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
04 June 2020 | Story Prof Hussein Solomon. | Photo Sonia Small
Prof Hussein Solomon.
As young Political Science undergraduate student, phrases such as ‘national security’ made sense. It was the 1980s and the machinations of the Cold War rivals fascinated me. In the national context of apartheid South Africa, the national security management system of former President PW Botha drew my attention. The realpolitik of the time, both global and national, resulted in me avidly reading countless tomes of first-strike capabilities of the nuclear powers and regional destabilisation strategies of the apartheid pariah. 

National security considerations vs lived experiences of ordinary people
With the passing of time, I grew increasingly disillusioned with national security as a suitable fit for contemporary times on account of two reasons. First, national security considerations were far removed from the lived experiences of ordinary people. A US factory worker in Michigan is more concerned about the closure of his local automotive plant than the machinations of Beijing in the South China Sea. National security always reflected the concerns of the elites in their respective societies, as opposed to the bread-and-butter considerations of the vast majority of humanity. In the African context, such elite-driven state security was often purchased at the expense of the human security of ordinary citizens. Here, the guns of the military were often directed at marginalised and hapless citizens, as opposed to being directed at keeping borders safe from a possible foreign invading force. National security therefore needs to be expanded to incorporate the concerns of ordinary citizens. Second, in this rapidly globalising world, insecurity anywhere is a threat to security everywhere. The COVID-19 pandemic illustrates the point well, whether one resides in Wuhan, Milan, Moscow, New York, Sao Paolo or Cape Town. The world is one, and national security needs to be jettisoned in favour of more integrated conceptions of security.

Regional mobilisation
The current locust plague sweeping across East Africa vividly highlights the need for more expanded definitions of security. This locust plague has been labelled by the UN as an “extremely alarming and unprecedented threat”. Currently, Sudan and South Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, and Uganda are all affected by swarms of locusts travelling at 90 miles per day and eating their own body weight in crops. To put matters into perspective, a swarm of locusts of only one-third of a square mile can eat the same amount of food as 35 000 adults. This undermines food security across the region. To exacerbate matters, the lockdowns as a result of the coronavirus has hampered efforts to eradicate the swarms. Regional governments are overwhelmed, as Helen Adoa, Uganda’s Minister of Agriculture, admitted. This admission highlights the fallacy of national security in a globalising world. Regional governments need effective regional organisations to support their efforts and should partner with international organisations, including the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, civil society, and business, to holistically respond to the threat. I write this paper on Africa Day, 25 May – a day celebrating African solidarity. 

This African solidarity stands in sharp contrast to the realpolitik and insular politics embraced by the concept of national security and its corollary national interest. Sovereignty in defined areas needs to be ceded to regional organisations and global institutions in an effort to craft truly regional and global solutions. No one country can deal with either COVID-19 or swarms of marauding locusts.

An integrated understanding of security 
The origins of the current locust infestation currently overwhelming East Africa also points to the imperative for integrated understandings of security. Climate change has created the ideal breeding ground for the locust population in the Arabian Peninsula to increase by 8 000 percent. A phenomenon known as the Indian Ocean Dipole created unusually dry weather in the east, which resulted in wildfires ravaging Australia. The same phenomenon, however, also created cyclones and flooding in parts of the Arabian Peninsula and Somalia. The resultant moist sand and vegetation proved the ideal conditions in which desert locusts could thrive. Aiding the burgeoning locust populations is the collapsed state authorities in both Yemen and Somalia, ravaged by civil war and fighting Al Shabaab insurgents. As the writ of the ‘governments’ in both Sanaa and Mogadishu hardly goes beyond the capital, neither country can even launch a national response to the locust plague. 

The origins of the swarms of locusts devastating east Africa link climate change, civil war, state authority and capacity, and the COVID-19 pandemic. This stresses the need for holistic solutions which are rooted in expanded and integrated conceptions of security. We cannot afford to work in silos at national, regional, or international level.

Extraordinary times call for more holistic conceptions of security. The Cold War is over, my undergraduate lectures on security are a poor fit to today’s realities. The world stands at a pivotal point, much as it stood following the Thirty Years’ War in Europe and the resultant 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, the 1815 Congress of Vienna following the Napoleonic Wars, and the aftermath of the Second World War. We need to be brave and refashion our security architecture to reflect integrated, global, and human security considerations. 

This article was written by Prof Hussein Solomon, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Political Studies and Governance, and first appeared on Muslims in Africa.

News Archive

MBA Programme - Question And Answer Sheet - 27 May 2004
2004-05-27

1. WHAT MUST THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE (UFS) DO TO GET FULL ACCREDITATION FOR THE MBA PROGRAMMES?

According to the Council on Higher Education’s (CHE) evaluation, the three MBA programmes of the UFS clearly and significantly contribute to students’ knowledge and skills, are relevant for the workplace, are appropriately resourced and have an appropriate internal and external programme environment. These programmes are the MBA General, the MBA in Health Care Management and the MBA in Entrepreneurship.

What the Council on Higher Education did find, was a few technical and administrative issues that need to be addressed.

This is why the three MBA programmes of the UFS received conditional accreditation – which in itself is a major achievement for the UFS’s School of Management, which was only four years old at the time of the evaluation.

The following breakdown gives one a sense of the mostly administrative nature of the conditions that have to be met before full accreditation is granted by the CHE:

a. A formal forum of stakeholders: The UFS is required to establish a more structured, inclusive process of review of its MBA programmes. This is an administrative formality already in process.

b. A work allocation model: According to the CHE this is required to regulate the workload of the teaching staff, particularly as student numbers grow, rather than via standard management processes as currently done.

c. Contractual agreements with part-time staff: The UFS is required to enter into formal agreements with part-time and contractual staff as all agreements are currently done on an informal and claim-basis. This is an administrative formality already in process.

d. A formal curriculum committee: According to the CHE, the School of Management had realised the need for a structure – other than the current Faculty Board - where all MBA lecturers can deliberate on the MBA programmes, and serve as a channel for faculty input, consultation and decision-making.

e. A system of external moderators: This need was already identified by the UFS and the system is to be implemented as early as July 2004.

f. A compulsory research component: The UFS is required to introduce a research component which will include the development of research skills for the business environment. The UFS management identified this need and has approved such a component - it is to take effect from January 2005. This is an insufficient element lacking in virtually all MBA programmes in South Africa.

g. Support programmes for learners having problems with numeracy: The UFS identified this as a need for academic support among some learners and has already developed such a programme which will be implemented from January 2005.

The majority of these conditions have been satisfied already and few remaining steps will take effect soon. It is for this reason that the UFS is confident that its three MBA programmes will soon receive full accreditation.

2. WHAT ACCREDITATION DOES THE UFS HAVE FOR ITS MBA PROGRAMME?

The UFS’s School of Management received conditional accreditation for its three MBA programmes.

Two levels of accreditation are awarded to tertiary institutions for their MBA programmes, namely full accreditation and conditional accreditation. When a programme does not comply with the minimum requirements regarding a small number of criteria, conditional accreditation is given. This can be rectified during the short or medium term.

3. IS THERE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE ACADEMIC CORE OF THE UFS’s MBA PROGRAMMES?

No. The UFS is proud of its three MBA programmes’ reputation in the market and the positive feedback it receives from graduandi and their employers.

The MBA programmes of the UFS meet most of the minimum requirements of the evaluation process.

In particular, the key element of ‘teaching and learning’, which relates to the curriculum and content of the MBA programmes, is beyond question. In other words, the core of what is being taught in our MBA programmes is sound.

4. IS THE UFS’s MBA A WORTHWHILE QUALIFICATION?

Yes. Earlier this year, the School of Management – young as it is - was rated by employers as the best smaller business school in South Africa. This was based on a survey conducted by the Professional Management Review and reported in the Sunday Times Business Times, of 25 January 2004.

The UFS is committed to maintaining these high standards of quality, not only through compliance with the requirements of the CHE, but also through implementing its own quality assurance measures.

Another way in which we benchmark the quality of our MBA programmes is through the partnerships we have formed with institutions such as the DePaul University in Chicago and Kansas State University, both in the US, as well as the Robert Schuman University in France.

For this reason the UFS appreciates and supports the work of the CHE and welcomes its specific findings regarding the three MBA programmes.

It is understandable that the MBA review has caused some nervousness – not least among current MBA students throughout the country.

However, one principle that the UFS management is committed to is this: preparing all our students for a world of challenge and change. Without any doubt the MBA programme of the UFS is a solid preparation.

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