Not only does this system provide a foundation for bettering the democratic situation of a political entity, it also provides the basis for a more accountable form of democracy. Corruption has always been an issue with countries that are trying to institute a more resolute form of democracy and it has definitely made a mark within South Africa within one of the main political parties, the African National Congress. Jacob Zuma, who was once designated by the political world as finished in his career due to charges against him for rape and corruption only a short two years ago, is now one of the top candidates for the next president of the Republic of South Africa (Habib 2).
Including the double-veto system into the government of South Africa, it would be much harder for political officials such as Zuma to take advantage of constituents who are relying on these officials to provide them the means to escape from years of political injustice and turmoil. This would be accomplished through the idea that politicians are less likely to be corrupt through a "greater sphere of country," brought to attention by the Federalist Papers, basically saying that by allowing more to participate in the government affairs, politicians who are prone to corruption within office will either be eliminated after an offense or never rise to power in the first place (Madison 341).
This point can be justified through the idea that with a double-veto system in place, the entire body of the South African government would have to purposefully review proposed legislative bills in fear of tyrannical majority power of a faction. In some cases, it could also be argued that with the implementation of this system, it could be inferred that the general public would take note of the additional attention to the legislative process and become interested in the law-making procedures themselves. In other words, if more attention is brought to an issue than before, then more people will be interested in its justification within the government.
With this type of ideology in practice through the support of a double-veto system, we could say that politicians with a one-sided agenda in correspondence to a particular faction, say the African National Congress, would be unable to prosper, thus resulting in a more general undertaking of the common good. It just comes down to maximizing the potential that can be derived from having a republic as the form of government of choice and South Africa definitely has the potential to be something great.
If we were to continue with our discussion at this point, it would be a grave infringement on the intelligence of the readers. Surely, there must be problems associated with implementing a double-veto policy with the legislative government, but what are they and how would South Africa be able to withstand them?
Even with all of the benefits of establishing this system within the confines of the government, South Africa would still face two possible negative outcomes from attempting the double-veto policy. One of these outcomes involves the chance of extreme proactive attempts to gain a majority power over the other party. This would occur when one faction would feel as if the other were taking advantage of the new system to gain additional power, which would most likely lead to complete dissolution of both groups working together to achieve a more effective democracy and hinder any future attempts of reconciliation between the two factions. Of course, the attempt to try to find some sort of compromise between the two would seem to be worth the risk of returning to a previous state of distrust.
The other negative outcome that could be a possibility comes from the idea that the double-veto policy would encumber any means of achieving a reasonable decision in law-making strategies. This often happens when governments are confined by too many guidelines and are not provided with the appropriate amount of flexibility needed to restore political security within a nation suffering hardship. Would South Africa be strong enough to overcome the odds and effectively administer a system of double-veto jurisdiction to enable the prevention of a tyrannical majority through a single faction? Let us first argue another crucial point that we must adhere to when considering Madison's work in the Federalist Papers.
Through this discussion we have covered reasons as to why South Africa should adopt a system of double-veto legislation, but we have not yet covered an important portion regarding our initial claim: a new development of democratic legislation needs to be developed but this must also be done in a different fashion than of the United States because the political and social circumstances of South Africa deviate from the typical American historical context.
There are four main components to this argument and we shall touch base with each, although not to the thorough extent to which they should be given. The first measure that would have to be addressed when developing a plan to integrate the double-veto system into South Africa that wouldn't have been an issue to the United States is basically derived from the fact that our political ideologies were mostly constructed after the formation of the basic rights of citizens under our constitution. In a way, we started completely fresh with our government, which allowed us great flexibility in determining a system of "checks and balances" between our main branches of government.
Our psychological notions of what it is to be a Republican or a Democrat have not been traumatically affected by large scale political deprivation or long standing civil war, even though many would argue that the current presidency has been more than enough to constitute a disagreement against this statement. The case in South Africa is different because their political discourse began during the early years of colonialism and independence from this system of degradation was not reached until 1994. There was no chance of a "clean slate," at least in relative terms to the United States, for these policy makers.
The second measure we would have to take into consideration is the fact that the political factions of South Africa have a strong foundation within social categories rather than just on the basis of political ideologies. Some Americans would say that there are instances where we can infer some individuals of social groups to belong to one party or another due to the relationship they hold to that particular social group, but it does not hold to the intensity that South Africans find themselves confronting.
Due to the atrocities that have been allowed to occur within South Africa, social groups primarily based on race have felt the need to band together to avoid the chance of yet another divide such as the one they laid victim to in earlier years. This would establish the idea that the factious views of both parties are much more prominent than those of the United States, where we have many grey areas when it comes to policy decisions.
The third measure we must pay attention to when comparing both countries comes from a more psychological respect than that of political or economical foundations. During the 1940s, a man by the name of Abraham Maslow developed one of the most popular theories of motivation known today as the Hierarchy of Needs Theory (Hitt et al. 199-200). This theory basically states that people are motivated to satisfy specific needs in a hierarchal fashion, with physiological needs (water, food, etc.) to be fulfilled before other needs that are further along the top can be fulfilled. In the South African case, there are many citizens living in shanty towns where physiological needs are a constant struggle to obtain, whereas in the United States, the average citizen need not worry about the lower levels of this hierarchy and can develop themselves accordingly.
Even though in the historical context early Americans also had constant battles to provide for themselves as South Africa does to this day, I believe to look at this matter retrospectively is missing the key issue of deprivation in this country within a global context. It is true that during the Founding, Americans had difficulty finding food and water, but it is also true that this was the case in most countries around the world, whereas now this is usually only a major issue within third world countries. We have to look at this matter relatively to other countries in order to appreciate the delicate situation within South Africa finds itself.
The last measure to be taken into account would deal with the fact that South Africa is quite a bit smaller in size, both population wise and geographically, at least relative to the United States today, and according to the Federalist Papers, this would threaten the opportunity for the greatest rendering of a republic (Madison 341). As we discussed earlier, a larger state of citizens and territory that is included within a republic will enable the system of the republic to act in the best interests of its constituents.
This would not be as great of a threat to implementing this system due to the fact that South Africa has approximately twenty million more people than the combined thirteen colonies had at the time of the founding (World Almanac 378). This can still be considered, however, to look at future capabilities of such a country.