I fear I'm not qualified to say this, but I'll say it anyway. This has been one of the most intellectually stimulating lectures I have ever had the pleasure of listening to. Jola, thank you.
Thank you for the Intellectually stimulating Lecture Advocate, I've gained a deeper insight into the subject on Constitutionalism and where the government and indeed the State is failing in addressing the question on redistribution of land to the people. In conclusion, this unconstitutional delinquent behaviour of the State on the Land question is probably going to be the final nail that break the camel's back come 2026 and 2029 respectively, if this situation is not rescued, this does not seem likely. The DA has positioned the party to ensure this is suppressed by all means necessary. Would like to be invited to future lectures if possible. Really powerfully insight.
I have the greatest admiration for Prof Ngcukaitobi and Joel. The high standard of intellectual engagement is what we expect from MISTRA - thanks for keeping to your own promises. I would have loved to hear what Tembeka would have said about Judge Hlophe as the MC snuck in his position on the matter without affording the time for engagement.
Trying to catch up on this amazing Lecture and guess what no interpreter. You can’t be talking all that while discriminating the Deaf community and everyone one here is complicit in making sure the Deaf don’t have access to any knowledge that other people not living with disabilities will benefit. After even sign language is official this this sector discriminate
Thomas Hobbes, a monarchist during the Enlightenment, slowly came to the recognition that the absolutist monarchical model required a major adjustment and mooted the idea of the social contract, which posited the idea that the rights of ordinary people also needed to be protected and that if the monarchy did not act accordingly, the people would then change the monarch. Most nation states, except Rome and Athens were ruled by monarchs. And so was born the idea of the modern representative democratic state whose function was to look after the health of the people. Another Enlightenment writer, John Locke, did not have the same view that human nature was inherently bad, but agreed with Hobbes on the social contract, but added all humans have natural rights and that the state should serve as an impartial judge in order to maximize their freedom. These natural rights included the right to life, liberty and property. This gave birth to the rise to modern liberal democracy and the development of the modern American state. Then, Jean-Jacques Rousseau introduced the idea of the general will of the people, meaning that the legitimacy of the government comes from representing the wishes of the people through the vote. Whatever the people decided, would then become the law. Hobbes believed that all humans are predisposed to some awful behaviour and are capable of looting, killing, stealing, etc. or to discriminate against a minority on an unacceptable basis or take decisions that may not be good for the economy, and this type of system would bring about chaos. This was a reality in the Middle Ages and the Enlightenment where these ideas were developed. So, the two central tenets of modern liberal democracy were at odds with each other. On the one hand, you had the general will or the desires of the people -- good or bad -- pitted against the health of the people (literally, protecting the people from their own proclivities), which sought to ensure that individual rights trump the untrammeled general will of the people. Therein lies the contradiction of the Western-style liberal democracy that we adopted in 1994/1996. This is where constitutionalism comes in. It gives a supposedly "impartial" arbiter (the state) the right to set and interpret the general will of the people in what the Americans call the Overton Window, in accordance with the social contract proposed by Hobbes. This window dictates that the sentiments of the people change from time to time and that the spectrum of acceptable opinion happens during certain window periods. What might not be acceptable today may become acceptable decades later. A constitution would ostensibly then manage the tensions that are inherent to liberal democracy. And this is what Ngcukaitobi believes in. But Ngcukaitobi's view differs from what Dr. Sipho Sithole, in his comment, believes in: that the monarchical governance concept must be reinstated. A unitary South Africa has multiple kings. How would decisions be taken for the unitary state? What is the nature of the state that we want? Do we bring the kings together a gathering of monarchs or do we gerrymander the state in what would effectively amount to a group of "tribes"/ethnic groups? Given that the Western model of liberal democracy is on its last legs because of the hegemonic behaviour of the USA and its Western allies over the last century, in particular, what must we do to ensure that our society does not splinter into competing ethnicities and remain a unitary state? What is it that the Chinese system of governance can offer as an object lesson for us? Is culture (the collective practices of a society) a determinant in the type of model we must adopt? So, we have much to discuss, without the name calling I see in some of the comments, based on this very insightful presentation.
People who are up in arms to want to protect this constitution,are the ones who have,have acces to information and data,have access to wealth and economic resources.Majority of South African people are living in poverty,they are stripped of their dignity systemically that they do not stand a chance,not in this country in its current state and form,majority of poor people are tired of this fruitless intellectual lectures and debates by chatarists that seeks to maintain status quor.People who speak of economic emancipation in our lifetime are not crazy,it can b achieved,if only those who have access to information can regain their identity and realise that not all is well if you are celebrated in a village as an only academic to have ever made it,to an extend that you make it impossible for others to achieve what you have achieved and even surpass you.Gone are those days when professors and academics,Judges alike,are celebrated in society,society is just tired of legal jargons and rhetorics.South Africa is a country of abundance.Black people are just asking for an opportunity to live,if that'll take change of a constitution,then so be it,it can't be that important before those it seeks to protect,can it?.It is just,bt a document.A better one,that is intentionally inclusive can be drafted by young progressive academics.The current generation can draft a document that aligns with their aspirations.
Describing our conviction that the constitution is against the African as "nonsense" is condescending and undermining, this constitution, some of it it's contents like the section 25 need to be amended as it prohibits the return of the land to its rightful owners and access to the land for the poor African, Vuka Darkie. Scholars find meaning in studying and interpreting our lived experiences but remember it is the poor African that lives that reality.
"We have a Constitution that promotes equality but a society that has produced inequality. We have a pro-poor Constitution that produces anti-poor outcomes." I wish to reposition the his subsequent "why". WHY HAVE OUR COURTS ENABLED STRICT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE CONSITUTION'S PRESCRIPTS, WHILST IGNORING ITS OBJECTIVES? This is why JSC APPOINTMENTS MATTER.
The indepth indeed simplifies this complex reality, to such apprehensions.. to which i ask myself, why wont it be, why has it not been? Is there hope.. ? How long must we wait before we realise? Great insightful lecture.. 🫡•|
Intellectuals irritate me sometimes. They act like this costituanlism, and access to the courts is free. The poor can't litigate because they dont have the funds, so this constitution is for the rich who can afford to litigate like AfriForum and the DA. I also hate the fact that more noise is made about Zuma wanting the Parliament to be Supreme vs the Courts. We say very little about our unemployment rate and how the constitution has contributed to this unemployment rate. We worry more about protecting the constitution than protecting humans. Blacks and prograssive NGOs can't litigate against the state because they don't have the ability to voice their views which can only be done via the courts to hold goverment to account simply because it requires funds to litigate.
