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

Protection of Information bill- opinions from our experts
2011-11-28

Prof. Hussein Solomon
Senior Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of the Free State. 

In recent years, given their failure to effectively govern, the ANC has become increasingly defensive. These defensive traits have become particularly acute in light of the various corruption scandals that members of the ruling party involve themselves in.
 
Given the fact that for now they are assured of an electoral majority (largely on account of their anti-apartheid credentials), coupled with the fact that they have managed to make parliament a rubber stamp of the executive as opposed to holding the executive accountable, it is the media which has increasingly held the ruling party to account by exposing such corruption and incompetence in government.
 
The passing of the information bill, therefore, is not merely an attack on the media, but an attack on the pivotal issue of accountability. Without accountability, there can be no democracy.
 
By defining national interest broadly, by refusing to accept a public interest clause in the bill, the ANC increasingly shows its disdain to South Africa's constitution and its citizens.
 
More importantly, as former Minister of Intelligence and ANC stalwart Ronnie Kasrils pointedly makes clear, the ANC is also betraying its own noble struggle against the odious apartheid regime. It was the media which played a key role in exposing apartheid's excesses, it is the same media which is coming under attack by the heirs of PW Botha's State Security Council - Minister of State Security Siyabong Cwele and his security apparatchiks whose mindsets reflect more Stalin's Gulag's than the values of the Freedom Charter.
 
The passing of this bill is also taking place at a time when journalists have had their phones attacked, where the judiciary has been deliberately undermined and parliament silenced.
 
Democrats beware!

 
Prof. Johann de Wet
Chairperson: Department of Communication Science 
 
The ANC’s insistence on passing the Protection of State Information Bill in its current form and enforcing it by law, means that the essence of our democratic state and the quality of life of every citizen is at stake.
 
Yes, our freedom as academics, researchers, mass media practitioners and citizens comes into play. Freedom implies the right to choose and is, along with equality, an underlying principle which helps make democracy happen. While the South African state needs to protect (classify) information which could threaten its security and/or survival, the omission of a public interest clause in the Bill at this stage effectively denies a citizen the right to freedom of information.
 
 Freedom of information, along with press freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association and religious freedom, are essential to democracy. These freedoms are granted because they conform to basic liberal ideas associated with (Western) democracy and which resonate with South Africa’s liberal constitution, such as (1) belief in the supreme value of the individual (and thus not of the state); (2) belief that the individual has natural rights (rights which belong to all human beings by nature – such as the right to life and to control government)) which exist independently of government, and which ought to be protected by and against government; and (3) recognition of the supreme value of the individual. 
 
One wonders how many cases of South African government corruption and mismanagement would have been uncovered by investigative journalists over the past number of years if this Bill in its current form was on the statute books. This Bill represents a backward step from the promise of democracy of having an informed public. The former National Party government had similar laws in place and one does not want to go there again. The infamous Information Scandal in South Africa of some thirty years ago, or Muldergate as it has come to be known, reminds one of what governments can do when it works clandestinely.
 
What South Africans need, is more information on what government structures are doing and how they are doing it with taxpayers’ money, not less information. While information in itself does not equal communication or dialogue, it is an indispensable part thereof, and the need for dialogue based on verifiable information is urgent for meeting vexed challenges facing South African communities. Academics in all fields of specialisation are constantly in need of untainted information to pursue answers and/or offer solutions to where South Africa should be moving in all spheres of life.

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