{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017412935323383085, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.764705882352941, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Explaining South Africa's Bill of Rights: an interpretive approach

Ideational approaches to politics are frequently criticised for indeterminacy. In comparative constitutional politics, critics have alleged that the ‘human rights revolution’ cannot explain why bills of rights were adopted in different places and different times. Ideational scholars have not responded convincingly. Focusing on the famous South African case study, and drawing on theories of belief formation and legitimation in interpretive political science, this paper argues that new beliefs can be explained by historically specifiable dilemmas. It uses process-tracing to show how scholars have mistakenly assumed that key players in the post-apartheid transition only adopted beliefs in rights in order to rationalise interests.