A neo-institutional analysis of opposition structures in the South African Parliament

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorDuFresne, Corey Christopheren_ZA
dc.date.accessioned2016-03-04T16:38:35Z
dc.date.available2016-03-04T16:38:35Z
dc.date.issued1996en_ZA
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliography.en_ZA
dc.description.abstractSouth Africa's negotiated parliamentary system is a hybrid of political institutions based upon different models of democracy. Theoretically, there are two broad models from which South Africa's system draws its characteristics: consociational democracy, and majoritarian democracy. Both models of democracy bestow certain characteristics on the South African system which affect how opposition politics operate within the system. Concern has been raised about the ability of opposition politics to function in, and contribute to, the operation of the South African Parliament. The many consociational characteristics of the South African system may have created opposition structures which are emaciated of their duties, rights and responsibilities. This concern prompted an investigation into the operation of the opposition structures of the South African Parliament. The basis of the neo-Institutional analysis is the premise that the behaviour of actors within a system (in this case, Members of Parliament within Parliament) is shaped by the rules and structure of that system. As such, the opposition behaviour of parties and individuals in the South African Parliament is shaped by the rules and structure of Parliament. This paper first presents the theoretical considerations of a neo-Institutionalist examination. The theory is explored by examining the literature of rational choice theorists as well as Historical Institutionalists. Secondly, an examination is conducted of the different models of democracy-and the attributes which each contribute to the South African system. Within this section, the concept of opposition is developed. The analysis of the South African Parliamentary institutions of opposition is conducted by examining the two basic documents which proscribe the rules of procedure for the institutions of Parliament: the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and the Standing Rules of the National Assembly. The theoretical expectations of behaviour are checked against the empirical reality of Parliamentary behaviour. This study examines data collected from the Debates of the National Assembly (Hansard) regarding individual and party participation in debate, questions and interpellations, committees, and Cabinet. The data support the contention of the analysis that whether it is by virtue of the consociational nature of Cabinet, or the over-representation of smaller parties in National Assembly debate, opposition politics are an important part of the Parliamentary process in South Africa.en_ZA
dc.identifier.apacitationDuFresne, C. C. (1996). <i>A neo-institutional analysis of opposition structures in the South African Parliament</i>. (Thesis). University of Cape Town ,Faculty of Humanities ,Department of Political Studies. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11427/17460en_ZA
dc.identifier.chicagocitationDuFresne, Corey Christopher. <i>"A neo-institutional analysis of opposition structures in the South African Parliament."</i> Thesis., University of Cape Town ,Faculty of Humanities ,Department of Political Studies, 1996. http://hdl.handle.net/11427/17460en_ZA
dc.identifier.citationDuFresne, C. 1996. A neo-institutional analysis of opposition structures in the South African Parliament. University of Cape Town.en_ZA
dc.identifier.ris TY - Thesis / Dissertation AU - DuFresne, Corey Christopher AB - South Africa's negotiated parliamentary system is a hybrid of political institutions based upon different models of democracy. Theoretically, there are two broad models from which South Africa's system draws its characteristics: consociational democracy, and majoritarian democracy. Both models of democracy bestow certain characteristics on the South African system which affect how opposition politics operate within the system. Concern has been raised about the ability of opposition politics to function in, and contribute to, the operation of the South African Parliament. The many consociational characteristics of the South African system may have created opposition structures which are emaciated of their duties, rights and responsibilities. This concern prompted an investigation into the operation of the opposition structures of the South African Parliament. The basis of the neo-Institutional analysis is the premise that the behaviour of actors within a system (in this case, Members of Parliament within Parliament) is shaped by the rules and structure of that system. As such, the opposition behaviour of parties and individuals in the South African Parliament is shaped by the rules and structure of Parliament. This paper first presents the theoretical considerations of a neo-Institutionalist examination. The theory is explored by examining the literature of rational choice theorists as well as Historical Institutionalists. Secondly, an examination is conducted of the different models of democracy-and the attributes which each contribute to the South African system. Within this section, the concept of opposition is developed. The analysis of the South African Parliamentary institutions of opposition is conducted by examining the two basic documents which proscribe the rules of procedure for the institutions of Parliament: the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and the Standing Rules of the National Assembly. The theoretical expectations of behaviour are checked against the empirical reality of Parliamentary behaviour. This study examines data collected from the Debates of the National Assembly (Hansard) regarding individual and party participation in debate, questions and interpellations, committees, and Cabinet. The data support the contention of the analysis that whether it is by virtue of the consociational nature of Cabinet, or the over-representation of smaller parties in National Assembly debate, opposition politics are an important part of the Parliamentary process in South Africa. DA - 1996 DB - OpenUCT DP - University of Cape Town LK - https://open.uct.ac.za PB - University of Cape Town PY - 1996 T1 - A neo-institutional analysis of opposition structures in the South African Parliament TI - A neo-institutional analysis of opposition structures in the South African Parliament UR - http://hdl.handle.net/11427/17460 ER - en_ZA
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11427/17460
dc.identifier.vancouvercitationDuFresne CC. A neo-institutional analysis of opposition structures in the South African Parliament. [Thesis]. University of Cape Town ,Faculty of Humanities ,Department of Political Studies, 1996 [cited yyyy month dd]. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/11427/17460en_ZA
dc.language.isoengen_ZA
dc.publisher.departmentDepartment of Political Studiesen_ZA
dc.publisher.facultyFaculty of Humanitiesen_ZA
dc.publisher.institutionUniversity of Cape Town
dc.subject.otherPolitical Studiesen_ZA
dc.subject.otherParliamentary practice - South Africaen_ZA
dc.subject.otherOpposition (Political science) - South Africaen_ZA
dc.titleA neo-institutional analysis of opposition structures in the South African Parliamenten_ZA
dc.typeMaster Thesis
dc.type.qualificationlevelMasters
dc.type.qualificationnameMAen_ZA
uct.type.filetypeText
uct.type.filetypeImage
uct.type.publicationResearchen_ZA
uct.type.resourceThesisen_ZA
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
thesis_hum_1996_dufresne_corey_christopher.pdf
Size:
1.7 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
Collections
Masters