Did we elect leaders who are inconsistent with the rule of law?

For a piece of land to qualify as a state it must satisfy a few aspects; a population, territory, sovereignty, and a government. All these areas are very crucial in the formation of a state but I will focus on two facets that I feel are of monumental value in a young democratic state like South Africa. These areas are: sovereignty and government. The two must coordinate efficiently for a smooth function of the other.




In a democratic state, the citizenry trust government with administrative duties of the country through their votes. Once the executive is elected, it is expected that it must respect and uphold the sovereignty of the country and always be available to account to its constituency, the people while carrying out its mandate.




In the past couple of years I have noticed a despicable trend where the public and different lobby groups had to rely on the court system to get government to account and take responsibility of their actions. When we elected these leaders we vested power in them to take difficult decisions on our behalf and be transparent at the same time.




This phenomenon of dragging our leaders to court to account can only suggest one thing; we elected individuals who have zero regard for the rule of law. It is undoubted that our justice system is still alive and independent but the courts cannot always be expected to settle claims between the public and government.




One of the disadvantages that comes with democracy is that the public risks electing incompetent leaders. After this process the elected leader can act within his/her prerogative to appoint and disappoint incompetent Ignorantia juris non excusat executive.




The executive may be failing to attract proper investment to create the requisite amount of jobs to curb the appreciating joblessness rate, but their incompetency with the law has made the profession blossom.