Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Confronting collective inactivity to safeguard our freedom

27 April 2021 | Story Prof Sethulego Matebesi | Photo Sonia Small

Prof Matabesi — Prof Sethulego Matebesi is a Senior Lecturer and Academic Head of the Department of Sociology at the University of the Free State.

This year’s Freedom Day marks an important milestone in the history of South Africa. It will be 27 years since the first non-racial elections were held in the country, a figure that equals the number of years Nelson Mandela spent in prison.

If equating Mandela with the freedom we enjoy today is not already disingenuous enough, we sunk even lower by assuming that we are close to achieving the civil liberties he embodied. You do not have to go further than read the daily media headlines to understand the extent of the onslaught on the pillars of democracy. That this onslaught comes from political leaders is one of the main reasons why most South Africans are disillusioned with politics, democracy and social issues.

Anarchy wreaking havoc in weak societies

Sociology taught me about the relevance of institutions to a social structure: they control human conduct by setting up predefined behaviour patterns. For example, throughout history anarchy has wreaked havoc in settings where organisations are weak, fragmented, and the citizenry is inactive. Similarly, while peace, unity, and the preservation and the restoration of human dignity are the hallmarks of Freedom Day celebrations, we have become a nation increasingly influenced by symbolic politics and the politics of offence.

It would be hard to find a better example of a significant threat to the pillars of democracy than the widespread onslaught on the judiciary. At the heart of the broader political, legal, and moral issues confronting SA today is how the right of all to equal respect and equal protection under the law has been compromised. Casting doubt about the independence of the judiciary conceals the motivations that most endanger the principles of freedom and equality.

My stance is not aimed at muting the expression of unpopular opinions – a basic tenet of democracy. However, we need to be mindful of events that have and will become powerfully symbolic in altering the nation’s social fabric.

Freedom under attack by populist politics

Any societal change requires some form of flexibility. No doubt, the first decade of democracy was accompanied by hope and the euphoria of the Rainbow Nation. This period demonstrated how different racial groups could live together in harmony, play together, and attend the same school without being required to forsake values they hold dear. This period was punctured by notions of active citizenship and the promotion of democratic cooperation that is based on the acceptance of universal human rights and the rule of law and values of diversity.

While millions of people elsewhere in the world have been forced to flee hunger, war, terrorism, and emboldened autocrats in their countries of birth, the euphoric wave of the Mandela years has, unwittingly and dramatically, worn off during the past decade in South Africa. This turn of events is linked to populist politics that seriously compromise democratic institutions in the country.

In my opinion, there are no heroes in situations like these.

In a country characterised by rampant corruption, violent crime, gender-based violence, human trafficking, racial intolerance, and teenage drug abuse, are politicians the only ones to be blamed for the threats to democracy?

Conquering immorality and safeguarding our freedom

Despite all the challenges we face as a country, we remain a remarkably resilient nation, as is widely acknowledged. This resilience is echoed by how we have navigated our way around a highly divisive and intolerant society to embrace and celebrate our rich and vibrant cultural heritage.

Nevertheless, we have become complacent. We have been vocal against any narrative aimed at restricting our legal, religious, human, civil, economic and political rights. Yet, partly due to our collective inaction, we have failed to use the means to provide a compelling counter-narrative of resistance to the manipulation of state institutions and broader immorality permeating society. This inaction affects the lives and livelihoods of millions of those who do not have the organisational capacity and means to advocate for the causes that affect them.

Let us use this year’s historic Freedom Day celebrations to demonstrate our firm resolve to protect the critical pillars of democracy from further exploitation. This kind of collective responsibility is what South Africa has always been about. Only when our government at all levels, the private sector, and concerned citizens across the country begin a critical partnership and commitment to maintain our democratic institutions and processes that our past losses as a nation become gains and defeats become triumphs.

* Prof Sethulego Matebesi works on all current affairs such as political and social issues. More specifically, he focuses on social movements and protests, community-mining company conflict, and local municipal governance.

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water

2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za
3 August 2009

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

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