An ‘important purpose of section 34 [of the Constitution] is to guarantee the protection of the judicial process to persons who have disputes that can be resolved by law’ and that the right of access to court is ‘foundational to the stability of an orderly society. It ensures the peaceful, regulated and institutionalised mechanisms to resolve disputes, without resorting to self-help. The right of access to court is a bulwark against vigilantism, and the chaos and anarchy which it causes. Construed in this context of the rule of law and the principle against self-help in particular, access to court is indeed of cardinal importance’.The right guaranteed s34 would be rendered meaningless if court orders could be ignored with impunity:the underlying purposes of the right — and particularly that of avoidance of self-help — would be undermined if litigants could decide which orders they wished to obey and which they wished to ignore.
I would argue that Britain is indeed a bad example for us because Britain has a first past the post electoral system. We have a pure proportional representation system and we never get the opportunity at national level to vote for a person, only for a party. Political parties and their bosses in our system are potentially extraordinarily and (I would argue, dangerously) powerful. If there are no guidelines for how such a party should operate, it basically serves as an invitation for corruption and the subversion of democracy.
In a first past the post system the local party branch has a big say into who the candidate would be, thus watering down the power of the central party. But in a list system of proportional representation in the absence of any regulation the party leader(s) can easily “stuff” the election list with favoured and loyal candidates, thus ensuring a compliant and possibly corrupt Parliament.
And in the absence of basic rules about the funding and accounting of political parties, the Chancellor House kind of shenanigans becomes inevitable. Then parties like the ANC and the DA can take money from anyone and never have to inform the electorate about it. They also never have to produce audited financial statements, despite receiving millions of our taxpayers money.
Surely this is untenable? One can, of course, argue about the level of regulation and I would not be in favour of legislation that attempts to micro-manage a political party. But requiring political parties to conform to basic requirements of internal democracy and basic transparency in party funding can surely only be a good thing for democracy.