DEAR Editor,-

The recent adoption of acceptance of a naturist beach at Trafalgar refers. This complex decision was not taken lightly by me when I considered my vote to count against the adoption of the motion.

I had to reconcile my liberal stance where individual rights are protected by our constitution. However the constitution protects all rights and enforces me as a public representative to take all citizens’ rights into account.

I received many representations from the constituency that I represent and my duty is to consider their opinions and beliefs. Public hearings also fed my understanding that the vast majority of residents in the area, that I am mandated to represent, were opposed to the motion for a variety of reasons. These included individuals, churches, traditional authorities and representative associations active in my area of mandated responsibility.

Now whilst I may have my personal views and I argued these, I am mandated by the vast majority will of the people. Argument and motivation was proposed that supported the motion and this was limited to the economic potential that naturism will bring to our area and the potential jobs that this will create. In an area of such extreme poverty, this was a strong point to consider and has real implications.

Economic considerations however have to be weighed against the will of the people. There was no counter argument put that the state of our beach facilities, associated infrastructure and general economic management all are desperately in need of upgrading and there is a crying need for proper service delivery that would improve the image and marketability of our whole municipality.

This would bring real economic opportunity to all citizens. This topic is well argued in many forums and taking a small, localised aspect of our product mix and giving it precedence over the will of the people is disingenuous. We need to urgently upgrade our total infrastructure and product mix as a real way to bring lasting economic opportunity to our citizens.

I am extremely proud of my party, the DA, in that we are allowed to adopt individual stances on issues such as this and are not instructed by our leadership but can vote with our individual conscience. That certainly trumps the ruling party in our council where there was an obvious caucus instruction to override the inputs from citizens. The public participation phase clearly showed the will of the people, yet the ANC chose to disregard this and obviously instructed their cadres to toe the party line. We saw many ANC councillors being totally opposed to the concept, yet they still voted en masse for the motion!

The administration had the temerity to submit input that they had investigated the constitution and therefore concluded and presented their interpretation of what the constitution entails. This is a new development where the administration of a municipality gives interpretations of our constitution. I always assumed that that was the realm of the constitutional court alone. Administration’s job is to implement council policy and advise on systems available under the law.

They are also empowered to apply the policy and budget as decided by council in the ongoing service delivery process. No more powers are given to them by law and they certainly should not be influencing council in its policy determinations by interpreting the constitution. Future applications by defined interest groups are now going to be very difficult to consider. Whilst the rights of citizens are clearly enshrined in our constitution, these rights do not trump the protection afforded to citizens by the very same constitution.

To sum up, I voted against the motion because it went against the will of the majority of residents in my area of mandated representation. I even had to subject my liberal principles to the test of responsibility as a public representative. I may not fully agree with the beliefs and attitudes of the citizens in the area, but I have to champion their cause and have been so mandated. I will now advise local residents to respect the motion that was passed in council.

DAVE WATSON

DA