual activism within the student protests can deepen and push back the frontiers of contemporary South African academic feminism. In so doing, it explores how radical knowledge-making at, and about, universities, has contributed to radical political thought in South Africa.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document