According to a 2001 Constitutional Court ruling the South African government cannot extradite someone suspected of a capital crime to a country that enforces the death penalty. The ruling does however allow for the extradition if the requesting government provides a commitment that they will not pass the death penalty.
A victory for human rights? I don't think so.
In the last few years two men from Botswana suspected of a capital offence (murder) have entered South Africa. The government of Botswana asked for these men to be extradited so that the cases can be put to trial. Subsequent to this one of these men has died but the case continues to be dragged out in our courts. The snag; Botswana has a mandatory death penalty for convicted murderers.
Our government has appealed to the government of Botswana for a commitment not to pass the death penalty; understandably they refused. This has created a legal dilemma: the men cannot be tried in a South African court, but also cannot be extradited. This has two obvious infringements on human rights. Firstly, the accused could potential get away with murder and the victims not see justice. Secondly, South Africa could become a safe-haven for criminals fleeing potential execution thus our citizens right to safety in infringed upon.
In an attempt to protect human rights, our constitution has actually protected potential murders.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Friday, May 6, 2011
All they have are unenclosed toilets
The Democratic Alliance (DA) presented the residents of Makhaza Township in Cape Town with two choices: either the council builds one toilet to be shared by five families and the council will enclose them, or the council builds one toilet per family and each family enclose them.
The decision made by the community was one toilet per family, enclosed by themselves.
According to the law, the basic human rights of residents of Makhaza were infringed upon by the erection of these unenclosed toilets. I agree with this, despite the fact that the residents agreed to it. The law is the law.
As we get closer to the elections this judgement has given the African National Congress (ANC) much impetus. Opposition parties are referring to trivial matters such as: police brutality, failure to deliver basic services, a crippled health-care system, one of the worst education systems on the continent, rife corruption, and rampant crime (to name one or two). The ANC has chosen to focus on the Makhaza issue and almost every single ANC election rally over the last week has used this judgement to 'prove' that the DA are racist and do not care about black people.
If one looks at it objectively, it seems as if all the ANC have are unenclosed toilets.
The decision made by the community was one toilet per family, enclosed by themselves.
According to the law, the basic human rights of residents of Makhaza were infringed upon by the erection of these unenclosed toilets. I agree with this, despite the fact that the residents agreed to it. The law is the law.
As we get closer to the elections this judgement has given the African National Congress (ANC) much impetus. Opposition parties are referring to trivial matters such as: police brutality, failure to deliver basic services, a crippled health-care system, one of the worst education systems on the continent, rife corruption, and rampant crime (to name one or two). The ANC has chosen to focus on the Makhaza issue and almost every single ANC election rally over the last week has used this judgement to 'prove' that the DA are racist and do not care about black people.
If one looks at it objectively, it seems as if all the ANC have are unenclosed toilets.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Our democracy needs changing
Essentially there are two kinds of democracy: 1) Proportional Representation and 2) a Constituency system.
After South Africa emerged as a democracy debate raged as to which voting system we would use and the Proportional Representations system was chosen. This system functions essentially along these lines: rather than voting for an individual one votes for a party. According to the percentage (proportion) of the voters that vote for your party equals the percentage of seats you receive in National or local government (assembly). Each party chooses the candidates that they want to represent them.
However, a Constituency system works as follows: every single area of a country is divided into small segments. In each segment an individual politician has to canvass the votes of the people in that segment (constituency). The person who wins the majority of the votes in that segment then becomes the leader and representative for that segment.
In my view the Proportional Representation system it is severely flawed and is challenging our democracy.
Firstly, there is no accountability; when the party or an individual fails to fulfil their promises they hide behind one another and no one is held accountable. This is due to the fact that bad local and national leaders can hide behind the party and the party can hide behind the excuse of 'it was one bad individual'. In the Constituency system the voters know the face and name of their local leader and that person is held accountable if they don't fulfil their promises.
The second reason is that the 'leader' is not answerable to the voter, but rather to the party. As a result the 'leader' has to tow the party line or face loosing their job.
In our current political climate it is essential that politicians start being held accountable, and that is best handled by changing the way that we run our democracy.
After South Africa emerged as a democracy debate raged as to which voting system we would use and the Proportional Representations system was chosen. This system functions essentially along these lines: rather than voting for an individual one votes for a party. According to the percentage (proportion) of the voters that vote for your party equals the percentage of seats you receive in National or local government (assembly). Each party chooses the candidates that they want to represent them.
However, a Constituency system works as follows: every single area of a country is divided into small segments. In each segment an individual politician has to canvass the votes of the people in that segment (constituency). The person who wins the majority of the votes in that segment then becomes the leader and representative for that segment.
In my view the Proportional Representation system it is severely flawed and is challenging our democracy.
Firstly, there is no accountability; when the party or an individual fails to fulfil their promises they hide behind one another and no one is held accountable. This is due to the fact that bad local and national leaders can hide behind the party and the party can hide behind the excuse of 'it was one bad individual'. In the Constituency system the voters know the face and name of their local leader and that person is held accountable if they don't fulfil their promises.
The second reason is that the 'leader' is not answerable to the voter, but rather to the party. As a result the 'leader' has to tow the party line or face loosing their job.
In our current political climate it is essential that politicians start being held accountable, and that is best handled by changing the way that we run our democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)