Segregation by Design: An Analysis of Apartheid-Enabling Constitutional Provisions

Rafsi Azzam Hibatullah Albar, Padre Jovianthony Kusumadi, Rivaldy Alfarizi
{"title":"Segregation by Design: An Analysis of Apartheid-Enabling Constitutional Provisions","authors":"Rafsi Azzam Hibatullah Albar, Padre Jovianthony Kusumadi, Rivaldy Alfarizi","doi":"10.25041/constitutionale.v5i1.3246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper is a critical examination of constitutional provisions that enable apartheid systems, with a focus on how they allow segregation and discrimination to be established and perpetuated. Despite the global condemnation of apartheid following its horrors in South Africa, similar traits are still visible across a number of jurisdictions today, notably in Israel's treatment of Palestinians and Myanmar's oppression of the Rohingya. This study investigates three of such highest laws of the land, analyzing the roles they play in legitimizing such regimes and how they are instrumentalized to sustain segregation by design. Employing a substantive and structural comparative analytical approach, the research scrutinizes the constitutions of South Africa, Israel, and Myanmar, unearthing common denominators that facilitate apartheid practices. These include the creation of identity-based citizenship conditions, provisions allowing discriminatory treatment, constraints on the political participation of marginalized groups, and the entrenchment of power that hinders reformative action. The findings reveal that apartheid-enabling provisions do not necessarily explicitly endorse segregation. Instead, they often afford broad legislative powers that can be exploited to this end, as was the case in Apartheid South Africa. Similarly, the constitutions of Israel and Myanmar offer constitutional protection to selected ethnic groups, legitimizing and institutionalizing segregation. The research concludes with the identification of at least four key elements common across the studied constitutions that contribute to the maintenance of apartheid systems: differentiated citizenship status, legitimized segregationist practices, limited political participation for certain demographics, and entrenched power structures resistant to change.","PeriodicalId":504459,"journal":{"name":"Constitutionale","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Constitutionale","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25041/constitutionale.v5i1.3246","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper is a critical examination of constitutional provisions that enable apartheid systems, with a focus on how they allow segregation and discrimination to be established and perpetuated. Despite the global condemnation of apartheid following its horrors in South Africa, similar traits are still visible across a number of jurisdictions today, notably in Israel's treatment of Palestinians and Myanmar's oppression of the Rohingya. This study investigates three of such highest laws of the land, analyzing the roles they play in legitimizing such regimes and how they are instrumentalized to sustain segregation by design. Employing a substantive and structural comparative analytical approach, the research scrutinizes the constitutions of South Africa, Israel, and Myanmar, unearthing common denominators that facilitate apartheid practices. These include the creation of identity-based citizenship conditions, provisions allowing discriminatory treatment, constraints on the political participation of marginalized groups, and the entrenchment of power that hinders reformative action. The findings reveal that apartheid-enabling provisions do not necessarily explicitly endorse segregation. Instead, they often afford broad legislative powers that can be exploited to this end, as was the case in Apartheid South Africa. Similarly, the constitutions of Israel and Myanmar offer constitutional protection to selected ethnic groups, legitimizing and institutionalizing segregation. The research concludes with the identification of at least four key elements common across the studied constitutions that contribute to the maintenance of apartheid systems: differentiated citizenship status, legitimized segregationist practices, limited political participation for certain demographics, and entrenched power structures resistant to change.
设计隔离:对种族隔离授权宪法条款的分析
本文对促成种族隔离制度的宪法条款进行了批判性研究,重点关注这些条款如何允许隔离和歧视得以建立并延续。尽管种族隔离制度在南非肆虐后受到了全球谴责,但类似的特征在今天的许多司法管辖区依然可见,特别是以色列对待巴勒斯坦人的方式和缅甸对罗辛亚人的压迫。本研究调查了三部此类国家最高法律,分析了它们在使此类政权合法化方面发挥的作用,以及它们如何被用来维持蓄意隔离。本研究采用实质性和结构性比较分析方法,仔细研究了南非、以色列和缅甸的宪法,发现了助长种族隔离做法的共同点。这些因素包括创造基于身份的公民条件、允许歧视性待遇的条款、对边缘化群体政治参与的限制,以及阻碍改革行动的权力根深蒂固。研究结果表明,种族隔离授权条款并不一定明确支持种族隔离。相反,它们往往赋予了广泛的立法权,可以被利用来达到这一目的,南非种族隔离制度就是如此。同样,以色列和缅甸的宪法也为特定种族群体提供宪法保护,使种族隔离合法化和制度化。研究最后指出,所研究的宪法中至少有四个共同的关键要素有助于种族隔离制度的维持:有区别的公民身份地位、合法化的种族隔离做法、限制某些人口的政治参与以及根深蒂固的权力结构抵制变革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信