Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
18 June 2020 | Story Prof Karin van Marle and Prof Danie Brand | Photo Supplied
Prof Karen van Marle,left, and Prof Danie Brand.

What are our human rights in the COVID-19 crisis – not which rights do we have, but what are they as social institutions, what are they supposed to do for us? How do rights assist us in world-making? What kind of worlds can they make?

Thomas Hobbes uses rights to justify a strong unitary state. His main problem was how to ensure peace and order – in the current crisis perhaps how to prevent the spread of the virus and ensure our safety and freedom from infection. Hobbes is concerned about the ‘state of nature’, with no authority, no unity, and no foundational principles: a state of total disorder where “the life of man (sic) [is] solitary, brutish, and short”. For Hobbes, anyone with reason will seek to get out of this state of disorder by giving up all rights to the state so that it can create and maintain peace and order – pledging complete, permanent obedience in return for peace and order. In his view, the sovereign has the monopoly to make laws and to enforce them. Human rights here are a justification for the exercise of absolute state power: we hand over our rights so that the state may protect us from chaos. What our rights are, what they entitle us to, and what should be done to advance them – world-making – is handed over to the state. We become passive recipients of state rule.

John Locke also starts with the state of nature – not a state of chaos and danger, but one of orderly relations in the form of natural law. For him, humans are born equal and have natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Humans in Locke’s state of nature are not concerned with their safety and security against chaos but are driven by individual interest. Hence, we place our rights in trust with the state to protect our individual interests in the context of the individual rights of others. We may revolt against the state if it does not protect our individual rights.  Individual freedom and property are central, and individuals create worlds motivated by self-interest. Living in this world is not about sharing it with others, but about protecting and enjoying it for the self.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau sees the social contract as a means of creating equality and collective self-government. The natural freedom of the state of nature has been lost and civil society is enchained. It is only by giving up the natural right to freedom that the social contract can be made possible. At stake here is not individual autonomy or private interest, but general constraint of the common interest. The social contract here is an association where persons unite while remaining free, enabling association based on the common good. He introduces the general will as a way of overcoming decision-making based on individual interest: laws of the state must reflect a concrete community ethos. Rousseau underscores the importance of the state and its law upholding the common interest, not by authoritarian rule but through popular sovereignty. Here, members of a community work together to create a world that reflects a sense of common good. Living and the good life means a life where everyone shares and has equal stakes in the governance and enjoyment of the world.

In more contemporary transformative understandings, human rights require us to talk about and decide together about what is good for all of us, how we can best live together. The overriding concern is what kind of world do we, as a people, want to construct and maintain? As Jennifer Nedelsky (2011), for example, will have it – once a right has been identified, the conversation starts, not ends. This alternative to a classic liberal understanding of rights is to regard it as relational rather than boundary-like structures. It allows individual interests to overlap and sometimes even conflict with one another, but not in a model of stronger rights trumping weaker ones.

This third understanding of rights and how it regulates our relationship with others is closely aligned to the predominant understanding of rights in our Constitution. Its emphasis on state accountability, transparency in decision-making, engaged democracy, and the boundedness of state power clearly eschews Hobbesian absolute state power that is ostensibly exercised in the interest of us all. Its embrace of substantive equality, of rights to food, water, housing, education, and health care and of demands for redress of past injustices, show a concern not only for individual interest, but for fashioning ways of living better together. Its insistence that rights may only be limited for a public purpose, the achievement of which the limitation is rationally related, and the importance of which is proportionate to its impact on individual rights, shows a concern not only for the public good, but also for engendering conversation about what that public good entails and how best to achieve it.

Despite this, human rights in the COVID-19 crisis have mostly been asserted in either Hobbesian or Lockean terms. We hear of human rights in government’s angry response to criticism of the National Coronavirus Command Council, that its decisions should not be questioned and need not be transparent as they are taken in order to protect all our rights to life and health – i.e., we have ‘given up’ our rights so that we may be ‘protected’ from death and disorder. Hobbes also appears in the skop, skiet en donder of our police and defence force’s enforcement of regulations under lockdown. Again, the idea seems to be that we have given up our rights to the freedom and security of the person and freedom from state violence in return for being protected against the ravages of the virus. Locke’s notion of individual freedom haunts complaints about the limitations placed on, for example, individuals’ freedom of movement, freedom of association, freedom to trade – the threats by big business to disregard lockdown rules and to commence operations because the lockdown breaches their rights to individual freedom and ‘freedom to transact’. Despite vague calls for the articulation of a ‘new social compact’ or a ‘new economic vision’, we have not seen real alternatives to the understandings of Hobbes and Locke referred to above.  Calls for a new social compact and new economic vision have not been made on the basis of rights, or any normative basis, but rather explicitly on so-called ‘non-ideological’ terms, with an emphasis on efficiency and ‘what will work’.

Perhaps, to end, in this lack is where opportunity – bound to lurk in any crisis – is also found in this crisis. Crisis is, after all, at the root of critique.  The collective shock to our systems may just re-alert us to the need to continuously assert our rights, but not without the necessary critical reflection. We should assert our rights against the wanton exercise of state power and even against other people if they do us harm, but in ways that invite conversation about what is good for all of us and how we can not only build better worlds and live better, but build them better and live better together.  

Opinion article by Prof Karin van Marle, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law, and Prof Danie Brand, Director: Free State Centre for Human Rights 


News Archive

Prof Frederick Fourie to step down as UFS rector
2008-09-08

“It is with sadness that I hereby announce my intention to step down as rector and vice-chancellor of the University of the Free State (UFS) in the 4th quarter of this year.

Obviously this decision has not been taken lightly. After careful consideration I am, however, convinced that this is as far as I can take the UFS as vice-chancellor and rector. This flows primarily from the exhausting times that I have experienced during the past nine years, first as vice-rector (since 1999) and then as rector (since 2003), in managing and implementing several complex strategic projects.

The challenges and complexities of continuous change management at a higher education institution, and specifically the demands of further dynamic development and transformation at the UFS, demand enormous amounts of emotional energy and drive. For me the stress due to, especially, the political divisions and tensions in the UFS Council and the broader university community during the past year has been extremely draining. The broader institution and its people also show signs of trauma.

I think it is time for new and fresh leadership, especially in the light of the transformation challenges of the UFS.

I have thus decided to step down in the interest of transformation and the further dynamic development of the UFS.

Having been on sabbatical leave since May, I will not return to take up my post. I will remain on leave until my official date of retirement from office. (The exact date must still be determined.)

I am grateful for the opportunity to have been at the helm of the UFS and to help the institution cross several bridges. During the past nine years I have been privileged to lead large strategic projects together with many dedicated and talented UFS colleagues. It has been a wonderful experience of thinking and working together in order to elevate the functioning of the University to new levels in several key areas.

One of the most important projects was the financial turnaround strategy of 2000-2005, which took the UFS from a financial crisis to a situation where currently it annually has almost R100 million of discretionary funding available to spend on strategic projects, and where staff remuneration and promotion opportunities have increased dramatically since 2000. In this period the UFS has also grown from approximately 10 000 students to more than 27 000 in 2008.

A second was the strategy to invest strongly in the academic core and notably research, research capacity and research apparatus. Since 2003 research outputs have increased by approximately 50% - a significant accomplishment of our researchers and faculties. In conjunction with this, the launch of the six strategic academic clusters (focus areas) should create the basis for the continued growth in the national and international stature of the UFS in future. The development of the national leadership role of the UFS with regard to community service also was a special and successful project.

A third large strategic project was the progress with regard to diversity, the balanced multilingualism policy in the academe as well as the administration, the employment equity plan, the UFS transformation plan and especially the institutional charter – which could lay the foundation for a university where one and all can experience a true sense of belonging amidst diversity. These have been important steps that we can feel proud of (although much work obviously remains with regard to non-racialism and also non-sexism).

As far as residences are concerned, it was historically significant that this time, in contrast to 1997/8, the UFS succeeded in crossing the bridge of diversity and integration in residences – with due regard to the difficulties we faced. Hopefully this will considerably ease the task of my successor and her/his management team in managing diversity and in pursuing best practice transformation.

A fourth large project was the large-scale upgrading and development of infrastructure, academic buildings and facilities as well as support service facilities, student facilities and pedestrian walkways. The objective was a campus of the highest quality and aesthetics to effect a lasting improvement in their work- and living environment for staff and students. Indeed, the UFS Main Campus today is seen as an example of sensitive and high quality campus planning.

Other initiatives which haven’t borne fruit yet are, for example, those with regard to entrepreneurial activities, sport development and sport business development, and the possible establishment of an engineering programme or faculty at the UFS.

On the whole the most important thing for me has been the progress in establishing a deep commitment to quality and equity/fairness and in boosting the national and international profile of the UFS as a high quality progressive university. Of course, justice, equity and quality intrinsically are challenges which require daily dedication to make it an ingrained habit.

I wish to thank all those people with whom I could work during the past years in tackling large and complex challenges with mutual loyalty, shared wisdom and effort – from the Financial Turnaround Team to the Exco, the Executive Management, the Faculties, the Senate, support service divisions, the University Council and several committees and task teams”.

Frederick C.v.N. Fourie
Rector and Vice-Chancellor
University of the Free State

Prof Frederick Fourie has been with the UFS since 1976. After obtaining a PhD in Economics from Harvard he was appointed professor at the age of 29 in 1982, head of the Department of Economics in 1992, Distinguished Professor in 1998, Dean of the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences in 1997, Vice-rector: Academic in 1999 and vice-chancellor in 2003.

Media Release
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
8 September 2008
 

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