No description available.

The South African Parliament has set up a programme to inform and educate the public about Parliament and to build democracy. Our country has only recently become a democracy. Previously, people were not allowed to vote nor participate in making decisions that affected their lives. Organisations such as Parliament were not open and did not answer to the public. As a result, the majority of the people do not have the experience and the skills to participate in the new democracy. This places a major challenge on all those who are committed to developing democracy in the country. The growing democratic culture can only be built upon if the public participate in issues that affect them. This requires that people are made aware of what is happening in organisations like Parliament and understand how they can become involved. People need to know how to raise their concerns when decisions affecting them are being taken. Once decisions are made, the public should be informed about their rights and responsibilities and how to hold government accountable. In building a democratic culture, the right of individuals to hold differing political views must be promoted. Parliament, as a national representative body, has a responsibility to contribute to deepening the democracy we have achieved. To do this the public education programme that has been set up will: * inform people about what happens in Parliament and about democracy generally; * educate people about how Parliament and democracy work and about their rights and responsibilities; * motivate people to participate in democratic processes and engage with decision making bodies, especially Parliament; and’ * promote a culture of democracy and human rights. To achieve the above, the Public Education Department (PED) has been established to coordinate the implementation of the programme. The PED will undertake a number of activities including workshops, public meetings, the distribution of publications and audiovisuals. campaigns, outreach to the youth and educational tours of Parliament. In undertaking the programme. Parliament will work closely with Provincial Legislatures, Government Departments, civil society and the media. To consult with these agencies and to build support for the programme, a national conference will be held early next year. Prior to this conference, preparatory conferences will be held in each province. The provincial conferences will also design strategies for outreach to the different sectors within the province and plan for the implementation of joint activities. Parliament calls on all members of the public, organisations and the different sectors of society to become actively involved in the programme and the drive to deepen democracy in our country. Individuals and organisations requiring more information or wanting to make an input into the programme can telephone the PED on (021) 403 2460.

Our Constitution says that South Africa must have an independent body, called Parliament, to make the laws of the country. Parliament is made up of our political representatives who are called Members of Parliament (MPs). We choose the MPs by voting in elections. Parliament has two main parts, called the Houses of Parliament. They are the National Assembly (NA) and the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). The MPs discuss and debate the new laws and make changes to existing laws. Parliament also has many committees where they discuss the laws in detail. Members of Parliament also make sure that the government departments do their work properly. / Funded by the European Union

The aim of this study was to gain an understanding of the legislative process in the South African Parliament, especially the processing of bills. The study was confined to bills processed by the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry which is within, and what is known as the Economic Cluster of portfolio committees of Parliament. The main problem was to determine whether the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa is efficiently and effectively managing the processing of the bills tabled before it. A sub-problem was to determine how it can be assured that the bills passed by Parliament are of the highest standard. A second sub-problem was to try to find a balance between private bills and those introduced by the various ministries. A third sub-problem was to determine the influence of the lobby groups have on the rocessing and passing of bills in the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. The research methodology includes a literature review, a questionnaire survey, face-to-face interviews with parliament management and a comparative study. After analysing the data collected, conclusions were drawn and recommendations made. Although the research was not comprehensive, the results should assist the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa to improve the processing of bills, thereby improving the legislative process.

Includes bibliography. / South Africa's negotiated parliamentary system is a hybrid of political institutions based upon different models of democracy. Theoretically, there are two broad models from which South Africa's system draws its characteristics: consociational democracy, and majoritarian democracy. Both models of democracy bestow certain characteristics on the South African system which affect how opposition politics operate within the system. Concern has been raised about the ability of opposition politics to function in, and contribute to, the operation of the South African Parliament. The many consociational characteristics of the South African system may have created opposition structures which are emaciated of their duties, rights and responsibilities. This concern prompted an investigation into the operation of the opposition structures of the South African Parliament. The basis of the neo-Institutional analysis is the premise that the behaviour of actors within a system (in this case, Members of Parliament within Parliament) is shaped by the rules and structure of that system. As such, the opposition behaviour of parties and individuals in the South African Parliament is shaped by the rules and structure of Parliament. This paper first presents the theoretical considerations of a neo-Institutionalist examination. The theory is explored by examining the literature of rational choice theorists as well as Historical Institutionalists. Secondly, an examination is conducted of the different models of democracy-and the attributes which each contribute to the South African system. Within this section, the concept of opposition is developed. The analysis of the South African Parliamentary institutions of opposition is conducted by examining the two basic documents which proscribe the rules of procedure for the institutions of Parliament: the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and the Standing Rules of the National Assembly. The theoretical expectations of behaviour are checked against the empirical reality of Parliamentary behaviour. This study examines data collected from the Debates of the National Assembly (Hansard) regarding individual and party participation in debate, questions and interpellations, committees, and Cabinet. The data support the contention of the analysis that whether it is by virtue of the consociational nature of Cabinet, or the over-representation of smaller parties in National Assembly debate, opposition politics are an important part of the Parliamentary process in South Africa.

Thesis (MPhil)--Stellenbosch University, 2005. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The study's investigation focuses on the role played by the NCOP in the national legislature as the second chamber of parliament. It looks in particular at how the NCOP has managed in its deliberations, and as mandated by the Constitution to represent provinces. Subsection 42 (4) of the Constitution stipulates that; " The NCOP represent the provinces to ensure that provincial interests are taken into account in the national sphere of government" (RSA Act 108, 1996). The question that the study seeks to answer IS: does the National Council of Provinces in its deliberations work to represent the interests of provinces in the national legislature rather than those of the party in control of the province? In answering the research question the study's approach is qualitative in nature. In other words, data collection methods were confined to documents and other important sources such as NCOP Publications namely, the NCOP News and the NCOP Review. Looking at the literature on second chambers, the study found that for second chambers to play an effective role in the legislature, the Constitution must equip them with adequate legislative powers. This means that the Constitution must give second chambers a veto on all Bills affecting their jurisdictions. Where a veto is non existent, irrespective of what legislative powers a second chamber may posses, if not elected directly by the electorate, it will suffer the accusations of rubber stamping Bills passed by the first house. The NCOP falls in the same category of second houses with no veto over Bills affecting provinces. Its legislative powers on these Bills are blunted by the NA's twothirds majority in the legislature and as a result remain a subordinate of the first house and that of the ruling party. Furthermore, administrative and communication problems experienced by the institution hinder it in its role of representing provinces. Equally so, the dominance of the ruling ANC in the provinces makes it difficult to determine whether mandates delivered by provincial legislatures carry the interests of provinces or those of the party in power. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die studie-ondersoek is gerig op die rol wat die NRVP (Nasionale Raad Van Provinsies), as die tweede huis van die Parlement. Die werk is spesifiek gerig op die manier hoe die NRVP vaar in hul debatvoerings, asook in hul verteenwoordiging van provinsies soos voorgeskryf in die Grondwet. Sub-artikel 42 (4) van die grondwet stipuleer dat "die NRVP verteenwoordig die provinsies om te verseker dat provinsiale belange in ag geneem word op die nasionale sfeer van die regering." (RSA Wet 108 van 1996). Die vraag wat hierdie studie poog om te antwoord, is die volgende: werk die NRVP in hul debatsvoerings om die belange van die provinsies in die nasionale wetgewer te verteenwoordig inplaas van die belange van die party in beheer van 'n spesifieke provinsie? In die beantwoording van hierdie navorsings-vraag, is die studie benadering kwalitatief in aard. Met ander woorde - data invorderings metodes was beperk tot dokumente en ander belangrike bronne soos NRVP publikasies, naamlik die "NCOP News" en die "NCOP Review". Na 'n bestudering van literatuur rondom die tweede huis van Parlement, het hierdie studie bevind dat vir die tweede huis om 'n effektiewe rol te speel in die wetgewer, die Grondwet dit moet toerus met genoegsame wetgewende magte. Dit beteken onder andere dat die grondwet die tweede huis 'n veto-reg gee oor alle wetsontwerpe wat hulle jurisdiksie raak. Waar 'n veto-reg nie bestaan nie, ongeag die wetgewende mag wat die NRVP mag hê, sal dit bieg gebuk gaan onder die beskuldiging dat dit 'n rubberstempel plaas op wetsontwerpe uitgevaardig deur die Nasionale Vergadering. Die NRVP val in dieselfde katagorie van tweede huise wat nie 'n veto-reg het oor wetsontwerpe wat provinsies raak. Die NRVP se wetgewende mag oor hierdie wetsonwerpe word geskoei op die Nasionale Vergadering se twee-derde meerderheid en gevolglik bly dit ondergeskik aan die Nasionale Vergadering. Verder, administratiewe-en kommunikasie-probleme wat ondervind word deur die liggaam, hinder dit in die rol van verteenwoordiger van die provinsies. Gelykstaande hieraan, is die dominering van die bewindvoerende party - die ANC. In die provinsies is dit moeilik om vas te stel of die voorskrifte van die provinsiale wetgewer werklik handel oor die belange van die provinsies self of die is van die party in die meerderheid.