Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 5 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-05-24 16:18:40 +02:00 | Retha | No I do not | All of the above | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | |
2026-05-24 08:00:23 +02:00 | Russel John | No I do not | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | This would lead South Africa to disaster | |
2026-05-23 01:06:15 +02:00 | Ansu | No I do not | All of the above | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | |
2026-05-21 10:37:42 +02:00 | Des | No I do not | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | To whom it may concern, South African citizens voluntarily gave up their minority government rights to enable the implementation of a broad based democratic transition. Section 235 was a fundamental part of the deal that brought South Africa into this democracy. I agree with minority rights advocacy groups such as the CAPEXIT Party and Afriforum among others,, that this section forms part of the “negotiated constitutional settlement” intended to accommodate the country’s diversity. The Constitution 24th Amendment Bill is a move to “shut down” a promise made during the transition, potentially undermining the trust between different communities and the state. I would urge MKP to focus on building a prosperous South Africa and stop trying to destroy the important fundamental bastions of the present democratic dispensation. | |
2026-05-21 09:24:41 +02:00 | Don | No I do not | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement |
-
- Supporters, led by the MK Party, argue that Section 235 is a “dormant” provision that has never been turned into law. They believe it creates a “theoretical basis” for “territorial fragmentation” and allows communities like Orania to operate as “exclusionist enclaves” outside the spirit of a unified South Africa. For them, the Bill of Rights is the only protection needed for cultural and linguistic diversity.
-
- Opponents, including the Cape Independence Party and the Freedom Front Plus, argue that Section 235 is a “non-derogable right” and a cornerstone of the 1994 constitutional settlement. They contend that individual rights (Sections 30 and 31) are fundamentally different from the collective right of a community to sustain and govern itself. They warn that removing this “safety valve” will not eliminate the demand for self-determination but will instead push it toward more radical, extra-constitutional paths.