Abstract

In “Two Cheers to Constitutionalism” Karl Klare and Dennis Davis take us through a longue durée analysis of South Africa’s constitutional democracy, its genesis, essence and implications for the future. Their reflections about the 25 years of South Africa’s constitution coincide with the 30-years milestone since the dawn of the so-called democratic breakthrough. In this article, I grapple with some of the epistemic and axiological specificities that define both the constitution of 1996 and the notion of a constitutional democracy in the afterlife of apartheid and colonialism. More directly, I invite both Klare & Davis to attempt to contend with South Africa through a decolonial lens. I invoke my own positionality, not only as a locus of enunciation, but as a legitimate marker in discussions about the constitution, and constitutionalism; my contention is that frank conversations about our own positionalities will help us sieve through and decisively discern between the [p]olitics and [P]olitics of the constitution. In fleshing out the four dominant themes/positions in ongoing debates about the constitution, I lean towards the grammar of constitutional abolitionists, to conclude that the fundamental crisis about the South African constitution and present conceptions of constitutionalism is that they are a normal framework in an abnormal society. Given our history/present of anti-Black racism, the systemic dehumanization of indigenous people, colonial theft/dispossession, epistemicides, historicides, linguisticides, et cetera, I insist that ours is an abnormal society, consequently an abnormal constitution/constitutionalism would have been a more just outcome.