Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
13 March 2018 Photo Johan Roux
Prof Heidi Hudson appointed as UFS Dean of the Faculty of the Humanities
Prof Heidi Hudson, Dean of the Faculty of the Humanities.

The Council of the University of the Free State (UFS) approved the appointment of Prof Heidi Hudson as Dean of the Faculty of the Humanities during a meeting on the Bloemfontein Campus on 22 January 2018. She assumed office on 1 March 2018.

Prof Hudson is a Professor of International Relations with a PhD in Strategic Studies, and has been recognised for her undisputed international standing, which resulted in the awarding of a B2 rating by the National Research Foundation, effective from 1 January 2018. She was co-editor of The International Feminist Journal of Politics for the past six and a half years, as well as a Global Fellow of the Peace Research Institute in Oslo (2014-2016). Prof Hudson currently serves on the Advisory Board of the African Peacebuilding Network at the Social Science Research Council in New York. In 2018, she will also be the Claude Ake Visiting Chair, hosted by the Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University and the Nordic Africa Institute. Her Claude Ake Memorial Lecture will focus on the decolonisation of gender and peacebuilding in Africa. 

“Prof Hudson is a well-respected researcher and senior manager and will add immense value to the faculty. She has been associated with the UFS for almost 25 years and the institutional memory she brings to the position is indispensable. I look forward to working with her and to support her in realising her vision for the faculty,” says Prof Francis Petersen, UFS Rector and Vice-Chancellor. 
 
Prof Hudson started her academic career at the UFS, spent six years at the former University of Durban-Westville (1991-1996), after which she re-joined the Department of Political Science at the UFS, where she was Departmental Chairperson from 2006 to 2007. In 2009, she joined the Centre for Africa Studies as Africa Studies programme director (2009-2011), and has been the Director of the centre since September 2012. The centre was recently externally evaluated and the positive report testifies to her leadership. Prof Hudson managed to increase the centre’s international footprint in a short space of time and effected an increase in research outputs, as well as PhD enrolment and output.   
 
In addition to serving on the Faculty Committee of the Humanities, she is a long-standing member of the Faculty Research Committee and also chaired the Portfolio Committee on Quality Assurance (2005-2008), while also serving on the UFS Quality Assurance Committee (until 2008). She was Senate representative on the Institutional Forum (August 2013–July 2017) and a member of the UFS Gender Committee (until 2006). She was recently nominated to serve on the Senate Research Committee.
 
Prof Hudson has been acting in the position of Dean: Faculty of the Humanities since 1 October 2017. Her vision for the faculty includes, among others, curriculum renewal, interdisciplinary research, and improved governance at middle-management level.

News Archive

Media: Sunday Times
2006-05-20

Sunday Times, 4 June 2006

True leadership may mean admitting disunity
 

In this edited extract from the inaugural King Moshoeshoe Memorial Lecture at the University of the Free State, Professor Njabulo S Ndebele explores the leadership challenges facing South Africa

RECENT events have created a sense that we are undergoing a serious crisis of leadership in our new democracy. An increasing number of highly intelligent, sensitive and committed South Africans, across class, racial and cultural spectrums, confess to feeling uncertain and vulnerable as never before since 1994.

When indomitable optimists confess to having a sense of things unhinging, the misery of anxiety spreads. We have the sense that events are spiralling out of control and that no one among the leadership of the country seems to have a definitive handle on things.

There can be nothing more debilitating than a generalised and undefined sense of anxiety in the body politic. It breeds conspiracies and fear.

There is an impression that a very complex society has developed, in the last few years, a rather simple, centralised governance mechanism in the hope that delivery can be better and more quickly driven. The complexity of governance then gets located within a single structure of authority rather than in the devolved structures envisaged in the Constitution, which should interact with one another continuously, and in response to their specific settings, to achieve defined goals. Collapse in a single structure of authority, because there is no robust backup, can be catastrophic.

The autonomy of devolved structures presents itself as an impediment only when visionary cohesion collapses. Where such cohesion is strong, the impediment is only illusory, particularly when it encourages healthy competition, for example, among the provinces, or where a province develops a character that is not necessarily autonomous politically but rather distinctive and a special source of regional pride. Such competition brings vibrancy to the country. It does not necessarily challenge the centre.

Devolved autonomy is vital in the interests of sustainable governance. The failure of various structures to actualise their constitutionally defined roles should not be attributed to the failure of the prescribed governance mechanism. It is too early to say that what we have has not worked. The only viable corrective will be in our ability to be robust in identifying the problems and dealing with them concertedly.

We have never had social cohesion in South Africa — certainly not since the Natives’ Land Act of 1913. What we definitely have had over the decades is a mobilising vision. Could it be that the mobilising vision, mistaken for social cohesion, is cracking under the weight of the reality and extent of social reconstruction, and that the legitimate framework for debating these problems is collapsing? If that is so, are we witnessing a cumulative failure of leadership?

I am making a descriptive rather than an evaluative inquiry. I do not believe that there is any single entity to be blamed. It is simply that we may be a country in search of another line of approach. What will it be?

I would like to suggest two avenues of approach — an inclusive model and a counter-intuitive model of leadership.

In an inclusive approach, leadership is exercised not only by those who have been put in some position of power to steer an organisation or institution. Leadership is what all of us do when we express, sincerely, our deepest feelings and thoughts; when we do our work, whatever it is, with passion and integrity.

Counter-intuitive leadership lies in the ability of leaders to read a problematic situation, assess probable outcomes and then recognise that those outcomes will only compound the problem. Genuine leadership, in this sense, requires going against probability in seeking unexpected outcomes. That’s what happened when we avoided a civil war and ended up with an “unexpected” democracy.

Right now, we may very well hear desperate calls for unity, when the counter-intuitive imperative would be to acknowledge disunity. A declaration of unity where it manifestly does not appear to exist will fail to reassure.

Many within the “broad alliance” might have the view that the mobilising vision of old may have transformed into a strategy of executive steering with a disposition towards an expectation of compliance. No matter how compelling the reasons for that tendency, it may be seen as part of a cumulative process in which popular notions of democratic governance are apparently undermined and devalued; and where public uncertainty in the midst of seeming crisis induces fear which could freeze public thinking at a time when more voices ought to be heard.

Could it be that part of the problem is that we are unable to deal with the notion of opposition? We are horrified that any of us could be seen to have become “the opposition”. The word has been demonised. In reality, it is time we began to anticipate the arrival of a moment when there is no longer a single, overwhelmingly dominant political force as is currently the case. Such is the course of history. The measure of the maturity of the current political environment will be in how it can create conditions that anticipate that moment rather than seek to prevent it. We see here once more the essential creativity of the counter-intuitive imperative.

This is the formidable challenge of a popular post-apartheid political movement. Can it conceptually anticipate a future when it is no longer overwhelmingly in control, in the form in which it is currently, and resist, counter-intuitively, the temptation to prevent such an eventuality? Successfully resisting such an option would enable its current vision and its ultimate legacy to our country to manifest in different articulations, which then contend for social influence. In this way, the vision never really dies; it simply evolves into higher, more complex forms of itself. Consider the metaphor of flying ants replicating the ant community by establishing new ones.

We may certainly experience the meaning of comradeship differently, where we will now have “comrades on the other side”.

Any political movement that imagines itself as a perpetual entity should look at the compelling evidence of history. Few movements have survived those defining moments when they should have been more elastic, and that because they were not, did not live to see the next day.

I believe we may have reached a moment not fundamentally different from the sobering, yet uplifting and vision-making, nation-building realities that led to Kempton Park in the early ’90s. The difference between then and now is that the black majority is not facing white compatriots across the negotiating table. Rather, it is facing itself: perhaps really for the first time since 1994. Could we apply to ourselves the same degree of inventiveness and rigorous negotiation we displayed leading up to the adoption or our Constitution?

This is not a time for repeating old platitudes. It is the time, once more, for vision.

In the total scheme of things, the outcome could be as disastrous as it could be formative and uplifting, setting in place the conditions for a true renaissance that could be sustained for generations to come.

Ndebele is Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cape Town and author of the novel The Cry of Winnie Mandela

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept