Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
21 July 2021 | Story Prof Philippe Burger | Photo Sonia Small (Kaleidoscope Studios)
Prof Philippe Burger is Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Pro-VC): Poverty, Inequality and Economic Development at the University of the Free State.

Government needs to see the private sector as a true partner, whose expertise and capital can leverage its plans

Opinion article by Prof Philippe Burger, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Pro-VC): Poverty, Inequality and Economic Development, University of the Free State

Many South Africans watched in disbelief last week as KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng descended into looting, chaos, and destruction after Jacob Zuma’s imprisonment. Though probably instigated by disgruntled pro-Zuma supporters, it is clear that the protests very quickly spun out of control.

In newspapers, the question was repeatedly asked: did we see the hungry poor looting for food, or the opportunistic middle-class turning up in cars and bakkies to grab big-screen TVs and fridges? While images and videos clearly show that the latter were present in large numbers, the sight of other people – including gogos – ransacking supermarkets and running off on foot with loaves of bread and bags of maize meal, point to the former. In short, if people had jobs and hope that their lives would improve, I doubt we would have seen such anarchy.

Only a matter of time before protests and unrest occurred

With official unemployment above 30% and the broad unemployment rate – which includes discouraged work-seekers – in excess of 40%, it was only a matter of time before protests and unrest occurred. Zuma’s imprisonment was surely incidental. If it hadn’t been that, something else would have triggered the chaos.

COVID-19 also aggravated the situation, with 1,4 million people losing their jobs as a result of lockdown measures. In addition, the R350 COVID-relief grant expired at the end of April, leaving many with less food on the table.

A number of people argue that, in light of what has happened, we should bring back the relief grant; government may not have much choice now, given the lingering effect of 16 months of COVID restrictions on levels of unemployment and poverty. It will simply have to rearrange its budget to do so. However, we can’t stop at grants.

Even though a grant puts a bit of food in your stomach, it does not give you hope that the future will look better than today. It’s that bleak-looking future, that sense of nothing to lose, that fuels the looting and gives unsavoury politicians leverage for their selfish interests. Contrast this behaviour with that of taxi drivers, who came out to protect malls and chase away looters. They did so because they have something to lose, a stake in the economy to protect.

Every South African has a stake in the economy

We need to ensure that every South African has a stake in the economy. That way, people will have a sense of belonging, they will have options and agency, and they will have resources to improve their lives. They will have hope that the future will look better than the present. A person with a stake in the system is unlikely to break that system. 

We therefore need to seriously reconsider our policies, speed up much-needed change, and start building a believable message of hope – hope stemming from real concern for the plight of the poor, and serious implementation of policy. To help the poor, we need to create jobs, and for that we need investment.

Analysis of economic data shows that for every percentage point rise in private investment as percentage of GDP, we lift GDP growth by a third of a percentage point. And, on average, for every percentage point that GDP grows, employment increases by 1%. In recent years, private investment has averaged a mere 12% of GDP. If we can lift it to 15%, or even to 18%, GDP can grow by an extra one or two percentage points. It might not sound much, but after a decade or two it makes a big difference.

However, for this to happen, the government will have to see the private sector as a true partner whose expertise and capital can leverage the state’s plans. With such an approach, for instance, it would not be necessary for government to own and run an airline – a private operator will fill the gap in the market with its own capital, saving government billions of rands. And the government could long ago have let the private sector play a key role in the generation of electricity, instead of resisting change and only belatedly agreeing to lift the cap on private generation capacity from 1 MW to 100 MW.

Build communities where people escape poverty and have hope

The type and location of investment is also important. Data from the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research shows that SA’s urban population will have increased to between 50 million and 52 million by 2035. This is an increase of 12 million to 14 million compared to 2018.

We must use the opportunity to build green industries. It will save money and build a better environment. In short, as a growth strategy, we need a green, urban-driven investment strategy that caters for SA’s burgeoning urban population.

That way, we can build communities where people have a stake in the economy, where they have jobs and businesses, escape poverty, and have hope that their future and that of their children will improve.

• The article was first published in Business Day


News Archive

Reaction by the Rector of the UFS after a meeting with student leaders
2008-02-25

Reaction by the Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS, Prof. Frederick Fourie, on the agreement reached at a meeting with student leaders held on Friday, 22 February 2008

Note: This is meant to be used together with the full joint statement that was issued by the UFS management and student leaders on 22 February 2008.

The memorandum of the primes of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) residences was handed to top management on Wednesday, 20 February 2008. In the memorandum they asked for a meeting with the UFS management by Friday, 22 February 2008. Such a meeting was arranged and took place.

The UFS top management, all the residence primes as well as the house committee member for first years, the executive of the Main Campus Student Representative Council (SRC) and residence heads were present.

In contrast to what is suggested in the Volksblad report of Saturday, the discussion went off very well. There was no consternation or shouting or “emotions that ran high”. It was a civilised, decent meeting as it should be at a good university. Of course, now and again individuals spoke out strongly and very enthusiastically, but it was all decent and orderly. The contribution of the primes was insightful and well formulated.

Because the top management and I wanted to listen very carefully what the problems and frustrations were, we spent nearly five hours in the meeting. The issues in the memorandum were discussed one by one. In some cases I could take a decision immediately and finalise the matter, in other cases, the management provided information that could largely finalise a matter. A number of other matters must be investigated further.

The management undertook to respond comprehensively and in writing to all the issues raised in the memorandum by Monday, 25 February 2008. This will be handed to the primes but will not be handed to the media beforehand.
It is obvious that there are matters at the university that can be better managed and that there are problems with communication within the Student Affairs division. A major change such as the new policy on diversity places huge demands on management and the administration, and problems were to be expected. However, we understand the frustration of the students in residences.

On the other hand, students don’t always make matters easier. The strong opposition of white student leaders last year, and their unwillingness to co-operate in preparation for 2008 is well known. This year it is going better. But often student leaders take positions that are very inflexible. They also see no room for adapting old habits and simply want their own way. Their contributions are then full of statements such as “It cannot be done”. This delays measures such as the full implementation of expert interpreting services, which, for the management, is a very important measure (and which is functioning very well in certain residences). Communication from student leaders to management is also not always what it should be.

At the end of the meeting student leaders and management reached an important agreement and issued a joint statement in which they committed themselves to the integration process and to good co-operation and communication. This was an important step which is a sign of rebuilding trust. Naturally everyone will still have to work hard to build on this and to strengthen mutual trust.

The course and outcome of Friday’s discussions, as requested by the student leaders, show that issues can be addressed and resolved by means of us talking to one another. This is why it is so sad that primes and house committee members went on strike on Wednesday already and stayed in tents in front of the Main Building – leaving their residences without its leadership. This created an opening for what appears to have been well planned and co-ordinated acts of vandalism by inhabitants of residences on the campus on Wednesday.

Such vandalism is unacceptable and no one can justify it.

Fortunately, order could be restored quickly during the night and all academic activities could resume without any disruption on Thursday and Friday.

FCvN Fourie

Media Release
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za   
24 February 2008

 

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