RSA Grondwet

Selfbeskikking Kragtens die RSA Grondwet

Artikel 235 van die RSA Grondwet maak ook voorsiening vir territoriale selfbeskikking vir Taal- en Kultuurgroepe, hoewel die inhoud daarvan beperk is.Artikel 235 lui soos volg:

The right of the South African people as a whole to self-determination, as manifested in this Constitution, does not preclude, within the framework of this right, recognition of the notion of self-determination of any community sharing a common cultural and language heritage, within a territorial entity in the Republic or in any other way, determined by national legislation

Dit is belangrik om te verstaan dat die Grondwet geen vergestalting gee aan selfbeskikking vir enige spesifieke volk op enige plek in Suid-Afrika nie. Die Grondwet plaas ook nie enige verpligting op die Parlement om aan enige volk of groep in Suid-Afrika selfbeskikking te verleen nie, maar dit laat wel die moontlikheid van selfbeskikking toe. Daar moet dus eers ‘n wet geskep word om selfbeskikking moontlik te maak, maar dit is nog nie deur die RSA regerings gedoen nie.

Skep van ‘n Nuwe Wet vir Selfbeskikking

Die Nasionale Burgerregte Raad (NBR) het intussen reeds ‘n voorlopige memorandum  opgestel waarin die beginsels vir so ‘n nasionale wet vir selfbeskikking vervat is en wat gebruik kan word tydens onderhandeling vir die skep van so ‘n wet.  Die ASK het hierdie memo ook goedgekeur. (Skakel na memo)

Die grondwet maak dit egter duidelik dat enige taal- of kultuurgroep mag aanspraak maak op territoriale selfbeskikking.

Selfbeskikking in die Bekragtiging van die RSA Grondwet

Lees meer op die skakel: ???

In die Sertifiseering van die1996  Grondwet deur die Grondwetlike Hof, stel die regters die volgende oor selfbeskikking  in paragraaf 218 – 222:

“[218]   In our view the terms of the NT do not sustain the argument that CP XXXIV has not been complied with. Our task is simply to test the terms of the NT against the CPs. Whatever  subjective hopes any parties might have had as a result of the insertion of CP XXXIV, its language for present purpose is clear. Its basic thrust is that constitutional provision for the notion of the right to self-determination by any community sharing a common cultural and language heritage within a territorial entity shall not be precluded, notwithstanding the fact that South Africa shall be one sovereign state, as required by CP1. This is clearly a permissive rather than an obligatory provision. The only mandatory provision in the CP is that if the territorial entity has in fast been established  in terms of the IC before the NT is adopted, then such entity must be entrenched in the NT. No such entity has in fact been established, so no obligatory entrenchment had to be made.

[219]   It is not necessary for us to decide whether the NT is obliged to keep the idea of territorial self-determination alive. The fact is that the CA chose to do so in terms of  NT 235, which ensures that the permissive  door opened by the CP is kept ajar.  It is obvious that any arrangements could be made to establish a territorial entity and to define its boundaries will have to be negotiated with an existing government within the framework of the NT )including the permissive provision). This is contemplated  by the CP XXXIV.1 itself, which underlines the ‘recognition therein of the right of South African people as a whole to self-determination’ and says that the more limited right to self-determination of the particular community shall not be precluded  ‘within the  framework of the said right”. Moreover NT 74(1)(b)(ii) and 103(2), which deal with provincial boundaries and changes that may be made to them, are  specifically required by the provisions  of CP XVIII.3 and CP XVIII.4. Finally, it is difficult to interpret CP XXXIV as permitting the denial of the fundamental human rights of any persons living in such an entity, let alone requiring the exclusion of the Bill of Rights.

The provision that national legislation shall determine the matter simply provides the mechanism for giving legal form to any agreement that might be reached.

[220]   The broader question has also been answered. This Court functions purely in terms of the IC. Proponents of a Volkstaat are free to campaign for political and constitutional changes which would result in the forms of self-determination which they consider appropriate being brought about and institutionalized. We are, however, bound by our present task by the limits of the 34 CPs, and by them alone. Apart from CP XXXIV, the only CP dealing with self-determinations is CP XII, which requires  certain collective rights of self-determination to be recognized  and protected in the NT. This has been done in the Bill of Rights through NT 31, which protects cultural , religious and  language communities.  A submission by one of the objectors that the right is not protected because the provision is frame in negative  and not positive terms is without substance.

[221]   It was also contended that the language of CP XXXIV is wide enough to embrace not only forms of Afrikaner self-determination but self-determination of traditional authorities as well, thus avoiding any racial selectivity in the interpretation of the CP.

We cannot accept that contention. In our view CP XXXIV is not intended to entrench the status of traditional authorities. Their role and status are expressly dealt with in CP XIII and CP XVII. Their continued existence under IC 181 and NT 212 is not entrenched but is subject to amendment and repeal. CP XXXIV cannot be relied upon to entrench the existence of traditional authorities.

CP XIV: Participation in the Political Process by Minority Parties

[222]   Decisions in the NCOP are to be taken in terms of NT 65(1), which states:

“Except where the Constitution provides otherwise –

(a) each province has one vote which is cast on behalf of the province by the head of its delegation; and

(b) all questions before the National Council of Provinces are agreed when at least five provinces vote in favour of the question.”

Objection was taken to these provisions on the ground that they do not comply with CP XIV which requires that:

“Provision shall be made for participation of minority political parties in the legislative process in a manner consistent with democracy.”

It was contended that the procedures in the NCOP dealing with NT 76 legislation and constitutional amendments do not comply with the requirements of CP XIV because voting is by province, which means, so the contention went, that minority parties in provincial delegations do not have an effective vote.”