In stark contrast, President Jacob Zuma welcomed Equatorial Guinea President Teodoro Obiang Nguema, with open arms. Obiang is a tyrant to top tyrants: in power since 1979, he has silenced any effective opposition. Not content to merely welcome him, Zuma sprang to his defence over a United Nations (UN) prize that, owing to human rights lobbying around the world, Obiang has been denied the opportunity of sponsoring.

And while the manner of Muammar Gaddafi’s death can inspire no confidence in the human rights pedigree of Libya’s National Transitional Council, SA’s ruling party chose not to use the occasion to address itself to the new Libyan leaders but instead seemed intent on directing a gleeful "told you so" to the West.

Such decisions have led one independent reviewer, examining the world’s six most influential rising democracies — Brazil, India, Indonesia, SA, South Korea and Turkey — in terms of their support for democracy and human rights outside their borders, to conclude that SA "is perhaps the most disappointing".

SA might believe that, as a developmental state principally, it can not afford the fancy of principle. But it would be wrong. Principle isn’t only morally right; it’s often smart in the sense of providing tactical advantage.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has sought to characterise the US’s foreign policy approach as one of "smart power" — a blend of principle and pragmatism that makes "intelligent use of all means at our disposal". That the US has sought to elevate this term will likely be viewed by SA’s government as reason enough to reject its philosophy. But it is not as if US foreign policy consistently reflects this approach. As was evident in its recent selling out of the Palestinians at the UN, the US conducted itself neither with principle nor pragmatism.

Rather, for a clever display of smart power in action, the South African government need only look in its own backyard: at SA’s courts.

It is widely recognised that globalisation has made for a disaggregated state at the international level. No longer are states represented in the world solely by executive leaders and their diplomats. Increasingly, regulators, MPs, and judges engage across national lines and speak for their respective countries.

But while judges participate in international exchanges and conferences in the same way as other national representatives do, they also have a unique ability to engage in international discussion and debate: through the citation and examination of other countries’ court decisions in their own judgments.

Through such citation and examination, influence is spread and values promoted. In this way, courts and judges become international thought leaders. And there can be no doubt that SA’s courts, particularly its Constitutional Court, are just such leaders.

Since its inception, the Constitutional Court has demonstrated no intellectual timidity, engaging robustly with judgments from other jurisdictions in a bid to fashion a South African approach. More telling, in terms of influence and respect, is the extent to which SA’s judgments are cited authoritatively and approvingly by foreign courts and studied by foreign legal academics. And here, SA plays a powerful role disproportionate to its size.

It stands head and shoulders above any of the other Brics countries, bar India, or any of the other influential rising democracies. Brazilian jurisprudence is not examined or cited in international law journals with the same frequency as South African court decisions. There are not academic courses in law schools around the world devoted to the study of Turkey’s constitution and its courts’ judgments in the way there are of SA’s.

Of course, it is not the intellectual rigour — the smartness — of our judges that alone accounts for the influence of our court decisions. Rather, the interest is generated by our constitution itself. Here is proof that principle pays.

If promotion of influence is a primary goal of foreign relations, and smart power represents the ability to leverage influence, given the means available, then SA’s courts may be the ultimate purveyors.

• Fritz is the director of the Southern Africa Litigation Centre.

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=157998