I attended a dialogue in Parliament recently. It was hosted by the National Dialogue Initiative and two social partners. The theme was about assertiveness and accountability under the Constitution, so in effect it was about the idea of constitutional democracy.
It started with a keynote address followed by presentations by individuals from various arms of the government and representatives of society, namely, a faith-based leader and a civil society organisation. At the end of the presentations, selected individual respondents made comments.
This was a significant event insofar as it brought together interest groups from society and the government (mainly the judiciary), into one room inside the highest political architectural space in the country. What follows is a brief analytical overview of the substantive content of the event and research suggestions for moving forward.
There were four threads to the engagement.
First, the general narrative that characterised the presentations from almost all the discussants and respondents, hedged towards the idea of a “failed state”, which translates: The social promises of 25 years ago have been broken, the law is not delivering, South Africa is more toxic now, something went wrong, the precepts of our democracy are not being upheld, there is the formation of elites, Parliament has failed the nation and so on. Against important social issues, the concern was about how we, as a nation, arrived at this point.
Second, the grimness of the tone was optimistically punctuated by some of the virtues of the judiciary, the need to uphold and respect processes and procedures.
Third, the engagements closed off with reality checks about material homelessness and the incarceration of students from the class of 2015/2016.
The fourth pillar is the need to talk.
However, the urgency is about whose voice holds sway and whose is drowned out. These are ideological issues that would require consensus building in order to identify the social agents and champions who can take part and lead reforms.
Given that Asserting and Dialoguing with the Constitution was the key theme, I tried to think about the processes from how the Constitution, as a sovereign (and in the words of the keynote speaker, a humanising) instrument, could be connected to broader social institutions.
There are two faces to the Constitution, one is pessimism (as in the perceived “failed state” argument), another, is reasonable optimism. I opt for reasonable optimism as the Constitution gives us hope and meaning, despite it being contested.
In thinking through its link to social institutions, I bring my higher education and policy research experience to bear on this relationship, more especially, in terms of how we can actualise the Constitution. Hence, the following broad pointers.
One is what I would refer to as the aspect of trust and legitimacy in the Constitution and by extension, the judiciary that seeks to protect all citizens. The perception is that legitimacy has broken down. In all social institutions, there are strong practices that are marked by a sense of a lack of (legal) rules and a command of authority that goes with the unfolding of the rules.
Another is about trust, which has to do with individuals not believing that those in authority have the ability to execute the rule or, framed another way, “one cannot trust the rule”. Thus, the perception is that there might be different rules for different people.
In this regard, a first port of call for moving us beyond a quagmire, taking us out of the abyss, would be to develop a targeted research agenda for state-sponsored research entities, on how the aspect of trust, legitimacy as it relates to actualising the Constitution in various sectors of society, can start to be embedded. What mechanisms are required? There are other areas that can be researched, which has to do with teaching and learning about the precepts of the Constitution.
How can this be integrated in a critical manner in formal and non-formal educational institutions?
All require strategic research approaches and practices. Another example, would be given the state of homelessness. Not having shelter is an impairment of human dignity, which then, is a breach of the Constitution.
Can a research agenda be developed to inform the concrete building of shelter (as a key precept of constitutional democracy)?
In a nutshell, I am making a case for a more focused and targeted approach, to research the areas that are directly aligned to the building of trust in our social institutions and in so doing, fulfil our constitutional mandate.
There needs to be a co-ordinated and multidisciplinary research agenda that brings together the social needs arising from the various government portfolios in conjunction with civil society and industry. In other words, how can the national fiscus that apportions a large figure to research organisations steer a social research agenda, that is sorely needed to build constitutional democracy?
On a final, albeit paradoxically, a beginning note, might we be mindful that the research agenda has to be guided by an approach that locates and reintegrates any future reforms in an Afrocentric manner. This means, that the carriers of meaning, that is the researchers, the knowledge workers, would have to extend far beyond the present, narrow and exclusive parameters of who is deemed fit and suitable to make pronouncements on our society.
Thank you to the organisers, it is a confident and bold initiative and should be encouraged and supported.
Thaver is a professor in policy research in higher education at the University of the Western Cape