Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Categories
UFS News Media Release Research
Years
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Months
January February March April May June July August September October November December
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

Official opening ceremony of the UFS Qwaqwa Campus
2006-02-15

Official opening ceremony of the UFS Qwaqwa Campus
11th February 2006 – Multipurpose Hall

Opening Speech:
Prof. Peter A. Mbati
Campus Principal

Successfully rising to the challenges of incorporations and mergers – developing a vibrant and academically stimulating satellite campus of the University of the Free State.

Thank you Mr. Program Director and good morning ladies and gentlemen.

I wish to once again welcome all of you to the official opening ceremony of the University of the Free State QQ campus.  Thank you for taking time to share with us an important date in our campus academic calendar.  I bring you greetings from our Rector and Vice Chancellor Prof. Frederick Fourie.

During such occasions we try and reflect on important matters that have affected us as an institution in the preceding year, commit ourselves to specific objectives for the current year, while planning for the proceeding year.

Today I shall be talking on Successfully rising to the challenges of incorporations and mergers – developing a vibrant and academically stimulating satellite campus of the University of the Free State’.

SRC inauguration
I would like to congratulate the SRC President and the entire SRC leadership for being elected into important positions of student leadership and authority. 

As a university we are proud of the quality of our student leadership on the Qwaqwa campus.  I am confident that you young leaders will rise to the challenges of your office and discharge your duties with diligence and without fear or favour.  That you will rise above your party affiliations and provide effective leadership to the entire student body on campus.
                              
Leadership is complex and requires you to be objective, just and fair in your approach to the many challenges that you will encounter.  You will be judged not by the populist decision that you take when confronted with difficult choices, but rather, on the wisdom that you exercise in reaching consensus in decision making processes.

The era when management and student leadership viewed each other with suspicion and as adversaries is long gone.  Management, academic and administrative staff, parents and students must have common agendas in as far the  quality growth and development of our university is concerned and to strive towards academic excellence.  I leave the challenge to you students, and more so to the inaugurated student leaders to define your agenda in achieving this noble objective.  I trust that you will make the right choices.

Brief history of incorporation
On the recommendations of the National Working Group of Higher Education, the Qwaqwa Campus of the then University of the North was incorporated into the University of the Free State on 1st January 2003.  We suddenly had to move from a campus that was originally semi-autonomous and with its own culture developed over almost 20 years, into a campus that had to operate as a fully integrated campus of the UFS, a 100 year old institution with its distinct culture.

Following incorporation, we not only had to continue with our core business of teaching, learning, research and community service, but we also had to engage in other important aspects such as exploring the most appropriate models of governance for the campus, encouraging dialogue and interactions at all levels between personnel at the different campuses with a view to developing trust between colleagues. And with the added dimensions such as participation in the transformation task team we in effect are at the fore front of developing a new institutional culture at the UFS and a truly South African University.

UFS Strategic objectives
The strategic and transformation priorities of the University of the Free State for 2006 – 2008 as approved by the Executive Management at its retreat in January 2006 are:

  • Quality and Excellence
  • Equity, diversity and redress
  • Financial sustainability
  • Regional co-operation and engagement

Central to this priority is the integration of the Qwaqwa campus as a valuable constituent part of the UFS, and the strategic reconfiguration of the campus in order that the UFS can play a meaningful role in regional engagement and development.

  • National leadership

The five strategic objectives cannot be viewed in isolation and run simultaneously and in concert with each other. 

The Question must therefore be what we on the QQ campus, staff and students, parents and our broader community are willing to do to achieve these strategic objectives. The reconfiguration and strategic planning of this campus, and therefore its success, must be a collaborative effort between colleagues at QQ and on the main campus.  We must all be ready to work together, to plan together, to shoulder responsibilities together and sometimes, to share the pain and disappointments together. 

The second question must therefore be: are we prepared to go that extra mile for our campus to ensure that we claim our rightful stake within the ranks of well respected academic institutions of higher learning in this country?  At this point in its history this campus requires committed men and women from across the cultural spectrum who appreciate the challenges ahead of us and who are ready to give of their best and to constructively engage at all levels to make this dream a reality.  Because this dream is possible and this dream will be realized!

Quality and Excellence (1st strategic objective)

As mentioned by the Rector in his speech at the official opening ceremony of the university on the main campus on Friday 3rd February, the university will in 2006 pay extra attention to Quality and Excellence.  This is informed by the Higher Education Quality Committee’s (HEQC) institutional audit which is scheduled to take place this year.  Our university as well as several other HEI’s will be subjected to this audit.  This will call for a lot of hard work on your part in preparation for a successful audit and in this regard therefore I request for your cooperation.

As a further step in confirming our commitment to quality and excellence, we have simultaneously introduced on the QQ campus and the main campus workshops on performance management systems to a cohort group.  This will be expanded in 2006 to a wider group of managers on the QQ campus to include among others all Program Heads and Subject Heads. PMS is an invaluable tool for fair, effective and efficient management of a very important resource on campus – the human resource.  Benefits of PMS include among others:

  • Instilling and enriching a culture of performance management (quality assurance) as an integral part of the day to day functioning of staff at the campus
  • Improving staff performance through mentoring, development and training

Tri campus project
One of the more important projects that we as a university undertook in 2005 was the Tri Campus Project which was coordinated by the Free State Higher Education Consortium (FSHEC) through Niel Butcher and Associates consultants.

The Tri-Campus project focused on the strategic planning for higher education campuses in the Free State that have been incorporated with UFS and CUT during the reshaping of the South African higher education landscape. The Bloemfontein Vista campus and the Qwaqwa campus of the University of the North were incorporated with the UFS, and the Welkom Vista campus with the CUT.

The planning process involved a range of research and consultation activities during the course of 2005. This included:

  • Conducting situational analyses of the Qwaqwa campus during which staff and students were widely consulted;
  • Consulting with the campus and with a range of stakeholders in the sub-region
  • Review of the Free State Provincial Growth and Development Strategy and Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) of the regions and other research of relevance to the sub-regions, province and country.

An operational framework for the reconfiguration of the campus with a range of possible Program Qualification Mixes has been produced.  In December 2005, the Rector, the Vice Rector Academic Planning Prof. Magda Fourie and I discussed this document with senior members of the DoE in Pretoria, and we will soon be meeting with the National Minister of Education Me Naledi Pandor for her guidance and to seek support in the further refinement of the document and subsequent implementation.

Recapitalization
This year a further R 6 M has been budgeted for recapitalization.  In about two weeks time the third of phase of renovations on campus will commence and attention will be given to the administration building, the humanities and the outstanding work in the lecture hall complex.  There- after the library, sciences and education buildings will follow.  As you will recall a substantial portion of the R 8.4 million in 2005 was used to upgrade the student residences and the lecture hall complex.

I am certain that the renovations and upgrading of our infrastructure and physical facilities including landscaping will create an enabling environment for you to enjoy your work and studies on this campus.

Renovations come with some measure of inconveniences and I therefore wish to request for your patience and support during this period.

Closing remarks
There is a heightened spirit of optimism on what the future holds for this campus.  This is evident when I talk to a large cross section of staff and students of this campus – and I therefore invite all of you to come and be partners with us on this journey of optimism and hope of what the future holds for the UFS – QQ campus.

Thank you and God bless!

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