Suchergebnisse

Exhibits G : other documents including affidavits, letters, press and other published material, police files, photographs, plans and diagrams. People involved include Col. J Jonker, Henri Fouche, Col L du Plessis, Gen A J M Joubert, Major-General B Holomisa and Lieut.-General C P van der Westhuizen. ; EXHIBITS - GONIWE Gl Diagram: Die Nasionale Veiligheidsbestuurstelsel (NBVS) G2 Opsomende diagrammatiese uiteensetting van die NBVS tot met die 1985 noodtoestand G3 Declaration of destruction of classified documents/material G4. Fraser: Lessons learnt from past revolutionary wars GS Kol J Jonker: Photo album - Strand Street G6 . Memorandum of the South West Africa Bar Council G7 Jacques Pauw In the Heart of the Whore, p113 G8 Accountability in Namibia (Africa Watch) G9 Goniwe's Cradock File (ppl - 53) Aansoek vir in tamatie (p54) Extract from file (p55 - 58) G10 Goniwe's telephone transcripts 1985/06/21 • 1985/06/28 G11 Affidavit of Henri Fouche G12 Annexures A- F: Fouche G13 Race Relations' Survey 1983, pp608 - 609 G14 Race Relations Survey 1985 pp482 - 483 G15 Race Relations Survey 1992/ 1993 p28 G16 Record and reasons for finding: S v Hamakali G17 Faku Inquest: Docket G18 Faku Inquest: Photo's Gl9 EP Herald: 16 December 1989 G20 Faku Inquest: Investigation Diary G21 Description: Jetta Rear Axle G22 Beskadingsverslag: Staatsvoertuig G23 Map: Scene of explosion G24 Minutes: Inspection in loco G2S Photo's: Inspection in loco G26 Registration of Jetta G27 Back of Faku investigation docket G28 Faku docket: Name en addresse van getuies G29 Druktelegram GONIWE EXHIBITS: FILE 2 G30 Letter from Wagenaar to Col Du 'Plessis, dated 5 February 1993 G31 Letter from Wagenaar to Col Du Plessis, dated 2 March 1993 G32 McCuen mimeo G33 Joubert affidavit and CCB document G34 Original damaged Katzen documents G35 Katzen: Glossary G36 Katzen: List of names G37 G38 Letter from Col Du Plessis to commanding officer, EP Command G39 Note regarding Du Plessis' absence G40 Luus affidavit G41 Du Plessis evidence before commission G42 Letter from Maj-Gen Holomisa to State President G43 Du Plessis statement to New Nation G44 New Nation 8 - 14 May G4S Bank account: Du Plessis G46 'Verwyder' documents G47 Diagram: Rewo oorlog G4S Bank document: Du Plessis G49 Letter from Col Du Plessis to Cyril Ramaphosa G50 Bevelskrif: Van der Westhuizen (Pligstaat) G51 Curriculum vitae: Van der Westhuizen G52 Plan: offices of EP Command G53 Verslag deur Botha Marais dated 3 February 1985 G54 Pauw: Heart of the whore extract G55 OPGBS minutes: 23 February 1984 G56 Dictionary of military terms G57 Heitman - article (Militaria) G58 Kort kursus in - strategie vir amptenare G59 Lesing 10 G60 Minutes of PE GIS meeting: 1985-05-30 G61 New Nation 30 April - 7 May 1985 G62 The Undeclared War G63 Verplasing Nr S163373E Sersant F.Z. Koni G64 Oor- en verplasing Nr S163373E Sersant F.Z. Koni : vanaf Veiligheidstak, Cradock (BP 1801) na die Uniformtak, Cradock (BP 1801) G65 Ontlsag weens mediese ongeskiktheid : NR S163373E Konstabel F.Z. Koni G66 Memo: Verplasing : W66950H Sers G.H. Lourentz G67 Diensbeeindiging rekord Konstabel Elizabeth van Zyl G68 Mediese iname verslag G69 Intydese Persal Verslag: W A Roux G70 Oor- en verplasing : W86689T Adjudant-offisier W A Roux : vanaf Uniformtak, Cradock (BP 1801) na die Veiligheidstak, Cradock (BP 1801) G71A Besonderhede van voertuig G71B Vervanging: motorcar SAP 48549N G71C Vervanging: motorcar SAP 48549N G72 Ondersoekdagboek

From the beginning of the 1990's onwards, political analysts in all Western European countries discovered the contours of what they thought to be a widespread crisis of democracy. The alleged decline of political trust and public participation, and the rise of electoral volatility pointed out that the gap between politicians and citizens had never been wider. This political climate characterized by a deep-rooted crisis of democratic legitimacy offered an excellent breeding ground for critical reflection on the role, shape and function of democracy in modern societies. It gave rise to a fruitful quest for new and innovative ways of governing a democracy. It is in this turbulent period that the ideal of a deliberative democracy was coined (Dryzek 2000). A community of international scholars and philosophers, inspired by the work of Jürgen Habermas, became more and more convinced that a vibrant democracy is more than the aggregate of its individual citizens, and that democratic politics should be about more than merely voting. The quality of a democracy and the quality of democratic decisions, according to them, did not depend on the correct aggregation of individual preferences, but rather on the quality of the public debate that preceded the voting stage. Democratic decisions were thus no longer considered a function of mere compliance with aggregation rules. Instead, they were determined by extensive argumentation about political choices before voting on them. Because of its strong focus of public involvement in politics, this deliberative model of democracy started out in life as a theory of legitimacy (Benhabib 1996; Cohen 1997; Dryzek 2001; Parkinson 2006). By including everyone who is affected by a decision in the process leading to that decision, deliberation has important political merits: it is capable of generating political decisions that receive broad public support, even when there is strong disagreement on the aims and values a polity should promote (Geenens & Tinnevelt 2007, p. 47). After all, talking about political issues allows citizens to hear other perspectives to a problem and to see their own perspectives represented in the final decision. However, deliberation's beneficial effects do not come about easily. If deliberative democracy wants to contribute to increasing the legitimacy of the political system as a whole, it has to be legitimate in itself. In other words, deliberative events have to reflect the principles of legitimacy in their own functioning before their outcomes can generate legitimate political decisions. It is therefore crucial to assess the internal legitimacy of deliberative mini-publics before making claims about their contribution to the legitimacy of the political system as a whole. Our research question is therefore: to what extent can deliberative mini-publics live up to the criteria of democratic and political legitimacy? In this paper, we set out to assess the internal legitimacy of one specific deliberative event, namely the G1000 project in Belgium (Caluwaerts & Reuchamps, 2012). The G1000 project takes a particular place in the world of deliberative practice because it was not only grassroots in its process and its results, but also in its organization. Most deliberative events are introduced and funded by either public administrations or scientific institutions. The G1000 was rather considered a genuine citizens' initiative from its very inception. All of the organizers of the event were volunteers, and all of the funds were gathered using crowd funding. So instead of a scientific experiment, the G1000 was more of a democratic experiment by, through, and for citizens. This grass-root structure makes it a very interesting case for students of legitimacy, because as we will see later on it situated at the heart of the democratic trade-off between input and output legitimacy.

From the beginning of the 1990's onwards, political analysts in all Western European countries discovered the contours of what they thought to be a widespread crisis of democracy. The alleged decline of political trust and public participation, and the rise of electoral volatility pointed out that the gap between politicians and citizens had never been wider. This political climate characterized by a deep-rooted crisis of democratic legitimacy offered an excellent breeding ground for critical reflection on the role, shape and function of democracy in modern societies. It gave rise to a fruitful quest for new and innovative ways of governing a democracy. It is in this turbulent period that the ideal of a deliberative democracy was coined (Dryzek 2000). A community of international scholars and philosophers, inspired by the work of Jürgen Habermas, became more and more convinced that a vibrant democracy is more than the aggregate of its individual citizens, and that democratic politics should be about more than merely voting. The quality of a democracy and the quality of democratic decisions, according to them, did not depend on the correct aggregation of individual preferences, but rather on the quality of the public debate that preceded the voting stage. Democratic decisions were thus no longer considered a function of mere compliance with aggregation rules. Instead, they are determined by extensive argumentation about political choices before voting on them. Because of its strong focus of public involvement in politics, this deliberative model of democracy started out in life as a theory of legitimacy (Benhabib 1996; Cohen 2002; Dryzek 2001; Parkinson 2006). By including everyone who is affected by a decision in the process leading to that decision, deliberation has important political merits: it is capable of generating political decisions that receive broad public support, even when there is strong disagreement on the aims and values a polity should promote (Geenens & Tinnevelt 2007, p. 47). After all, talking about political issues allows citizens to hear other perspectives to a problem and to see their own perspectives represented in the final decision. As such, deliberative democracy seeks to score high on input, throughput and output legitimacy. However, deliberation's beneficial effects do not come about easily. If deliberative democracy wants to contribute to increasing the legitimacy of the political system as a whole, it has to be legitimate in itself. In other words, deliberative events have to reflect the principles of legitimacy in their own functioning before their outcomes can generate legitimate political decisions. It is therefore crucial to assess the internal legitimacy of deliberative mini-publics before making claims about their contribution to the legitimacy of the political system as a whole. In this paper, we set out to assess the internal legitimacy of one specific deliberative event, namely the G1000 project in Belgium (Caluwaerts & Reuchamps, 2012a). Our research question is therefore: to what extent does the G1000 live up to the criteria of input, throughput and output legitimacy? The G1000 project takes a particular place in the world of deliberative practice because it was not only grass roots in its process and its results, but also in its organization. Most deliberative events are introduced and funded by either public administrations or scientific institutions. The G1000 was rather considered a citizens' initiative from its very inception. All of the organizers of the event were volunteers, and all of the funds were gathered using crowd funding. So instead of a scientific experiment, the G1000 was more of a democratic experiment by, through, and for citizens. This grass-root structure makes it a very interesting case for students of legitimacy, because as we will see later on it situated at the heart of the democratic trade-off between input and output legitimacy.