Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
06 May 2019 | Story Prof Francis Petersen | Photo Sonia Small
Prof Petersen opinion piece
Prof Francis Petersen is Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Free State.

OPINION ARTICLE BY PROF FRANCIS PETERSEN, UFS RECTOR AND VICE-CHANCELLOR



The youth must vote, and political patronising must fall; or else our calls for young people to exercise their hard-won right to vote, will continue to be ignored.

South Africa’s youth does not have a culture of voting. And it is getting worse – that much is clear from statistics.

Earlier this year, the Electoral Commission of South Africa indicated that young people aged 18-19 make up only 16% of the voters’ roll. This is a sharp decline from the 34% in the 2014 national elections.

Those who do register to vote, often decide in the end not to cast their ballots. For example, in the 2016 local government elections, only 50% of registered voters aged 20 to 39 showed up at the polls on voting day.

Apathy vs disillusionment

Is it because young people simply do not care about the future of our country?

I would be very surprised if this was the case – as it simply does not line up with my experiences with the majority of students on the three campuses of the University of the Free State (UFS). What I often encounter, is young people who are keen to make a difference in society, but who are sceptical to do it via political means.

Studies done by the Institute for Security Studies and others seem to support this, concluding that young people have high expectations of politics and democracy, but find party politics confusing and alienating.  From their youthful vantage point, they seem to cut through the rhetoric quite easily, and quickly see when the promises and actions of politicians do not line up.

This leads understandably to young people who have very low levels of trust in political leaders. They also feel increasingly alienated by government’s lack of responsiveness to their needs, poor service delivery, and corruption.

It does not seem to point to apathy, but rather that young voters are using non-voting to protest a political climate where they feel they are not being heard.

Young people have shown signs of dissatisfaction with the currently available choices of political parties – making it more and more difficult to attract them to vote for political parties they cannot relate to.

Protest more effective

And why should they vote? Young South Africans have found that they often accomplish more through protest than through participation. The 2015-2016 #RhodesMustFall and #FeesMustFall movements bear stark evidence of this, where a concerted, coercive student effort seems to have forced the hand of government where traditional communication channels failed.

It is a dangerous situation when established systems of governance are circumvented and replaced with more radical means, simply because quicker and better results are obtained in this way.

The all-important youth voice

The bottom line is that we need our youth to become involved in order to be an effective democracy. Effective governance requires participation, and a low voter turnout weakens the quality of a democracy.

South Africa has one of the youngest populations in the world. More than 58% of our population is under the age of 30 years. This translates into a significant voter block that simply cannot be ignored.

By exercising their considerable voting power, young people can ensure that issues they deem relevant and important are prioritised.

Advances in technology and connectivity mean our youth are probably more equipped to make informed decisions than any generation before them. But somehow, all this access to information, opinions, and analysis is still not motivating them to take action by voting.

The challenge remains to provide them with political-party options that they can identify with, that actively promote issues of importance to them, and that follow through on promises with real action.

Creating responsible citizens

Our institutions of higher education are doing what we can to produce not only well-equipped, employable workers, but also good, responsible citizens.

At the UFS, we have a renewed focus on providing a safe space where openness, tolerance, diversity, and inclusivity are actively promoted. In April, we celebrated Social Justice Week through a range of events and activities aimed not only at sensitising our student population to social-justice issues, but also giving them an opportunity to actively participate in promoting it on various platforms.

Through our Free State Centre for Human Rights, the UFS is also compiling a set of guidelines for protests and political activities, making sure there is an ever-present human-rights foundation guiding the actions of and consequences for protesting students, non-protesting students, and security staff.

We train and appoint Human Rights ambassadors in our hostels to help establish mutual tolerance, non-discrimination, and transformation in on-campus living spaces.

Our Office for Student Leadership Development offers initiatives such as selective leadership programmes that cater for high-achieving student leaders who show potential.

We want to develop effective, agile, and inclusive student leaders. And, we want to equip them to become part of a new generation of responsible, forward-thinking, and innovative national leaders. If they cannot find a suitable political home that matches their expectations, they should have the skills and drive to create their own.

Yes – it is time for young people to vote.

But it is also time for our current elected leaders to take them seriously, and to really listen to the concerns of our youth.

If they don’t, we can in all probability expect more protest initiatives, perhaps of an increasingly violent and destructive nature. Moving further and further away from a healthy democracy and edging closer and closer towards anarchy.

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

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