Abstract
After a review of selected literature on foreign policy and parliament-foreign policy nexus in South Africa, this article examines the nature of ‘Parliamentary diplomacy’, with special focus on Parliamentary Committees on Foreign Affairs [PCFA] in South Africa and Namibia since 2000. By means of descriptive approach and content-analysis of documentary sources and conversational interviews, it further explores the extent of executive-legislative frictions over foreign affairs in both countries and the raison deter for parliamentary interest in foreign affairs, which is located within the orbit of National Interest. It argues that the executive-legislature friction over foreign policies may not be resolved sooner, more so that there are other actors seeking to influence the direction of foreign policy in both countries.
Highlights
With specific reference to South Africa’s foreign policy in the post-apartheid era, Philip Nel[1996] has examined the role of civil society in the promotion of human rights through the mechanisms provided by foreign policy, while William J Foltzs[1996] work on the foreign policy of the new South Africa gives a brief description of foreign policy under the apartheid regime, and looks at the state departments and institutions under the new SA government which are and will be actors to formulate foreign policy for the future
There a number of indicators to illustrate this point and these include: Complaints over Budget and Foreign Policy Process: First, the budget of the Ministry of Foreign [MFA] affairs in Namibia and Department of Foreign Affairs[Department of foreign affairs (DFA)] in South Africa in practice do not get scrutinised by the PCFAs and the committee is seldom consulted on the same issue
The inability of the parliaments to influence the executive often on strategic diplomatic matters and the seeming second fiddle on foreign affairs may be due to one other reason
Summary
With specific reference to South Africa’s foreign policy in the post-apartheid era, Philip Nel[1996] has examined the role of civil society in the promotion of human rights through the mechanisms provided by foreign policy, while William J Foltzs[1996] work on the foreign policy of the new South Africa gives a brief description of foreign policy under the apartheid regime, and looks at the state departments and institutions under the new SA government which are and will be actors to formulate foreign policy for the future. The study suggest that SA may have a capacity to act as a type of role model, but that it needs to weigh decisions on a case by case basis Another Raymond Suttners[1996] work on Foreign policy of the new South Africa: a brief review, comments on the ‘near-existence’ of foreign policy in the new South Africa, and describes who the main actors in foreign policy are, how they are coordinated, the status of the multilateral relations, civil society and its organs, the problems with human rights, the question of identity, and the commitment of foreign policy to democracy in this new dispensation. There has been no significant comparative study of at least two similar countries in southern Africa to show if the experiences of developing or new democracies differ or are similar, and to what extent within this context, and in what way[s] can these common experiences be managed in the interest of deepening democratic practices and processes
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
