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
13 October 2020 | Story Prof John Mubangizi | Photo Sonia du Toit
Prof John C Mubangizi is Dean: Faculty of Law, University of the Free State.
South Africans are sick and tired of corruption. They are angry, frustrated and despondent. And they have every reason to be. South Africa has many problems: crime, unemployment, poverty, gender-based violence, inequality, low economic growth and now – in common with many other countries – COVID-19. The list goes on and on. What makes corruption the biggest threat among all these is that it cuts across all of them and impacts on their gravity in different ways. 

The South African Constitution envisages a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights. The way things are going, that society is never likely to happen. That is because corruption has been, and continues to be, the greatest threat to any possibility of realising that constitutional dream. In South Africa, like everywhere else where corruption is rampant, it occurs both in the public and private sectors, where it affects democracy and human rights by deteriorating institutions and diminishing public trust in government. It impairs the ability of government to fulfil its obligations and ensure accountability in the delivery of economic and social services like healthcare, education, clean water, housing, and social security. This is because corruption diverts funds into private pockets – which impedes delivery of services – thereby perpetuating poverty, inequality, injustice and unfairness. The problem is aggravated when government is the main culprit. “Government” here, of course, refers to the dictionary meaning of the term, namely, “the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state”.

Corruption existed in ancient Egypt, China and Greece

There are those who argue that corruption is as old as mankind and, therefore, it is here to stay. Indeed, corruption is known to have existed in ancient Egypt, ancient China and ancient Greece. In Robert Bolt’s 16th Century play A Man for All Seasons, Richard Rich’s opening remark is “But every man has his price.” In the 1836 play The Government Inspector, Nikolai Gogol cleverly satirised the human greed, stupidity and extensive political corruption in Imperial Russia at the time. And in a recent article in The Conversation (28 August 2020), Steven Friedman wonders why South Africans express shock at corruption when “it is perhaps the country’s oldest tradition.” He locates the advent of corruption in South Africa at the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck in 1652, through to the ensuing colonialism and apartheid. He argues that in reality, “corruption has been a constant feature of South African political life for much of the past 350 years. It is deeply embedded and it will take a concerted effort, over years, not days, to defeat it”. 

Agreed, but does it have to be that way? At the time of Jan van Riebeeck and during the 350 years of colonialism and apartheid, we did not have the legal framework that we have now. Here is a brief overview of that framework.

Read full article here

Opinion article by Professor John C Mubangizi, Dean: Faculty of Law, University of the Free State


News Archive

Lessons of The Spear
2012-08-14

 Discussing weighty issues at the UFS were from left: Prof. Jonathan Jansen; Vice-Chancellor and Rector; Nic Dawes, Editor-in-Chief, Mail & Guardian; Max du Preez: Investigative journalist and political columnist; Ferial Haffajee: Editor, City Press; and Justice Malala: Political commentator and newspaper columnist.
Photo: Johan Roux
14 August 2012

What were South Africans left with after The Spear? More importantly, what did we learn from The Spear?

These were the issues discussed at a seminar, Beyond the Spear, on the controversial Brett Murray painting at the Bloemfontein Campus of the University of the Free State (UFS) on Monday 13 August 2012.

The university hosted this seminar, Beyond the Spear, in conjunction with acclaimed journalists, to look deeper into the lessons that South Africans learnt from this painting and the reaction from the public and politicians following soon after it went on display at the Goodman Gallery in Johannesburg.

The four panellists, Mr Justice Malala (political analyst, journalist and host of the news show, The Justice Factor), Mr Nic Dawes (editor in chief of Mail & Guardian), Mr Max du Preez (investigative journalist and political columnist) and Ms Ferial Haffajee (editor of City Press), all presented their views and experiences on the public’s perceptions of this artwork.

In his opening remarks, Prof. Jonathan Jansen, Vice-Chancellor and Rector, said the purpose of the seminar was to help us make sense of what happened. Prof. Jansen also chaired this seminar.

“This being South Africa, there will be more ‘Spears’. More public crises will unfold that divide the nation and that will stir the emotions. We need to understand what happened so that we are better prepared to deal with the coming ‘Spears’.”

Issues on leadership, South Africa’s hurtful past and the freedom of expression were some of the topics raised by the panellists.

“This has taught us that South Africans – especially the older generation – still need to vent their anger… White South Africa must be patient and allow black citizens to shout at them,” said Mr Du Preez. He warned that this anger should serve a constructive purpose. In reaction to a question if Brett Murray did not disrespect Pres. Jacob Zuma’s dignity with his controversial painting, he said that this painting was “…rude and disrespectful.”

“It was meant to be. It was not honouring him.” He said that politicians will do anything, including messing with the country’s stability, to further their own interests. “From now on we need to be far more alert, far more cynical about our politicians.”

Mr Dawes shared his experience and said that the debates around The Spear were very painful considering where the nation has come from. He said the painting opened up painful pasts and difficult spaces. “It is up to the media to open up these difficult spaces.” He said the painting also brought up questions of how South Africans deal and live with pain. “South Africa must live with its past. The debate should now be how to preserve space for the country’s ghosts and how its citizens could get the resilience to deal with it.”

Ms Haffajee, who was caught in the crossfire between freedom of expression and human dignity and who refused to remove a picture of the painting from the City Press website, said that the media was viciously played by politicians.

“This had shown that achieving freedom took many lives, but it took very little to kill it.” She said The Spear is art that it is part of a rich cultural heritage of protest art.

Mr Malala said with the debates around The Spear painting, something died in South Africa. “The debate was taken away from us. We let politicians get to us.”

After the panellists delivered their presentations, Prof. Jansen led a discussion session between the audience and the panellists.
 

 

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