MADLANGA J such choices are deserving of protection under section 18. Indeed, I read Woolman to make a similar point.77 Many of the life practices we follow have nothing to do with well thought-out choices. Some are “arational” choices dictated by the world we live in.78 One may be a member of a certain religion not because she or he has made a conscious decision in that regard, but purely because that is the religion she or he grew up in. Likewise, one may follow certain cultural practices and thereby commune with certain groups of people in furtherance of their culture. And that may be for no reason other than that that’s what she or he was socialised into. So, some of our associational relations may not have been chosen. “They just are.”79 But they may be deserving of protection. All this must also apply to arational choices not to associate. Again, that is subject to constitutionally compliant curtailment by the state. UDM II80 shows us that Ms Revell’s concerns are not idle. At issue was whether – at a motion of no confidence against former President Jacob Zuma – individual members of the National Assembly could vote in accordance with their conscience as opposed to the position of their political parties. This Court held: “As is the case with general elections where a secret ballot is deemed necessary to enhance the freeness and fairness of the elections, so it is with the election of the President by the National Assembly. This allows Members to exercise their vote freely and effectively, in accordance with the conscience of each, without undue influence, intimidation or fear of disapproval by others. 77 Woolman in Currie and de Waal above n 27 at 398-9 and in Woolman et al above n 27 at 9-14. 78 Compare Woolman id. 79 Id. 80 United Democratic Movement v Speaker, National Assembly [2017] ZACC 21; 2017 (5) SA 300 (CC); 2017 (8) BCLR 1061 (CC). 26