MADLANGA J afforded by section 19(1). Effectively that gives rise to a conflict between the two subsections. As Ngcobo J tells us in Doctors for Life, this must be avoided: “[W]here there are provisions in the Constitution that appear to be in conflict with each other, the proper approach is to examine them to ascertain whether they can reasonably be reconciled. And they must be construed in a manner that gives full effect to each. Provisions in the Constitution should not be construed in a manner that results in them being in conflict with each other. Rather, they should be construed in a manner that harmonises them. In S v Rens, this Court held that ‘[i]t was not to be assumed that provisions in the same constitution are contradictory’ and that ‘[t]he two provisions ought, if possible, to be construed in such a way as to harmonise with one another’.”24 I cannot but incline towards the applicants’ reading of section 19(3)(b). On that reading there is consonance between the two subsections. At best for the respondents, section 19(3)(b) appears to be neutral. On its face, it does not say that when an adult citizen wants to exercise the right “to stand for public office and, if elected, to hold office”, she or he must do so through a political party. It is exactly because of that appearance of neutrality that we must avoid the conflict that otherwise results. Relevance of section 18 to the content of section 19(3)(b) If the content of section 19(3)(b) entails that an adult citizen desirous of standing for and holding political office may not be able to do so without forming or joining a political party, that pits section 19(3)(b) against section 18. That immediately becomes a weighty consideration in determining the content of the section 19(3)(b) right. Therein lies the relevance of the right to freedom of association in this discourse. The 24 Doctors for Life International v Speaker of the National Assembly [2006] ZACC 11; 2006 (6) SA 416 (CC); 2006 (12) BCLR 1399 (CC) at para 48. The Court had made this same point earlier in UDM I above n 21 at para 83 and in Matatiele Municipality v President of the RSA (No 2) [2006] ZACC 12; 2007 (6) SA 477 (CC); 2007 (1) BCLR 47 (CC) (Matatiele) at para 36. See also Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Gauteng Development Tribunal [2010] ZACC 11; 2010 (6) SA 182 (CC); 2010 (9) BCLR 859 (CC) at para 61. 10