Commune or Constitution?

Rob Amato’s liberal constitutionalist column “Separation of Powers” has been running for at least two years. The earliest one that can be found on the Sunday Independent web site is dated 18 April 2004. It is headed: “Prepaid water meters serve people's rights”. Communists are not by nature constitutionalists. The democracy of communism is not intended to be held back by “checks and balances” designed to preserve a bourgeois state against proletarian revolution. The first model of proletarian democracy was the Paris Commune of 1871. Legislature, executive and judiciary were all subject to the direct democracy of the armed proletariat. All office bearers were subject to instant recall. There was no separation of powers. The only state institution that escaped this treatment in the short life of the Commune was the Central Bank. This lapse is universally regarded as a mistake. There is no such thing as an “independent” Central Bank. It serves the bourgeoisie. Amato sometimes wears his politics on his sleeve, as in the case of the water meters, but on other occasions he likes to pose as disinterested. In the linked article below he quotes Francis Bacon on the position of judges as follows: “Solomon's throne was supported by lions on both sides: let them be lions, but yet lions under the throne; being circumspect that they do not check or oppose any points of sovereignty”. What Amato fails then to acknowledge, and what makes his argument a fraud, is that South Africa is not an absolute monarchy as England was in Bacon’s time, but a democracy. The problem with constitutionalism is that the constitution only comes into play when there is a requirement by the ruling class to restrict, deny and frustrate the democratic will of the people. In cases where the will of the people is to be allowed to prevail, the Constitution is unnecessary and redundant. This bind is well illustrated by the last nine paragraphs of Mpumelelo Mkhabela’s linked article from the City Press. The Matatiele residents won their argument in the Constitutional Court, as all concerned were eager to confirm. Yet they were denied a remedy. They were railroaded into the Eastern Cape without hesitation, when they clearly wanted to remain in KZN. For them Constitutional Court turned out to be a paper tiger. It obeyed its masters, and not the masses. This is what “Constitutional Supremacy” means in practice. Constitutional Supremacy in practice comes second to class supremacy. Constitutions come and go. The excessive worship of this South African Constitution that we have at present is in all ways wrong. The present SA constitution is neither the best in the world nor the worst. It is a compromise, and a site of struggle. It is part of the State, and the State is an instrument of class domination. Democracy is only one of the seven (or is it ten?) constitutional pillars represented gigantically outside the Apartheid Museum, opposite the Casino in Gold Reef City. Democracy is “Power to the People”, yet here it is downgraded to rank equally with wishy-washy post-modern ideas like “Reconciliation” and “Diversity”. The SA Constitution is being used by the bourgeoisie to devalue the people’s democratic will, and the rights that were fought for in struggle. If constitutionalism should ever succeed in becoming a complete bureaucratic supremacy over people’s power, then it will be the worst of times again and the worst of constitutions. Click on these links: Constitutional amendment, Rob Amato, Sindy (1029 words) Who should ultimate wield power, Mpumelelo Mkhabela, City Press (1427 words)