News
Why constitutional states are struggling in a power-first world
There was a time when being legally correct was enough. In 2026, that comfort no longer exists.
South Africa has reached a point where its foreign policy is not just being read but interpreted, priced, and judged in real time. The issue is no longer whether the country acts within its Constitution. The issue is whether anyone believes it is acting with strategic intent.
This is not a distant storm on the horizon. It is already here.
A world where power speaks first
Across the globe, international politics is shifting away from a patient legal process towards speed, visibility, and force. Military signalling, economic pressure, and strategic intimidation increasingly replace institutions and treaties as the language of influence.
For constitutional democracies, this creates a problem. They are built to slow power down. Decisions are debated. Authority is constrained. Action must be justified.
In theory, that restraint is the strength of democracy. In practice, it is now often misread as hesitation.
In a system shaped by urgency and projection, silence looks like indecision. Complexity looks like evasion. Principle without visibility becomes vulnerability.
South Africa in the spotlight
South Africa’s hosting of BRICS Plus naval exercises with China, Russia, and Iran pushed this tension into the open. Pretoria framed the drills as routine cooperation linked to maritime security and economic stability. International reaction, especially from the United States, was swift and critical.
The controversy was not rooted in legality. South Africa broke no law. The reaction was about perception, alignment, and power.
As a pluralist middle power, South Africa sits in a difficult position. When global politics hardens into opposing camps, states that refuse to pick sides are often misread rather than admired.
This is the risk of non-alignment in an age that demands clarity.
Why ambiguity now carries a price
Markets do not wait for legal footnotes. They respond to signals.
When a state appears strategically unclear, uncertainty is priced in immediately. Investors hesitate. Trade partners hedge. Borrowing costs rise. This happens long before any formal sanction or dispute exists.
In today’s securitised global economy, geopolitical confidence matters as much as economic fundamentals. Constitutional virtue does not insulate a country from market reaction.
South Africa cannot assume that acting lawfully will protect it from economic consequences if its intentions are not clearly projected.
The restraint paradox
Constitutional democracies are designed to restrain power for good reason. Oversight prevents abuse. Transparency protects legitimacy.
Yet in a world where diplomacy increasingly communicates through force, restraint is often mistaken for unreliability.
This is the paradox South Africa faces. Its greatest institutional strength is being misread as a strategic weakness.
That misreading is not abstract. It shapes alliances, investment decisions, and diplomatic trust.
From explanation to articulation
The solution is not abandoning the Constitution. It is using it deliberately.
South Africa cannot afford to explain itself only after criticism erupts. Legal reasoning must be communicated at the moment decisions are taken, not retrofitted in response to backlash.
Non-alignment needs to be framed as a consistent doctrine grounded in international law, not a defensive position adopted under pressure. Defence activity, diplomacy, and constitutional justification must move together, not in isolation.
Communication is no longer an accessory to statecraft. It is central to credibility and economic stability.
Why this cannot be done alone
No constitutional democracy can defend a rules-based order in isolation. In a multipolar world, influence survives only when principles are translated into collective leverage.
Coalitions of constitutional states, grounded in shared legal commitments, remain one of the few effective counterweights to unilateral power.
If these states fail to coordinate, the rules-based order will not erode gently. It will be overwritten.
What is really at stake
This is not a technical debate about foreign policy messaging. It is about democracy itself.
Rules exist to protect weaker states from coercion, to limit force, and to keep power constrained. When those rules weaken internationally, domestic constitutionalism becomes harder to sustain. External power politics eventually seep inward.
South Africa’s choices, therefore, matter beyond its borders. Silence or ambiguity does not preserve neutrality. It accelerates erosion.
South Africa does not need to retreat from its Constitution to survive this moment. It needs to project it with clarity, confidence, and urgency.
Law will not defend itself. Democracy will not survive on good intentions alone.
If constitutional states fail to act now, the world that follows will not be governed by rules but by whoever speaks loudest and moves fastest. History suggests that it is rarely the wisest voice in the room.
That is not a future South Africa, or any democracy, can afford.
Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter, TikT
For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com
Source: IOL
Featured Image: Freepik
