Abstract

South Africa’s Constitutional Court has developed a reputation within and outside the country for promoting a social policy regime which actively seeks to reverse racial and economic domination. It has, however, also been sharply criticised for not doing enough to challenge the domination which produces poverty or to hand down rulings which dictate strongly pro-poor outcomes. The article seeks to explain why the Court has played a role in social policy and argues that this is a product of a consensus between the judiciary and the other two branches of government on the need to correct the effects of racial domination. It also assesses whether the courts have contributed to an expansion of social policy which challenges domination. It argues that they have done this only where they have ignored the demand that they impose a ‘minimum core content’ of social entitlements and have supported collective action by organisations representing the poor. It concludes that a court which enables agency is more likely to serve the poor than one which dictates policy outcomes.

Full Text
Paper version not known

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 call

Disclaimer: 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.