The role of second chamber in representing subnational units: A comparative study of Nigeria and South Africa
| dc.contributor.advisor | Fessha, Yonatan | |
| dc.contributor.author | Shabangu, Siboniso Andrew | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-07-29T07:08:15Z | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-11-06T12:45:22Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2024-07-29T07:08:15Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2024-11-06T12:45:22Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2023 | |
| dc.description | Magister Legum - LLM | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | The purpose of the research is to investigate the effectiveness of representation of subnational units in Nigeria and South Africa in the second chamber. In both countries, the subnational unit is represented equally in the second chamber. In Nigeria, the second chamber guarantees equal representation with three senators to each of the thirty-six states, regardless of size in the senate, plus one senator representing the federal capital territory Abuja. Similarly, in South Africa, each province is equally represented in the second chamber by ten delegates from each of the nine provinces, regardless of population. The distinction between the two countries is that members of the second chamber in Nigeria are elected directly, whereas members of the second chamber in South Africa are appointed by the provincial legislature. Both second chambers enjoy considerable power over bills that affect subnational units. The study found that the second chambers in South Africa and Nigeria are not actually representing the subnational unit in the national decision-making process. Members of the two second chambers are frequently using their substantial powers to pursue their political parties’ agendas and choices, that conflict with the goals of their subnational entity. Also, institutional operating procedures prevent subnational unit legislatures from adequately assessing a bill, drafting a mandate that takes these issues into account, and directing their delegates to vote effectively. Therefore, the second chamber remains ineffective representatives of subnational interests, depriving the federation of the benefit of an organization that properly represents the subnational unit. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10566/18019 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | University of the Western Cape | en_US |
| dc.rights.holder | University of the Western Cape | en_US |
| dc.subject | Subnational units | en_US |
| dc.subject | Representation | en_US |
| dc.subject | Second chamber | en_US |
| dc.subject | South Africa | en_US |
| dc.subject | Nigeria | en_US |
| dc.title | The role of second chamber in representing subnational units: A comparative study of Nigeria and South Africa | en_US |