{"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}
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.
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.