Constitutional amendment remains a source of ongoing academic and political contestation. Although in some cases the rigidity of formal amendment rules has produced debates over the impact of judicial interpretation as a substitute for amendment, in other cases amendments remain highly controversial or existing constitutional provisions remain unimplemented owing to continuing social, economic, or political pressures. This review both explores the continuing theoretical debates over the idea of constitutional amendment and uses the examples of historic land conflicts in South Africa and Zimbabwe to demonstrate the interaction between existing constitutional provisions, formal amendments, and ongoing demands over land and property rights. By providing both an overview of the theoretical debates as well as a contextual application, this review aims to demonstrate the importance of a contextually grounded, sociolegal understanding of the phenomena of constitutional amendment, stasis, and change.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Ackermann B. 1991. We the People, Volume 1: Foundations Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  2. Afr. Natl. Congr 2012. Recommendations from the fourth National Policy Conference June 2012. http://www.anc.org.za/docs/pol/2012/policy_conferencev.pdf
  3. Albert R. 2009. Nonconstitutional amendments. Can. J. Law Jurisprud. 22:15–47 [Google Scholar]
  4. Albert R. 2014. Constitutional amendment by constitutional desuetude. Am. J. Comp. Law 62:641–86 [Google Scholar]
  5. Albert R. 2015. Constitutional amendment by stealth. McGill Law J. 61 In press [Google Scholar]
  6. Bánkuti M, Halmai G, Scheppele KL. 2012. Hungary's illiberal turn: disabling the constitution. J. Democr. 23:3138–46 [Google Scholar]
  7. Booysen S. 2008. ABSA submission regarding the Expropriation Bill. Given Gain June 9. http://www.givengain.com/cgi-bin/giga.cgi?cmd=cause_dir_news_item&cause_id=2137&news_id=72431 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 347 U.S. 483 1954. [Google Scholar]
  9. Elkins Z, Ginsburg T, Melton J. 2009. The Endurance of National Constitutions Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  10. First National Bank of SA Ltd. t/a Wesbank v. Commissioner, South African Revenue Services; First National Bank of SA Ltd t/a Wesbank v. Minister of Finance (4) SA 768 (CC) 2002. [Google Scholar]
  11. Goldstone L. 2011. Inherently Unequal: The Betrayal of Equal Rights by the Supreme Court, 1865–1903 New York: Walker & Co. [Google Scholar]
  12. Government Gazette 2008. Publication of explanatory summary of the expropriation bill, 2008, General Notice 440 of 2008, section 2. Government Gazette April 11, No. 30963 3 [Google Scholar]
  13. Harris W. 1993. The Interpretable Constitution Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  14. Hirschl R. 2010. Constitutional Theocracy Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  15. Jacobsohn GJ. 2010. Constitutional Identity Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  16. Klug H. 2000a. Constituting Democracy: Law, Globalism and South Africa's Political Reconstruction Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  17. Klug H. 2000b. Model and anti-model: the United States Constitution and the “rise of world constitutionalism.”. Wis. Law Rev. 2000:597–616 [Google Scholar]
  18. Letsoalo M. 2012. Numsa targets land reform, the Constitution—and Pravin. Mail & Guardian June 4. http://mg.co.za/article/2012-06-04-no-compensation-numsa-targets-land-reform-the-constitution-and-pravin-gordhan [Google Scholar]
  19. Levinson S. 1995. Responding to Imperfection: The Theory and Practice of Constitutional Amendment Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  20. Llewellyn KN. 1934. The Constitution as an institution. Columbia Law Rev. 34:11–40 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lutz DS. 1995. Toward a theory of constitutional amendment. Responding to Imperfection S Levinson 237–74 Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  22. Mail & Guardian 2008. FW de Klerk warns against Expropriation Bill. Mail & Guardian June 25. http://mg.co.za/article/2008-06-25-fw-de-klerk-warns-against-expropriation-bill [Google Scholar]
  23. Martin D, Johnson P. 1981. The Struggle for Zimbabwe: The Chimurenga War. London: Faber & Faber [Google Scholar]
  24. Mate M. 2014. State constitutions and the basic structure doctrine. Columbia Hum. Rights Law Rev. 45:2441–98 [Google Scholar]
  25. Mazzone J. 2005. Unamendments. Iowa Law Rev. 90:1747–855 [Google Scholar]
  26. Moyo S. 2007. The land question in southern Africa: a comparative review. The Land Question in South Africa: The Challenge of Transformation and Redistribution L Ntsebeza, R Hall 60–86 Cape Town: HSRC Press [Google Scholar]
  27. President of RSA & Another v. Modderklip Boerdery(Pty.) Ltd & Others (5) SA 3 (CC) 2005. [Google Scholar]
  28. Roznai Y, Yolcu S. 2012. An unconstitutional constitutional amendment—the Turkish perspective: a comment on the Turkish Constitutional Court's headscarf decision. Int. J. Const. Law 10:1175–207 [Google Scholar]
  29. SAPA (S. Afr. Press Assoc.) 2012. Changing Constitution not a solution to land problem: minister. Times Live June 12 [Google Scholar]
  30. Scheppele KL. 2004. Constitutional ethnography: an introduction. Law Soc. Rev. 38:3389–406 [Google Scholar]
  31. Scoones I, Marongwe N, Mavedzenge B, Mahenehene J, Murimbarimba F, Sukume C. 2010. Zimbabwe's Land Reform: Myths & Realities Auckland Park, S. Afr.: Jacana (S. Afr. ed. 2011) [Google Scholar]
  32. Smuts D. 2012. Property a basic right, not a sunset clause Democr: Alliance Press Rel. (Cape Town) March 4 [Google Scholar]
  33. Strauss DA. 2001. The irrelevance of constitutional amendments. Harvard Law Rev. 114:51457–505 [Google Scholar]
  34. Sunstein CR. 2009. A Constitution of Many Minds: Why the Founding Document Doesn't Mean What It Meant Before Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  35. Tushnet M. 2003. The New Constitutional Order Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  36. Tushnet M. 2010. Why the Constitution Matters New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  37. Walker C. 2008. Land-Marked: Land Claims & Land Restitution in South Africa Johannesburg: Jacana [Google Scholar]
  38. Weis LK. 2014. Constitutional amendment rules and interpretive fidelity to democracy. Melb. Univ. Law Rev. 38:1 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error