Research Paper On South African Constitution

The South African Constitution has been described, by the Constitutional Court, as the cornerstone of transformative constitutionalism. This post-Apartheid document had ended the period of oppressive colonialism, imperialism and repressive governmental systems in South Africa, while it has also inspired revolutionary forces in support of the concept of ‘freedom’. However, it has been argued that ‘a good constitution does not of itself guarantee constitutionalism.’ This essay will endorse this notion by arguing that the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996, does not guarantee constitutionalism. This will be achieved by examining constitutionalism, South Africa’s previous and current constitutions, liberalism, the Bill of Rights,

It, furthermore, provides the basis for ideas such as rights, justice, social development and individual autonomy. It is structured in accordance with the limitations set by a written, supreme Constitution, as in South Africa. This concept defines the content of an open, transparent and accountable government power as one that should represent and carry out the will of its citizens both in theory and in practice. It can be agreed upon that South Africa has one of the most progressive Constitutions in existence. Karl Klare argues that South Africa has adopted post-liberal constitutionalism, rather than liberal constitutionalism, owing to the fact that a liberal interpretation is presumed to be legal, whereas, a post-liberal interpretation is presumed to be political. Furthermore, he argues that it is “open and committed to large scale, egalitarian social

This was the result of international opposition and pressure to remove the Apartheid regime. PW Botha, the former Prime Minister of South Africa, wanted to make the international community think that the franchise was being shared amongst the racial spectrum. It consisted of a House of Assembly for Whites (the National Party), a House of Representatives for Coloureds and a House of Delegates for Indians. The two main arguments against it were that it was racially disproportionate and black people were excluded. Although each constitution differed, all of them still ensured white minority domination over the black