Читать книгу New South African Review 2 - Paul Hoffman - Страница 37

South Africa has a strongly democratic constitution which is jealously guarded by its Constitutional Court and compliance with the constitution is monitored by a range of ‘chapter nine institutions’ – the Human Rights Commission, the Public Protector, the Gender Commission – although their autonomy is invariably encroached upon by the reality of ANC dominance. It is revealing that when Zuma (2006) expressed homophobic sentiments some years ago, he felt compelled to apologise and to acknowledge the constitution’s protection for freedom of sexual orientation. The ANC government has also had to accept a number of adverse rulings by the courts, particularly on the HIV/AIDS issue and it has done so without demur although some of the threatening noises made against the courts from sections of the party when Zuma’s prosecution was still a possibility were reprehensible. There is, however, a lack of enforcement of the constitution and the adoption of policies, particularly in the international sphere, that tend to be incompatible with the constitution – for example the position it has adopted on gay rights at the UN and, arguably, its policy towards Zimbabwe. It is also true that there is a gulf between an enlightened constitution and grassroots sentiment, as is evidenced in popular attitudes towards capital punishment, women’s equality, same-sex unions, gay liberation and the incidence of ‘corrective rape’ against lesbians. Steven Robins has suggested that those committed to sexual and gender equality constitute a ‘relatively small, educated middle class enclave within a sea of sexual and social conservatism’ (Robins, 2008: 412). Nevertheless the constitution accepts gay marriage and outlaws capital punishment, and is buttressed by a powerful legal profession and a highly critical and feisty media – comfortably the most vibrant on the continent – which asks awkward questions and fiercely upholds the constitution.