Let’s debate law and order

If you haven’t noticed, there are plenty of interesting bits of writing going through parliament at the moment and, as is traditional, many people are unhappy. It raises interesting philosophical questions. What is the legal system supposed to do? Who is responsible for granting rights to people? What is equality and how does it work in a world of freedom? Depending on who you ask, you’ll get different answers and they’re hardly answers the legislature is called on to provide.

So what is NHI trying to achieve? The Copyright Amendment Bill? There are Bills I’d wager few have even heard of, let alone considered.

The National Veld and Forest Fire Amendment Bill is at its final stages and I bet you never knew there was even an Act regulating veld and forest fires. But what is the point of it all?

Is it to change behaviour, empower organs of state, empower the private sector or prevent damage to infrastructure?

It could be all those things, some of them or none. Take NHI. It’s stated that it’s trying to do a good thing. Get good healthcare to the public.

Great goal. How is it doing that? Admitting to the failure of the public health system and capitalising on the success of the private sector without actually admitting to the failure of public health.

But surely, the job of the legislature cannot be to cover up the failings of the executive in implementing its laws.

That would require a system of creating executive failures for the legislature to cover up and few taxpayers would be happy to fund that.

Rica has to get a change because the Constitutional Court held that there are privacy concerns and the Correctional Services Act is getting a change so that there can be a shift in the balancing of power.

There are so many reasons to create, change and drop laws and we seldom ask why we obey them. We just do, for the most part.

You’ll slow down when you know there’s a speed trap coming and you’d think twice about buying that bottle of Scotch if the sin tax is too high but people will still speed and others will still drink and some will even do both simultaneously. We wouldn’t need those laws if there were no roads or alcohol hadn’t been discovered but that’s not the world we live in.

So we create laws to address the issues in the context we live in to try make that context better. Whether it be through behavioural changes or assignment of authority but the end goal, supposedly, remains the same; the goal of making South Africa a better place.

That brings us to another set of questions. Better for who? At who’s expense? Better how? And all those questions are raised before we even ask whether the ends will be met.

Some are very effective like control over the distribution of prescription drugs. Others, like paying your TV licence suck to enforce.

But they’re there, and they’re there for a reason; a reason we seldom question.

That’s why, over the next few weeks, this column will be dedicated to exploring new laws we could implement to make SA a better place.

In this election year, we need to be asking ourselves what can be done to improve the lives of South Africans… after all, that’s what our legal system is supposed to do.

Here’s an official invitation to relook at how we regulate ourselves and ask whether it makes life better for us.

As a real democracy, we need to look at our legal system and ask whether it’s to the benefit of South Africans living in South Africa, not a single group, class or demographic. Rather, does the law make SA the place we want to be?

Laws are there, and they’re there for a reason; a reason we seldom question.