公共卫生与民主治理:2019冠状病毒病对南非民主的影响

IF 1.4 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Dirk Kotzé
{"title":"公共卫生与民主治理:2019冠状病毒病对南非民主的影响","authors":"Dirk Kotzé","doi":"10.1007/s12286-023-00557-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The research is motivated by the need to determine the impact of South Africa's COVID-19 regulations on its quality of democracy. It takes into account the interests of individual (liberal) rights in competition with the state's interests of public security. Theoretical assumptions, based on classical democratic theories, which rely on the separation of powers and checks-and-balance principles, were used. The South African government architecture is assessed, especially in the context of accountability and oversight requirements. For this purpose, the relationship between the legislature and executive is most relevant. The South African government decided on a state of disaster to manage the pandemic, but it is contrasted with a state of emergency as the constitutional alternative. Its implementation, especially the institutional framework used for it, is analysed. The role of Parliament during the pandemic is used as an important test of the quality of democracy. The conclusions are that South Africa's democratic principles did not degenerate during the pandemic, as concluded by Freedom House, but the pandemic's major impact was on the quality of democracy. The state of disaster's institutions, for example, were not those prescribed by legislation. Moreover, Parliament's involvement in the state of disaster's decision-making was limited. The 2021 local government election, on the other hand, was judged free and fair and its outcomes have been implemented without any public challenges. The main negative outcome is the public's trust deficit in the ANC government's use and abuse of pandemic regulations.</p>","PeriodicalId":44200,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift fur Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft","volume":"16 1","pages":"733-752"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9989571/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public health and democratic governance: COVID-19's impact on South Africa's democracy.\",\"authors\":\"Dirk Kotzé\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12286-023-00557-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The research is motivated by the need to determine the impact of South Africa's COVID-19 regulations on its quality of democracy. It takes into account the interests of individual (liberal) rights in competition with the state's interests of public security. Theoretical assumptions, based on classical democratic theories, which rely on the separation of powers and checks-and-balance principles, were used. The South African government architecture is assessed, especially in the context of accountability and oversight requirements. For this purpose, the relationship between the legislature and executive is most relevant. The South African government decided on a state of disaster to manage the pandemic, but it is contrasted with a state of emergency as the constitutional alternative. Its implementation, especially the institutional framework used for it, is analysed. The role of Parliament during the pandemic is used as an important test of the quality of democracy. The conclusions are that South Africa's democratic principles did not degenerate during the pandemic, as concluded by Freedom House, but the pandemic's major impact was on the quality of democracy. The state of disaster's institutions, for example, were not those prescribed by legislation. Moreover, Parliament's involvement in the state of disaster's decision-making was limited. The 2021 local government election, on the other hand, was judged free and fair and its outcomes have been implemented without any public challenges. The main negative outcome is the public's trust deficit in the ANC government's use and abuse of pandemic regulations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44200,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zeitschrift fur Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"733-752\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9989571/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zeitschrift fur Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-023-00557-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/3/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift fur Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-023-00557-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这项研究的动机是需要确定南非的COVID-19法规对其民主质量的影响。它考虑到个人(自由)权利的利益与国家公共安全利益的竞争。他们使用了基于经典民主理论的理论假设,这些理论依赖于三权分立和制衡原则。评估了南非的政府结构,特别是在问责制和监督要求方面。为此目的,立法机关和行政机关之间的关系是最相关的。南非政府决定进入灾难状态以应对疫情,但这与宪法规定的紧急状态形成了对比。分析了其执行情况,特别是用于执行的体制框架。议会在大流行期间的作用被用作检验民主质量的重要标准。结论是,南非的民主原则并没有像自由之家的结论那样在大流行病期间退化,但大流行病的主要影响是对民主质量的影响。例如,灾难机构的状态不是由立法规定的。此外,议会参与灾难状态的决策是有限的。另一方面,2021年的地方自治团体选举被认为是自由和公正的,其结果在没有任何公众质疑的情况下得到了实施。主要的负面结果是公众对非国大政府使用和滥用流行病法规的信任赤字。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Public health and democratic governance: COVID-19's impact on South Africa's democracy.

The research is motivated by the need to determine the impact of South Africa's COVID-19 regulations on its quality of democracy. It takes into account the interests of individual (liberal) rights in competition with the state's interests of public security. Theoretical assumptions, based on classical democratic theories, which rely on the separation of powers and checks-and-balance principles, were used. The South African government architecture is assessed, especially in the context of accountability and oversight requirements. For this purpose, the relationship between the legislature and executive is most relevant. The South African government decided on a state of disaster to manage the pandemic, but it is contrasted with a state of emergency as the constitutional alternative. Its implementation, especially the institutional framework used for it, is analysed. The role of Parliament during the pandemic is used as an important test of the quality of democracy. The conclusions are that South Africa's democratic principles did not degenerate during the pandemic, as concluded by Freedom House, but the pandemic's major impact was on the quality of democracy. The state of disaster's institutions, for example, were not those prescribed by legislation. Moreover, Parliament's involvement in the state of disaster's decision-making was limited. The 2021 local government election, on the other hand, was judged free and fair and its outcomes have been implemented without any public challenges. The main negative outcome is the public's trust deficit in the ANC government's use and abuse of pandemic regulations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
13.30%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Comparative Governance and Politics – Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft (ZfVP) was founded in 2007. It is an internationally renowned journal that adheres to the highest standards of quality (double-blind peer review). The journal is published quarterly, and it is the first bilingual (German and English) journal that focuses on innovative research results in the area of comparative politics. The journal is a central academic forum for outstanding research achievements in the field of comparative politics, and covers the entire range of comparative research within the field. The journal publishes conceptual, methodological, and empirical studies from all the various research areas within the discipline of political science. Special Issues and Special Sections Special Issues and Special Sections offer the opportunity to present focal topics of comparative research. All submissions undergo a double-blind peer review procedure, which is conducted within the scope of a consultation between the author and the editors through our online submission system. The editors will also initiate the creation of potential special issues through open calls for papers. At the same time, the editors always appreciate suggestions and initiatives from the comparative studies community. Proposals for Special Issues and Special Sections are also subjected to an internal evaluation process. Our Special Issues are published as one of the four quarterly issues and usually consist of six to ten articles, accompanied by an introduction written by the guest editor(s). Special Sections, on the other hand, are a topical focus in one of the four quarterly issues, consisting of three to five articles, which are supplemented by a guest editor’s preface.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信