Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
06 May 2020 | Story Dr Ina Gouws | Photo Supplied
Dr Ina Gouws

The President of the Republic of South Africa made another address to the country on Thursday 23 April 2020, indicating that the country will enter a phased approach out of lockdown in the coming months. This announcement was met with positive feedback not only nationally, but internationally. It was clear that the President consulted with many experts and also with opposition parties, which indicated that an ‘all-hands-on-deck’ approach was followed across party lines and varied interests. The plan seemed rational, well thought through, and clear: 
 
Support for lockdown
The government’s lockdown and subsequent restrictions on movement, trade and industry held wide support until now. The argument that people’s lives are most important and that the prevention of the spread of COVID-19 infection must be a priority, was accepted as rational. Truth be told, this strategy was entirely reliant on public trust and cooperation, which the President did have at the start of the lockdown. So, when he announced that the country would enter Level 4 from 1 May 2020, there was a sense of relief that progress was being made and that sacrifices made by all of us (some much more than others), have yielded some positive results. 
However, there was also an almost immediate realisation that this approach would have to rely on state machinery, especially on provincial and local levels, which – before the lockdown – was ineffective, to say the least. State capacity had been gutted by widespread corruption, incompetence, and the inability or unwillingness to hold to account those who are guilty of mismanagement and corruption. Add to that the planned deployment of more than 70 000 South African National Defence Force (SANDF) troops in our midst, as well as very little detail on how the R50 billion relief fund will be applied, and most importantly, how oversight over the spending will work. 
Cynicism is good 
This cynicism is being criticised as being uncooperative and that South Africans should only be proud of how government has met the challenges of this pandemic thus far. It is true that in the context of the country’s reaction to the pandemic, this government has done much better than most across the globe. The larger context of governance realities in the country cannot be ignored though. 
I was reminded of certain elements of the value of cynicism in an article by JR Macey. The article was written in the context of USA politics, but there certainly are touch points with South African politics. He basically argues that cynicism is good, and that people should be more cynical when it comes to politicians, officials, lobby groups, etc. As people, we are looking for leadership and sound decision-making. We expect good governance from the government. As South Africans, we have been consistently disappointed with our government in this regard for decades now. When it became clear that this virus was spreading across the globe like wildfire, we naturally held our collective breath. How will a government that can hardly keep the lights on or provide safe drinking water and whose public healthcare system has all but collapsed, deal with this virus when it finally arrives? All valid questions. We were appeased when the President announced a planned lockdown not long after the first cases were reported. We were impressed with the leadership from the Minister of Health and the experts he surrounded himself with. Rightly so. The President announced that the SANDF would assist the police in enforcing lockdown rules, but that they should perform their duty with empathy and in a spirit of service to the country. South Africans were supposed to feel secure. 
Cynics raise questions
Yet, cynics raised questions about the fitness of the untrained SANDF to perform these duties and of the SAPS which, according to the latest crime statistics, all but lost ‘the war on crime’. Cynics raised questions about the ability of the public healthcare sector to use the time bought by the lockdown to ready itself for the inevitable rise in the numbers of infected South Africans who would need very specific healthcare, and to protect its healthcare workers. Cynics questioned the lack of data with which decisions are made and the reluctance to start planning for getting out of lockdown for the sake of the economy. These questions were met with accusations of being unpatriotic, tone-deaf, and choosing to save the economy over dying South Africans.
These questions became prevalent after the announcement of the phased approach on 23 April. Commentators, journalists, politicians across party lines, as well as ordinary citizens once again began to realise the validity of being cynical. There are many reports of brutality by the SANDF and SAPS, so there are understandably fears regarding the deployment of thousands more soldiers. The phased approach will rely heavily on local government machinery; so, how will the accountability for financial and performance management work when it continues to worsen in most municipalities.
It is good to be cynical; cynics are believed to be more vigilant, to question, and to expect answers. The problem is that cynics often do not get the answers and then stop participating. This is something we as South Africans cannot afford at a time when our freedoms are encroached upon. We need to be more vigilant than ever. Listen to the cynics. See if their questions are answered (not spun), because the expectations from government in the coming months are going to be immense and South Africans must make these expectations clear.
Opportunity 
Provinces and local governments must carefully discern what these measures mean for each region and communicate this clearly. The latter has been sorely lacking up to now where most provinces and local governments are concerned. Oversight on all levels of government should not only be allowed but welcomed. There is time and opportunity to address all these concerns to prevent chaos and confusion. Public trust and participation are essential for this process to succeed. All the good governance principles such as transparency, accountability, responsiveness, etc., are required to ensure the success of the implementation of any government process, just as it has always been. This is an opportunity to use an enormous crisis to put these principles at the center for a change. One lives in hope...

Dr Ina Gouws is Senior Lecturer: Programme: Governance and Political Transformation in the Faculty of the Humanities.

News Archive

Student leaders 2012/13 announced
2012-08-30

Ready for the task - Sabelo Khumalo, SRC President of the Qwaqwa Campus and William Clayton, SRC President of the Bloemfontein Campus.
Photo: Johan Roux
31 August 2012

The 2012/13 elections for the Student Representative Councils (SRC) of the University of the Free State were completed successfully and show meaningful support for the changes in student governance adopted by students across campuses over the past two years.

The SRC elections at the Qwaqwa Campus were completed on 23 August 2012, while the elections at our Bloemfontein Campus took place on 27 and 28 August 2012.

The SRC Elections at our Bloemfontein Campus showed a voter turnout of 4516 votes (30.8%), with the elections at the Qwaqwa Campuses showing 1753 votes (46%) – both campuses reached the required quorums and the IEA (Bloemfontein Campus) and IEC (Qwaqwa Campus) declared the elections free and fair and announced the results as a true reflection of the will of the student bodies at the campuses.

The full SRC at Bloemfontein Campus now consists of 62% black and 38% white, and 53% female and 47% male members.

In the Qwaqwa elections, SADESMO achieved 46, 38% of the vote, with SASCO, PASMA and NASMO each achieving 30,23% and 8,39% and 14,26%, respectively.

The successful elections at Bloemfontein Campus show that the detailed transformation of student governance introduced by students at the Campus in 2010 and adopted by the university in 2011, succeeded in mobilizing greater participation of students in governance and representation. These changes in the main included a shift to independent candidacy for elective portfolios (12 seats) and organizational candidacy in nine sub-councils that holds ex officio seats on the SRC. Changes also included the establishment of student representative seats in faculty governance and management forums and the adoption of a reviewed Central SRC Constitution. Ex officio seats hold full and equal constitutional authority in the SRC.

Students at Qwaqwa Campus introduced additional portfolios to its SRC, including ex-officio seats for academic affairs, arts and culture, commuter students, Rag Community Service, religious affairs, residences and sports.

A joint sitting of the Campus SRCs will establish the Central SRC 2012/13 on 9 September 2012.

As a further opportunity for participation in and the development of student governance and representation, the current Central SRC herewith also announces its recent adoption of a student governance advisory programme, namely the UFS Student Elders Council (SEC).

The SEC is established as a combined programme between the Central SRC and the Dean of Student Affairs and will consist of selected senior student leaders from all campuses who completed their terms of office, apply and are appointed to the Elders Council by the Central SRC.

The Council will serve as an advisory structure to the Central SRC and other student structures in support of the continuous development of student governance and representation of the student body at the university.

The SEC will advise the Central SRC to be constituted following the constitution of the respective Campus SRCs.

The SRC members at the Bloemfontein Campus are:

President: Mr William Clayton

Vice-President: Mr Bonolo Thebe

Secretary: Ms Karis-Robin Topkin

Treasurer: Mr Pieter Coetzee

Arts & Culture: Ms Chanmari Erasmus

Accessibility & Student Support: Ms Gene McCaskill

First-generation Students: Ms Tanya Calitz

Legal and Constitutional Affairs: Ms Nokuthula Sithole

Media, Marketing & Liaison: Ms Neo Chere

Sport: Mr Tshepo Moloi

Student Development & Environmental Affairs: Ms Thabisile Mgadi

Transformation: Ms Koketso Mofokeng

Dialogue & Ex officio: Associations Council: Mr Anesu Ruswa

Academic Affairs & Ex officio: Academic Affairs Council: Ms Nombuso Ndlovu

Residence Affairs & Ex officio: Residences Council: Mr Johann Steyn

City Residence Affairs & Ex officio: Commuter Council: Mr Michael van Niekerk

Postgraduate Affairs & Ex officio: Postgraduate Council: Mr Fadeyi Akinsuyi

International Affairs & Ex officio: International Council: Ms Tumelo Moreri

Student Media Affairs & Ex officio: Media Council: Mr Jamal-Dean Grootboom

RAG Community Service & Ex officio: RAG Fundraising Council: Mr Jaco Faul

RAG Community Service & Ex officio: RAG Community Service Council: Ms Keneue Mahloana

The SRC members at the Qwaqwa Campus are:

President General: Mr S Khumalo

Deputy President: Mr P T Lenka

Secretary General: Mr D Khethang

Treasurer General: Mr S I Sithole

Media & Publicity: Mr S N Ntombela

Politics & Transformation: Tbc

Student Development & Evironmental Affairs: Tbc Academic Affairs: Mr T Molawude

Arts & Cultural Affairs: Mr T Nkohli

Off-Campus Students: Mr B Mtshali

RAG, Community Service & Dialogue: Ms S F Mlotya

Religious Affairs: Ms D C Khau

Residence & Catering Affairs: Ms Z Mzolo

Sports Council: Mr S Mngomezulu

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