Perhaps it would please the readers to have a better understanding of what this new democratic legislation process, this double-veto policy, would really mean for the government of South Africa. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the act of vetoing a bill can be described as “an authoritative prohibition or rejection of a proposed or intended act.” Though this is a rather brief and simple explanation for what causes so many headaches in our legislative system to date, it will suffice for the purpose of this paper. A double-veto jurisdiction does not vary from our conventional understandings of the typical veto system that most Americans are familiar with, the only difference being that two parties are involved instead of the characteristic one party veto systems, like we see from the presidential veto application. With such a system in place, both political factions in South Africa, the Nationalist Party (Afrikaners) and the African National Congress (native Africans), would have a say in the legislative process to ensure that neither party ever developed a tyrannical majority. Through a system of double-veto jurisdiction, the newfound democratic legislation process would help sustain a sense of accountability between the two factions in South Africa and eventually lead to a sense of trust which would inevitably lead to an overall better system of government. It is too late to go back into time and change the history of social uprising and revolution within South Africa, but we can look prospectively into the future and allow change for all citizens of this country.
One of the greatest reasons for establishing a new double-veto system within the Republic of South Africa is also the easiest to understand. With the integration of this new system, South Africa will be able to experience democracy to a larger degree through the process of political deliberation and discussion. Because I am personally very conservative in nature, I hope it will not offend my readers if I again turn to Burkeian ideology to help describe what really constitutes a republic. Edmund Burke, in his Speech to the Electors of Bristol, reprimanded his competitor after he had promised the constituents to do whatever they said needed to be done within their community (446). Burke then goes on to explain to the voters that “parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole,” which illustrates the idea that government is not created to please the fickle public to their every whim, but to establish rules and laws through a system of deliberation that is grounded on the idea that politicians are acting with a relatively clear sense of reason regarding the general good of the people. A recent article in the Washington Post surrounding the current situation in Lebanon gives hope to the effect of allowing countries the opportunity to work out their differences democratically rather than resorting to violence. Readers are informed of the current situation concerning the peace agreements between the different factions of Lebanon, especially that of the Shiite Muslim movement Hezbollah, which brought an end to the 18-month crisis which almost led to civil war within the country. This was done through a five day negotiation process in the Persian Gulf which established a power of veto for the Hezbollah within the Lebanese government, something that the people of Lebanon believe will bring about peace for at least a little while (Shadid 2). This is just one example of how deliberation and a proper course through democratic processes can have a positive effect on not only political institutions but social ones as well; it is a well-known fact that Lebanon is constantly in arms over the religious confrontations seen in everyday life. Another example of a system of democratic legislation making a difference comes from the well-known situation within Iraq. Among the piles and piles of documents one can find concerning the Iraqi conflict, it is easy to find references of the United States trying to establish a system of double-veto policies for the political factions within Iraq to improve the previous years’ conditions of war and insurgency (Wheatley 533-536). Although the United States has already sent forces to occupy Iraqi communities, their hope is to eventually launch a complete self-serving government through the use of different types of democratic processes and building a system of co- dependence between all factions within Iraq. It is clear to see that this method has been used in many respects to provide a basis of founding a new form of democracy within several countries.
Not only does this system provide a foundation for bettering the democratic situation of a political entity, it also provides the basis for a more accountable form of democracy. Corruption has always been an issue with countries that are trying to institute a more resolute form of democracy and it has definitely made a mark within South Africa within one of the main political parties, the African National Congress. Jacob Zuma, who was once designated by the political world as finished in his career due to charges against him for rape and corruption only a short two years ago, is now one of the top candidates for the next president of the Republic of South Africa (Habib 2). Including the double-veto system into the government of South Africa, it would be much harder for political officials such as Zuma to take advantage of constituents who are relying on these officials to provide them the means to escape from years of political injustice and turmoil. This would be accomplished through the idea that politicians are less likely to be corrupt through a “greater sphere of country,” brought to attention by the Federalist Papers, basically saying that by allowing more to participate in the government affairs, politicians who are prone to corruption within office will either be eliminated after an offense or never rise to power in the first place (Madison 341). This point can be justified through the idea that with a double-veto system in place, the entire body of the South African government would have to purposefully review proposed legislative bills in fear of tyrannical majority power of a faction. In some cases, it could also be argued that with the implementation of this system, it could be inferred that the general public would take note of the additional attention to the legislative process and become interested in the law-making procedures themselves. In other words, if more attention is brought to an issue than before, then more people will be interested in its justification within the government. With this type of ideology in practice through the support of a double-veto system, we could say that politicians with a one-sided agenda in correspondence to a particular faction, say the African National Congress, would be unable to prosper, thus resulting in a more general undertaking of the common good. It just comes down to maximizing the potential that can be derived from having a republic as the form of government of choice and South Africa definitely has the potential to be something great.
If we were to continue with our discussion at this point, it would be a grave infringement on the intelligence of the readers. Surely, there must be problems associated with implementing a double-veto policy with the legislative government, but what are they and how would South Africa be able to withstand them?
Even with all of the benefits of establishing this system within the confines of the government, South Africa would still face two possible negative outcomes from attempting the double-veto policy. One of these outcomes involves the chance of extreme proactive attempts to gain a majority power over the other party. This would occur when one faction would feel as if the other were taking advantage of the new system to gain additional power, which would most likely lead to complete dissolution of both groups working together to achieve a more effective democracy and hinder any future attempts of reconciliation between the two factions. Of course, the attempt to try to find some sort of compromise between the two would seem to be worth the risk of returning to a previous state of distrust.
The other negative outcome that could be a possibility comes from the idea that the double-veto policy would encumber any means of achieving a reasonable decision in law-making strategies. This often happens when governments are confined by too many guidelines and are not provided with the appropriate amount of flexibility needed to restore political security within a nation suffering hardship. Would South Africa be strong enough to overcome the odds and effectively administer a system of double-veto jurisdiction to enable the prevention of a tyrannical majority through a single faction? Let us first argue another crucial point that we must adhere to when considering Madison’s work in the Federalist Papers.
Through this discussion we have covered reasons as to why South Africa should adopt a system of double-veto legislation, but we have not yet covered an important portion regarding our initial claim: a new development of democratic legislation needs to be developed but this must also be done in a different fashion than of the United States because the political and social circumstances of South Africa deviate from the typical American historical context. There are four main components to this argument and we shall touch base with each, although not to the thorough extent to which they should be given. The first measure that would have to be addressed when developing a plan to integrate the double-veto system into South Africa that wouldn’t have been an issue to the United States is basically derived from the fact that our political ideologies were mostly constructed after the formation of the basic rights of citizens under our constitution. In a way, we started completely fresh with our government, which allowed us great flexibility in determining a system of “checks and balances” between our main branches of government. Our psychological notions of what it is to be a Republican or a Democrat have not been traumatically affected by large scale political deprivation or long standing civil war, even though many would argue that the current presidency has been more than enough to constitute a disagreement against this statement. The case in South Africa is different because their political discourse began during the early years of colonialism and independence from this system of degradation was not reached until 1994. There was no chance of a “clean slate,” at least in relative terms to the United States, for these policy makers.
The second measure we would have to take into consideration is the fact that the political factions of South Africa have a strong foundation within social categories rather than just on the basis of political ideologies. Some Americans would say that there are instances where we can infer some individuals of social groups to belong to one party or another due to the relationship they hold to that particular social group, but it does not hold to the intensity that South Africans find themselves confronting. Due to the atrocities that have been allowed to occur within South Africa, social groups primarily based on race have felt the need to band together to avoid the chance of yet another divide such as the one they laid victim to in earlier years. This would establish the idea that the factious views of both parties are much more prominent than those of the United States, where we have many grey areas when it comes to policy decisions.
The third measure we must pay attention to when comparing both countries comes from a more psychological respect than that of political or economical foundations. During the 1940s, a man by the name of Abraham Maslow developed one of the most popular theories of motivation known today as the Hierarchy of Needs Theory (Hitt et al. 199-200). This theory basically states that people are motivated to satisfy specific needs in a hierarchal fashion, with physiological needs (water, food, etc.) to be fulfilled before other needs that are further along the top can be fulfilled. In the South African case, there are many citizens living in shanty towns where physiological needs are a constant struggle to obtain, whereas in the United States, the average citizen need not worry about the lower levels of this hierarchy and can develop themselves accordingly. Even though in the historical context early Americans also had constant battles to provide for themselves as South Africa does to this day, I believe to look at this matter retrospectively is missing the key issue of deprivation in this country within a global context. It is true that during the Founding, Americans had difficulty finding food and water, but it is also true that this was the case in most countries around the world, whereas now this is usually only a major issue within third world countries. We have to look at this matter relatively to other countries in order to appreciate the delicate situation within South Africa finds itself.
The last measure to be taken into account would deal with the fact that South Africa is quite a bit smaller in size, both population wise and geographically, at least relative to the United States today, and according to the Federalist Papers, this would threaten the opportunity for the greatest rendering of a republic (Madison 341). As we discussed earlier, a larger state of citizens and territory that is included within a republic will enable the system of the republic to act in the best interests of its constituents. This would not be as great of a threat to implementing this system due to the fact that South Africa has approximately twenty million more people than the combined thirteen colonies had at the time of the founding (World Almanac 378). This can still be considered, however, to look at future capabilities of such a country.
With all of these measures being taken into affect, it is clear that if South Africa was to issue a system of double-veto jurisdiction for both factions, it would have to vary from the American example that Madison beautifully fought for during the first couple of years of the Constitution’s existence. But what would is extra measure be that South Africa would need in order to successfully adapt to this program? Upon reviewing several government policies and constitutional frameworks, I was able to uncover a very distinct difference between both constitutions of each country and that difference was the actively directive, or passively directive, actions of the legislative and executive bodies of the government in terms of checks and balances, more specifically, with veto power. South Africa tends to have an indirect form of document management. For example, when I was assessing the parliamentary, I discovered that the second core objective as described in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, it is the sworn duty of the parliament to “scrutinize and oversee executive action (keep oversight of the executive and organs of state),” (A Beginner’s Guide). This does sound rather familiar to the United States’ system of checks and balances, but later within the same document states that the executive branch also has a method of achieving this co-operative objective through a process of “reconsideration,” or more simply, when the President oversees a document that he or she does not agree with, he or she simply sends the bill back to the Parliament in order to once again be deliberated. Imagine if this process could have some sort of veto system implemented to make it much more efficient and effective. One may say, “Their system seems to be okay in theory, shouldn’t it be enough?” The answer is simply no. Though it may be an indirect form of checks and balances, the very method Madison gives rise to within the Federalist Papers as to the best way to falter means of factions, it still does not give justice to the appropriate form of double-veto jurisdiction that South Africa needs. I believe that South Africa requires a much more direct approach to what has been institutionalized in American government today. The need for a harsher, more direct form of this system is especially needed due to the fact that the political factions of South Africa are established in a racial prejudice, a definitively social characteristic that ultimately is void of all reason and rationale. In order to institute a more concrete form of veto, specifically through the terms of double-veto jurisdiction, I would call for a special board to be formed within the legislative body comprised of an equal distribution of members from each political faction, solely focused the task of reviewing new legislative bills and deciding whether or not to further them in the legislative progression. This process would not exactly be the most rapid form of political change available to South Africa, but after years of political discourse, it would be the most stable. Double-veto jurisdiction of both of the political factions of South Africa would be the most effective way to destroy any attempts of one faction to gain a tyrannical majority.
South Africa is a great example of what a country can endure for the sake of democracy. Even though past events have painted a dismal picture of what South Africa is actually made of, the enthusiasm and dedication to find common ground between both political factions through years of conflict is enough to give anyone hope for this courageous country. The one reason why South Africa is different than many other countries is because both political factions want to talk to one another in order to find a way to coexist in a nonviolent way. Evidence of these attempts are most effectively given through the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) regarding post-apartheid peace attempts. Within this organization, both native Africans and Afrikaners/English inhabitants of South Africa are able to come together to talk about the atrocities of apartheid in an attempt to forgive but to never forget. The Chairperson of the Commission, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, led a report covering the main objectives of the TRC and commended the entire South African people for their strength through the process of coming forth to tell their stories and thanked them for allowing South Africa to become a benchmark for the world in all communities wanting to make a nonviolent transition in society (TRC Report 1). Both parties working together on this project confirms what an extraordinary country South Africa is and that they are fully capable of handling something as intense and demanding as establishing and upholding a system of double-veto policy.
South Africa has endured many horrendous events in the past, which is why they are strong enough to move past doubt and uncertainty to establish a system of double-veto jurisdiction within their government. The time to act is now. The world can no longer ignore the political faction problems within South Africa. Even though a creative system will have to be devised which differs from the case of the United States, such virtues that the Founders laid within our Constitution can still apply to South Africa. With the help of such publications as the Federalist Papers, South Africa may one day be able to find a new founding, a better founding; something that this country has been in desperate need of since their independence less than two decades ago.
References:
A Beginner’s Guide. Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. 2 June 2008.
<http://www.parliament.gov.za/live/content.php?Category_ID=18>
Bureau of African Affairs: Background Note: South Africa. USA.gov. April 2008. 2 June 2008.
<http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2898.htm#>
Burke, Edmund. Speech to the Electors of Bristol. The Founders’ Constitution. The
University of Chicago Press, 3 November 1774. 1.13: 446-448
<http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html>
Estimated Population of American Colonies, 1630-1780. 1998 World Almanac and Book of
Facts. Bureau of the Census: U.S. Department of Commerce. 2 June 2008.
<http://merrill.olm.net/mdocs/pop/colonies/colonies.htm>
Habib, Adam. Zuma: South Africa’s Comeback Kid. BBC News. 28 December 2007.
British Broadcasting Company. 24 May 2008 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4615019.stm>
Hitt, Michael A. et al. Organizational Behavior : A Strategic Approach. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006.
Madison, James et al. The Federalist Papers. The Federalist: A Collection of Essays Written in
Favor of the New Constitution. The New York Packet, 23 November 1787. 1.10
<http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm>
Shadid, Anthony, and Alia Ibrahim. Lebanon Accord Offers a Respite; Essential Issues
Still Unresolved. WashingtonPost.com. 22 May 2008: AO1. Washington Post
Company. 24 May 2008 <>
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Definition of Veto. 4th ed.
Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005.
Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy In America. American Studies Programs. 1 June 1997. The
University of Virginia. 24 May 2008 <http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/toc_indx.html>
Truth and Reconciliation of South Africa Report. South African Government
Information. 21 March 2003. Government Communication and Information
System. 24 May 2008 <http://www.info.gov.za/otherdocs/2003/trc/>
Van den Berghe, Pierre. South Africa: A Study in Conflict. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1967.
Wheatley, Steven. The Security Council, Democratic Legitimacy and Regime Change
In Iraq. European Journal of International Law 17.3(2006):531-551.
<>