MADLANGA J and that law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid, Parliament cannot have carte blanche. Pronouncing in a different, but relevant context, this Court said in New National Party: “It is to be emphasised that it is for Parliament to determine the means by which voters must identify themselves . . . . But this does not mean that Parliament is at large in determining the way in which the electoral scheme is to be structured. There are important safeguards aimed at ensuring appropriate protection for citizens who desire to exercise this foundational right. The first of the constitutional constraints placed upon Parliament is that there must be a rational relationship between the scheme which it adopts and the achievement of a legitimate governmental purpose. Parliament cannot act capriciously or arbitrarily. The absence of such a rational connection will result in the measure being unconstitutional. An objector who challenges the electoral scheme on these grounds bears the onus of establishing the absence of a legitimate government purpose, or the absence of a rational relationship between the measure and that purpose. A second constraint is that the electoral scheme must not infringe any of the fundamental rights enshrined in chapter 2 of the Constitution.”98 The question is whether the choice made in the Electoral Act is constitutional. That is a question I am yet to determine. Sections 47(3)(c) and 106(3)(c) The two sections respectively provide that a person loses membership of the National Assembly or Provincial Legislature if she or he ceases to be a member of the party that nominated her or him for membership. According to the respondents, that supports the view that membership of these legislative institutions is exclusively party based. The first applicant countered this by submitting that this means no more than that it is the membership of members nominated by parties that is lost in this manner. That says nothing about loss of membership of members who were not sponsored by parties. Nor is it in any way indicative of their exclusion from membership. I agree. 98 New National Party above n 11 at paras 19-20. 35