Philosophy and equity the role of social justice in contemporary South Africa
Over the past century no other philosophical narrative has ever been able to facilitate such a significant transition in Western society’s traditional concepts of philosophy and politics than the workings of John Rawl. What's more, even in today’s 21st century John Rawls academic literary entitled, ‘A theory of Justice’, still serves as not only the most valuable but influential pieces of literary narratives written in the last five decades. In addition to this veracity, Rawl’s theory on justice as indifference continues to serve as one of the most sustainable frameworks for assessing the quality of ‘life’ for citizens in nation-states with regard to their social, economic and political facilitation's. Nevertheless, the central argument Rawls presents in his books is the conception of Justice which not only aims to generalize but provide a higher level of abstraction in accordance with the theology of the ‘social contract’. Consequently, it is as a result of this veracity that in this essay I will firstly be discussing, what is John Rawls theory of Justice and what does it imply with regard to the role of the state? I will then secondly be providing an in depth analysis behind the principals John Rawls requires for presence of ‘social justice’ in accordance to the state of contemporary present day South Africa. I will then conclude this discussion with my own opinion regarding the present day legacy of this narration.
Heavily influenced by the philosophical workings of Locke, Kant and Rousseau, Rawls presents the idea of ‘Justice’ as a interstate mechanisms working in a similar function to that of the social contract theory. This argument does comparatively view the principals of Justice as serving as fundamental aspect of societies political structural facilitations used as the basis for collective agreement. What’s more, Rawls claims through these principles that a free and rational person living within a nation-state concerned with furthering their own interests would ultimately accept an initial position based on equality in accordance with the ideals of collective association. In addition to this veracity, Rawls claims not only does his philosophy regulate all further agreements between an administration and a populace but specifies the kinds of social cooperation that can be implemented by systems of government. Nevertheless, Rawls perpetuates this argument through emphasis on two principals, the excess of equal basic liberties and the fair equality of opportunity.
In his last book Rawl makes the final clarification with regards to his beliefs about redistributive justice mechanisms and the role of the state. He does comparatively state,’ Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of liberties compatible with a similar liberty for others’, controversially in order to truly understand the dimensions of Rawls argument we must first understand what is implied by the term ‘basic liberties’ .In accordance with the literature of Rawls first principle basic liberty is a phrase used to describe a type of liberty ,right or condition required for a valued life or fair cooperation. Basic liberties with regard to the context of a populace do comparatively vary greatly and can consist of conscious, association, politics personal properties or rule of law. Nonetheless, in Rawls first principle he states, not only does he believe basic liberties take priority but no individual liberty can ever take precedence over that of the greater good). Rawl’s second principle does comparatively state, all social and economic inequities are to reorganised and redistributed so that they can be of the greatest benefit to the most vulnerable in addition to the promotion of a social environment were employment opportunities are open to all citizens on the condition of ‘fair equality of opportunity’. This is however as a corollary of the fact that Rawls believes through this process over time income transfers to this group will be maximised to such a great extent that wealth creating incentives will not only become undermined but they will become numerous. Nevertheless, regardless of this veracity Rawls believes the first principal has lexical superiority over the second.
Nonetheless, when applied towards a political context what does this theory imply about the role of the state? Consequently, when analysing the role of the state in accordance with Rawls political philosophy two principals must be ensured, ‘fair equality of opportunity’ and the principle of difference. On the other hand, in accordance with the philosophy of Rawls social Justice the state is supposed to serve as a means of not only offering safety to its citizens in the form of sovereignty but the provision of all basic rights and facilities accompanied by an interstate social environment based on equality of all collective means.Whilst comparatively, in accordance with the second principle of this philosophy Rawls claims the role of the state is to serves a means to ensure that there exist no bias with regard to the basis of race ,gender or age when citizens look at occupational opportunities. In addition to this the state is to ensure that their exists no informal discrimination as well as the fact that that the class you were born in should not ultimately dictate your social standing in the long term so long as you use your talents. What’s more Rawls believes the role of the state should be based on the economic relief of those living in the most vulnerable populations ,so that over time the state can exist in a realm of collective financial prosperity with the degree of economic opportunities from varying classes becoming undistinguishable. Rawl does on the other hand state five moral constraints are to be assimilated and accepted by a populace on the basis of generality, universality, ordering of conflicting claims , publicity and finality
Although the principles for residence within the constituency are based on the same system of the ‘social contract’ nevertheless contemporary South Africa with regard to achieving a sustainable society based on the principles of Rawls theory of ‘Justice ‘still has a long way to go. This veracity can however be noted as although the South African government have created development orientated strategies in accordance to that of Rawl’s philosophy of ‘fair equality of opportunity’, in today’s global epoch a significant number of citizens not only battle for equality with regard to occupational positions but the most basic liberties in the form of housing, electricity and clean water. What’s more although the South African department defines social justice in the region as the extension of principals enriched in the nations constitution on the basis of human dignity, equality and freedom with regard to socio-economic, cultural and political freedom, a report written in 2015 does however conclude that social justice not only remains a challenge for the populace with regard to development but social cohesion and capital (Smith, 2005). Conversely, this is regardless of the fact that after the end of the Apartheid regime within the constituency ‘Justice’ with regard not only Rawls political philosophy but the distributive principals became permanent aspects of the constitution (Baloyi, 2014).
The legal and ethical Commitment to use of Rawls philosophy of Social Justice can however be noted in contemporary South Africa through an observation of the nations constitutional and legal imperatives. This veracity can be noted as the administration from this populace has committed itself to the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, The African Charter On Human and People Rights, the SADC shared values act and laws in the form of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act in addition to the employment equity act. Nevertheless regardless of all these factors, laws and policies put in place statistical data taken in 2018 reveals 55% of poverty still exists across all racial groups, 27.7% national unemployment, 27% of children under the age of 5 growing with brain underdevelopment due to a lack of nutrition, black South Africans ownership of 72% to rural Land and 75% of ownership of all urban lands. Consequently, as a result of these actualities we are forced to ask ourselves is Rawls theory of ‘Social Justice’ as an interstate policy ineffective when taking into account present day South Africa or are we doing something wrong or rather is Rawls theory of Social Justice ineffective as a direct result of the legacy facilitated by the Apartheid.Nevertheless, when taking into account the extent of public facilities available to citizens, it is my belief that although Rawls states,’inequalities are too be rearranged so that they can be of the greatest benefit to the least advantage’, in contemporary South Africa today the most vulnerable populations often not only have very little access to developmental resources or there is no funding for them as a direct result of corruption. What’s more although the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act was passed in this nation in 2000 inherited racial gender, disability and disparities remain unimplemented.
Nevertheless regardless of these adversities in order to change these corollaries five key procedures must be put in place. Firstly, we must enhance the state capacity to pass not only land but principals of equality through the leveraging data analytics. What’s more the state can mobilize societal and corporate resources to contribute meaningfully to funding the accelerated reduction of poverty and inequality. Moreover the state can leverage international relations to support for a social justice in addition to sponsor a national drive to healing the divisions of past regard inherited social relations among fellow South Africans. On the other hand over the past few years social Justice organisations have played a significant role in holding government administration accountable especially in cases where human rights where of grave concern. The effects of this veracity can nonetheless be noted after the events of 2001 where the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) took then president Thabo Mbeki’s administration to court for refusing to distribute Anti-retroviral drugs to HIV positive mothers . Many members do however regardless of Rawls embedded philosophy in the nations constitution do conversely argue the legacy of the ‘apartheid’ seems to have burdened the national with unacceptably high levels of poverty, illiteracy in addition to several other socio economic issues.
In addition to this veracity although in accordance to the philosophy of social justice Rawl states the first principle has lexical superiority over the second, in South Africa today however this principal value is continuously violated through the amount of corruption which plagues the region .This veracity can be noted as corruption as well as an inefficient government burecuracy pose significant challenges to the public sector with irregular payments perceived to be very commonly exchanged. What’s more in contrast to philosophy of Rawls beliefs on egalitarianism with regard to the state being concerned with maximising the goods enjoyed by the least advantaged members of society, although the state does have policies in place to ensure the maintenance of some of these public facilities, nevertheless as a direct result of the dimensions imposed by corruption there is often not enough funding to ensure sustainability. The effects of this veracity can however be noted through an observation of South Africa’s regional landscape, in areas where there is little too almost very little industrialisation government public facilities like schools and hospitals are often in very bad condition whilst comparatively although in urban areas the same public facilities are regulated the dimensions of corruption and outsourcing can still be noted through the emergence of the need for Private facilities with regard to this context. This veracity can however be noted as If hospitals and schools where in an efficient and adequate enough state within the region there would be no need for the emergence of private facilities. The emergence of this sector does comparatively almost go against all the principals of Rawls Theory with regard to frame work of a social contract based on Justice as an interstate mechanism.
Hence Fourth in conclusion, although no other narrative has ever been able to facilitate such a significant transition in Western society’s traditional concepts of philosophy and politics than the workings of John Rawl. Nonetheless, even in today’s 21st century John Rawls academic literary entitled, ‘A theory if Justice’, still serves as not only the most valuable but influential pieces of philosophical narratives written in the last five decades. In addition to this veracity, Rawl’s theory on justice as indifference continues to serve as one of the most sustainable frameworks for assessing the quality of ‘life’ for citizens in nation-states with regard to their social, economic and political facilitations. Nevertheless, the central argument Rawls presents in his books is the conception of Justice which not only aims to generalize but provide a higher level of abstraction in accordance with the theology of the ‘social contract’. What’s more, after a forging analysis of Rawls notion of ‘Justice as fairness’ it is my opinion that although African societies still have a long way to go before they will be able to create an ideal society in accordance to Rawl’s philosophy the region has nonetheless adopted a similar interstate social mechanisms known as ‘Ubuntu as fairness’. This veracity can comparatively be noted as in Traditional African societies a person usually depends on others just as much as they depend on them, this is as a result of the fact that in communities like this everyone works towards the greater good. Consequently, the task of African philosophy especially with regard to South Africa does conversely speculate the commonality in an African setting is based on a social contract of ‘Justice’ but rather one of Ubuntu.
Reference list
Baloyi, G. (2014). The Role of University of South Africa in Contributing to Open Distance and E-Learning and to Social Justice in South Africa. Mediterranean Journal Of Social Sciences. doi: 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n3p376
Broome, J., & Barry, B. (1990). A Treatise on Social Justice: Volume I: Theories of Justice. The Economic Journal, 100(403), 1333. doi: 10.2307/2233982
Boudreaux, K. (2010). LAND REFORM AS SOCIAL JUSTICE: THE CASE OF SOUTH AFRICA. Economic Affairs, 30(1), 13–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1468–0270.2009.01967.x
Govender, J. (2016). Social justice in South Africa. Civitas — Revista De Ciências Sociais, 16(2), 237. doi: 10.15448/1984–7289.2016.2.23076
Hagan, J. (1977). Criminal Justice in Rural and Urban Communities: A Study of the Bureaucratization of Justice. Social Forces, 55(3), 597. doi: 10.2307/2577458
London, A. (2006). What Is Social and Global Justice to Bioethics or Bioethics to Social and Global Justice?. Hastings Center Report, 36(4), 3–3. doi: 10.1353/hcr.2006.0062
Moon, J. (2014). John Rawls. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.
Rawl, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.
Rawl, J. Theory of Social Justice.
Schaar, J. (1974). Reflections on Rawls’ Theory of Justice. Social Theory And Practice, 3(1), 75–100. doi: 10.5840/soctheorpract19743112
Smith, D. (2005). On the (im)possibility of social justice in South Africa. Transformation: Critical Perspectives On Southern Africa, 58(1), 45–65. doi: 10.1353/trn.2005.0041
Subreenduth, S. (2013). Theorizing Social Justice Ambiguities in an Era of Neoliberalism: The Case of Postapartheid South Africa. Educational Theory, 63(6), 581–600. doi: 10.1111/edth.12043
