“It is time all arms of government take to heart the admonition of Dyzenhaus that they ‘regard themselves as participating in a common project’ of realising our constitutional values. When all three arms of government accept this, we can start a meaningful debate on the best way they can co-operate in giving effect to the values of our constitution and to promoting the society it seeks to build. That is the debate we should be pursuing.”
A large part of the problem, in my view, is the way the debate is being conducted. Critics of the government tend to (a) assume a worst-case scenario by reading the most reprehensible intentions into statements they disagree with and (b) adopting a hectoring tone in lecturing the government on the errors of its ways (of which there are no shortage, as in most political parties). Tony Leon was a past master at this. Unfortunately it’s extremely difficult for any party to bow down to advice thus doled out from on high; if anything, it guarantees that the “advice” will NOT be accepted. But there’s a sequel: in 2009 Tony Leon was appointed ambassador to Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay (yes, by the same Zuma administration) after receiving gracious words from Mandela on his retirement as leader of the opposition. One trusts Tony Leon also acquired some of that graciousness and adopted a different tone, as ambassador, in discussing the shortcomings of South Africa and its government. Which raises a question for the rest of us: isn’t it possible to acquire graciousness and a balanced approach WITHOUT being appointed an ambassador?
“It is time all arms of government take to heart the admonition of Dyzenhaus that they ‘regard themselves as participating in a common project’ of realising our constitutional values. When all three arms of government accept this, we can start a meaningful debate on the best way they can co-operate in giving effect to the values of our constitution and to promoting the society it seeks to build. That is the debate we should be pursuing.”
View or download the full article by Izak Smuts, a senior counsel (advocate) in the Eastern Cape – Zuma should look at what binds the arms of State. It appeared in Business Day today.
A large part of the problem, in my view, is the way the debate is being conducted. Critics of the government tend to (a) assume a worst-case scenario by reading the most reprehensible intentions into statements they disagree with and (b) adopting a hectoring tone in lecturing the government on the errors of its ways (of which there are no shortage, as in most political parties). Tony Leon was a past master at this. Unfortunately it’s extremely difficult for any party to bow down to advice thus doled out from on high; if anything, it guarantees that the “advice” will NOT be accepted. But there’s a sequel: in 2009 Tony Leon was appointed ambassador to Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay (yes, by the same Zuma administration) after receiving gracious words from Mandela on his retirement as leader of the opposition. One trusts Tony Leon also acquired some of that graciousness and adopted a different tone, as ambassador, in discussing the shortcomings of South Africa and its government. Which raises a question for the rest of us: isn’t it possible to acquire graciousness and a balanced approach WITHOUT being appointed an ambassador?