This study analyses parliamentary intelligence oversight in South Africa by assessing the understanding of members of the JSCI of its core business, its mission and vision and powers and functions as are stipulated by law. The study locates the JSCI within an international intelligence oversight milieu through a review and evaluation of selected countries’ intelligence oversight mechanisms. Furthermore, international best practice is sought and applicable lessons are drawn for South Africa. The study is bases on a literature review and interviews with members of the JSCI to gather information and draw insights to evaluate and test the propositions in the context of international and national best practice. The propositions, which are supported by the research, are that: · Intelligence oversight in South Africa under the JSCI has hitherto been relatively effective although there is room for improvement. · The JSCI has good relations with the other arms of the state that are responsible for the oversight of Intelligence in South Africa – making parliamentary intelligence oversight, overall, quite effective. · Despite this effectiveness there are legislative gaps and problems pertaining to the modus operandi of the JSCI that need the attention of both the Executive and Legislature and which could be part of a package of legislative reform. The research supported these propositions whilst pointing out that new initiatives need attention if the culture of oversight is to find root. These are the need to widen the scope of accountability to build a culture of accountability among middle and senior management members of the Intelligence structures and secondly the way Parliament resources the JSCI. / Dissertation (M (Political Sciences))--University of Pretoria, 2006. / Political Sciences / unrestricted

Submitted by Pedro Marques Neto (marquesnetop@gmail.com) on 2018-06-15T16:59:07Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação FGV - Pedro Marques Neto - Depósito Final.pdf: 903571 bytes, checksum: 72ae2bf4560cbdf52da5d6aaade0039b (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Katia Menezes de Souza (katia.menezes@fgv.br) on 2018-06-15T18:30:23Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação FGV - Pedro Marques Neto - Depósito Final.pdf: 903571 bytes, checksum: 72ae2bf4560cbdf52da5d6aaade0039b (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Isabele Garcia (isabele.garcia@fgv.br) on 2018-06-15T21:15:20Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação FGV - Pedro Marques Neto - Depósito Final.pdf: 903571 bytes, checksum: 72ae2bf4560cbdf52da5d6aaade0039b (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-06-15T21:15:20Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação FGV - Pedro Marques Neto - Depósito Final.pdf: 903571 bytes, checksum: 72ae2bf4560cbdf52da5d6aaade0039b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-05-23 / Esta pesquisa analisa e compara os argumentos empregados pelas supremas cortes de Brasil e Estados Unidos a respeito da constitucionalidade de medidas legislativas que permitem, limitam ou vedam o financiamento privado de campanha eleitoral. A judicialização do tema coloca problemas de duas ordens: (a) determinar quais circunstâncias legitimam a intervenção das supremas cortes na organização do processo político-eleitoral; e (b) estabelecer como as supremas cortes deveriam raciocinar e como elas têm raciocinado ao supervisionarem a organização do sistema democrático. No cerne dessas questões encontram-se os contornos da relação entre jurisdição constitucional e política em termos do papel a ser desempenhado pelo Poder Judiciário no desenho institucional da democracia. Este trabalho sustenta que cortes constitucionais estão legitimadas a intervir na organização da democracia para minimizar danos democráticos causados por desenhos institucionais que promovam a dominação na esfera político-eleitoral, conforme modelo proposto por Yasmin Dawood. O argumento é de que cortes constitucionais devem raciocinar a partir de uma concepção estrutural dos direitos democráticos focada na minimização de danos democráticos, em contraposição a concepções individuais dos direitos democráticos ou concepções estruturais focadas na maximização de bens democráticos. Assim, contrasto a abordagem proposta pelo modelo antidominação com as práticas das supremas cortes de Brasil e Estados Unidos. Enquanto a Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos raciocina na linha da abordagem proposta pelo modelo de proteção de direitos individuais, sustento que o Supremo Tribunal Federal raciocina na linha da abordagem proposta pelo modelo de maximização de bens democráticos. Argumento que, em ambos os casos, os modelos adotados produzem equívocos nas decisões das cortes sobre a constitucionalidade do financiamento privado de campanhas eleitorais, sugerindo, então, respostas alternativas com base no modelo antidominação, mais deferentes, embora não submissas, às escolhas políticas do Poder Legislativo. / This research analyses and contrasts the arguments employed by the Brazilian and American constitutional courts on the constitutionality of campaign finance regulation. The judicialization of campaign finance disputes poses two issues: (i) first, to determine under which circumstances judicial intervention on the organization of electoral politics is legitimate; (ii) second, to lay down how constitutional courts should reason when - and how they have been reasoning about - they oversee the organization of democratic politics. These issues have at their core the relationship between constitutional jurisdiction and democratic politics in terms of the role displayed by the Judiciary in the (institutional) design of democracy. This research claims that constitutional courts can legitimately intervene in the organization of democracy in order to minimize democratic harms caused by institutional designs that promote domination in the electoral sphere, in accordance with the antidomination model of judicial oversight of democracy proposed by Yasmin Dawood. My argument is that constitutional courts should develop a structural conception of democratic rights focused on the minimization of democratic harms, in contrast with individual conception of such rights or structural conceptions focused on the maximization of democratic goods. Thus, I contrast the antidomination model with the concrete experience of the Brazilian and American constitutional courts. While the Supreme Court of the United States’ approach focuses on the protection of individual rights, I claim that the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil’s approach focuses on the maximization of democratic goods. I claim that both approaches distort the judicial oversight of campaign finance regulation by the Brazilian and the American constitutional courts and so I propose alternative answers based on the antidomination model, according to which courts are more deferential, though not submissive, to the political choices of the legislative body.