Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
08 October 2020 | Story Motsaathebe Serekoane | Photo Supplied


We need to acknowledge that inherent in opening up spaces that were previously reserved for exclusive inhabitation and use is problematic in the contestation for place and symbolic public representation. Broadening the heritage landscape allows us an opportunity to bridge the existing gaps in the heritage space, in particular, askew representation through monuments and declared sites.

The country’s 2030 Developmental Plan requires South Africa to continuously reflect on progress made since the dawn of democracy in 1994. The scope is big; my focus here is on the heritage landscape. I do not want to create an impression that this matter exists in isolation, the intersectional engagement is imminent. The conversation on heritage is vast. My summary of all I have read and heard is that at stake in South Africa, with the historical legacy of segregation policies, is the competing notion of space, conflicting and often-competing ideological notion of commemoration or memorialisation, and the lack of shared collective memory and meaning of public representation. Effectively we don’t know what to do with our historical text and footprints. 

“A community is divided when their perception of the same thing is divided” …Steve Biko

Three questions 

This is a challenge for the notion of inclusion (aka social cohesion) and a threat to preservation and conservation of the country’s heritage resources material. It is equally important that I bring to your attention related conversations with a position that asserts that forfeiting the past for the sake of the future is perhaps an overly simplistic way of conceptualising and describing how society moves beyond conflict or pain. The argument for imagining inclusive spaces necessitates a paradigm shift in our thinking. The literature argues for a move from multiculturalism to interculturalism because of cross-cultural overlaps, interaction, and negotiation. The interculturalism approach goes beyond opportunities and respect for existing cultural differences, to the pluralist transformation of public space, civic culture, and institutions. In line with this view, reconfiguration of public spaces towards inclusive ends would have to emphasise the politics of recognition and negotiation of difference. So where does this leave us? There are no easy answers. As the country embarks on the process of auditing and spatial identity transformation I put forward the following three questions:
• Whose conception of the past should prevail in the public realm?
• Whose conception of the present should prevail in the current realm for the future?
• How do we balance the old and the new so that we do not dump history?

Sustainable change will require consultation and participation

Advancing change affords interested and affected communities to develop an awareness of layered complexities of our history and intersectional voices (some louder than others), and promotes the practices of collaboration and capacity-building with community members to advance sustainable change. Sustainable change will require, in line with the democratic principles, that the review process acknowledges consultation and participation. Ideally, the audit and review process should be designed to encourage conversation, reflection, and social analysis. The transformation of spatial social milieu should assume collective ownership and management of space founded on the permanent and temporary participation of the 'interested and affected parties', with their multiple, varied, and even contradictory political interests. In the review of the current symbolic landscape for inclusion, the spatial identity transformation must be negotiated. It must be developed from a focal point that understands the interrelationship between space and spatial inscription through the form of street names, symbols, and public art. 

I can’t pre-empt the end of the process, the process should inform the outcome. Should it be that some of the statues are to be “repositioned and relocated”, as also stated in the president's speech, this should not be equated to dumping history/historical dumping. Reposition and relocation are plausible alternative arguments in the spatial reconfiguration discourse. If it is done well it should contribute to the educational programme of the country. It should also be kept in mind that memorabilia are protected by the National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) No 25 1999. Subsequently, the audit and review will require a nuanced approach guided by the NHRA (including relevant legislation) and leaning towards a process-oriented, person-based approach to allow for agency/agility and new possibilities (cf. SONA pronouncement of imagining the New City). Imminent is a guiding or reference document that draws lessons from review processes demonstrated by, among others, the University of Free State’s review and ultimately relocation of the president MT Steyn statue to the War Museum. I believe the South African Heritage Resources Authority and its Provincial Heritage Resources Authority should guide the process. 

Heritage serves a social and economic function

Just as a footnote, it is prudent that we remind ourselves that heritage, in addition to many things, serves a social and economic function. Although I acknowledge the views that some of the symbols in the public spaces trigger painful memories of the past, losing those will rob the country of its rich narrative that, in line with NHRA, is to be bequeathed to the next generation, but also that can boost the country’s economy through heritage cultural tourism footprints. 

Ultimately, “Our heritage is unique and precious and it cannot be renewed. It helps us to define our cultural identity and therefore lies at the heart of our spiritual well-being and has the power to build our nation. It has the potential to affirm our diverse cultures and in so doing, shape our national character” …NHRA, No. 25 1999

Opinion article by Motsaathebe Serekoane, Lecturer: Anthropology at the UFS.


News Archive

UFS Council elects a new Chairperson
2009-11-22

Judge Ian van der Merwe

The Council of the University of the Free State (UFS) elected Judge Ian van der Merwe as its new Chairperson at its last meeting for this year on Friday, 20 November 2009.

Judge Van der Merwe is an alumnus of the UFS and has been a member of the Council since 9 March 2007. In accepting his appointment, Judge Van der Merwe said that he was honoured and humbled to lead a Council of this calibre. “I will always do what is in the best interest of the UFS and, together with the Council, I will work towards making it an autonomous institution of academic excellence that is non-racial, non-sexist, and where diversity is cherished,” he said.

The election of a new Chairperson and the term of the Chancellor were among the matters discussed during yesterday’s meeting.

Dr Franklin Sonn will retire as Chancellor on 31 December 2009 and the term of office of the current Chairperson of Council, Judge Faan Hancke, will also expire on 31 December 2009. Dr Sonn has been Chancellor since 7 February 2003 and Judge Hancke has been Chairperson of the Council since 1 June 2001.

“I am elated that someone of Judge Van der Merwe’s stature has been elected as Chairperson and will provide him with my full support,” said Prof. Jonathan Jansen, Rector and Vice-Chancellor.

The Council paid tribute to Judge Hancke for the time he dedicated to the UFS, as well as for his leadership, guidance and wisdom to take the institution to where it stands in the current phase of its history. The Council also recognised Judge Hancke for, amongst others, his decision to appoint Prof. Jansen as the first black Rector and Vice-Chancellor, for his role in the implementation of the Transformation Plan and the policy to increase diversity in residences at the UFS, as well as his contribution to the growth of black students.

Judge Hancke thanked the Council for their support and assistance during his term and congratulated Judge van der Merwe on his appointment. “I wish Prof. Jansen and his management team well and hope that they will have the wisdom to solve the problems the institution is facing so that they can focus on the core business of the UFS namely its academia. I know the University can make a tremendous contribution to the country,” he said.

The Council also welcomed the following new members who were present at the meeting: Mr Pule Makgoe, MEC for Education in the Free State; Mr Ndaba Ntsele, Chief Executive Officer of the Pamodzi Group and Mr Willem Louw, Managing Director of Sasol Technology.

The new Chancellor will be elected as soon as the proposed statute is approved by the Council in 2010 and published in the Government Gazette. Prof. Jansen will act as Chancellor for the interim period from 1 January 2010.

Media release
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
21 November 2009
 

 

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