We’ve been in the National State of Disaster for quite some time in South Africa, so much so that some of us may feel as though we can’t really remember life before – life just over two years ago.
When the news came that our current ‘state’ was being extended until 15 April, despite its scheduled expiry date on 15 March, the extension came as little surprise. The government has offered extension after extension since the first State of Disaster was announced.
According to Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, the extension takes into consideration the need to continue augmenting the existing legislation and contingency arrangements undertaken by the state to address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
While President Ramaphosa has indicated that the end (of the State of Disaster) could be near, opposition party the Democratic Alliance is attempting to race to the finish line.
Also read:Government extends the national state of disaster until 15 April
Today, DA Federal Leader John Steenhuisen issued a statement that outlined the partys’ perspective of the extension.
“Let’s be clear on what all this means. It means that South Africa will be under a State of Disaster indefinitely, and that the lockdown is becoming permanent,” Steenhuisen imagined referring to lockdown longevity.
The DA has decided to take court action on the matter, stating that “we will not allow our democracy to be suspended indefinitely in favour of rule by decree, with no democratic checks and balances,” he further announced targeting the government’s decision.
The reasoning for the ‘irrational extension’ from the DA’s view includes low risk from COVID-19, No need to maintain the state of disaster or the lockdown, a positive impact on poverty and jobs, a negative impact on service delivery a lack of justification and safeguarding our democracy.
President Ramaphosa has indicated that the government is ‘looking into’ ending the State of National Disaster, but that we need to ensure the necessary health measures are in place to “help us effectively manage the pandemic.”
Whether these ‘necessary health measures’ would be able to come into effect in the next month, and exist more proactively, is a matter of debate and plausibility.
Other critics of the lockdown extension, including Shabir Madhi, a professor of Vaccinology at the University of Witswatersrand said:
“If anything, what the experience over the past two years has indicated is that all of these regulations have done very little when it comes to protecting people from being infected, because, had it had any impact, we wouldn’t have had 70% of the population infected with the virus at least once since the start of the pandemic,” he told Daily Maverick.
“What it might have achieved at a point in time, is that it might’ve drawn out infections over a longer period during the waves. That was important when we were trying to relieve pressure on our healthcare facilities,” he added.
Also read:
Picture: OECD Development Matters/ Shutterstock