Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
13 July 2021 | Story Sanet Madonsela | Photo Supplied
Sanet Madonsela is a double cum laude graduate currently finalising her master’s degree in Governance and Political Transformation. She was recently appointed as the Projects and Events Coordinator for the International Association for Political Science Students (IAPSS) and is a member of the South African Association of Political Science (SAAPS) Emerging Scholars Committee.

Opinion article by Sanet Madonsela, master’s student in Governance and Political Transformation, Department of Political Studies and Governance, University of the Free State,


In December 2018, the streets of Eswatini were filled with billboards proclaiming ‘Fifty years of peace, stability, and progress’ as the country celebrated its independence. While the king and a few others were in a celebratory mood, a large portion of the population was not. The reality was that 63% of the population lived below the poverty line, 28% were unemployed, while 200 000 people were dependent on global food aid to survive. The country has banned political parties since 1973 and has been criticised for the unhealthy working conditions of its sugar industry, poverty wages, and violent suppression. Over the years, the polygamous King Mswati III banned divorce and revealing apparel, while increasing the number of traditional rituals, of which the Umhlanga (the Reed Dance) is the most popular. During this ritual, young women perform for the court, some of whom would catch the king’s eye. It is worth noting that Mswati III owns 60% of the country’s land, in addition to shares in the country’s major luxury hotels, real estate, transport, mining, brewery, sugar, and dairy products. He lives in ostentatious luxury with his 15 wives. His personal wealth is estimated at R2,8 billion. This is in stark contrast to the R30 per day that 60% of the population live on daily. 

Calls for the abolishment of the monarchy

The current conflagration in the kingdom follows the death of a 25-year-old law student who was allegedly killed by the police. This unrest increased and eventually resulted in calls for the abolishment of the monarchy and replacing it with a democratic system of government. It is alleged that 60 people have been killed by members of the Royal Swazi Police Service and the Umbutfo Eswatini Defence Force, while billions of rand in damages have been inflicted during the current vicious crackdown. There are also allegations that journalists and pro-democracy activists are being tortured and abducted in the country. The current wave of repression is not new to Eswatini, as journalists, trade unionists, and other activists have been subjected to persistent repression under Mswati III. Under his rule, freedom of speech, assembly, and association have been limited, while dissidents have been arrested, tortured, and imprisoned. In an effort to quell the uprising, the government has engaged in further violent repression while at the same time shutting down the internet. The latter was deemed to be important, since Swazi activists would make use of social media to call attention to human rights violations, as well as using it to mobilise and co-ordinate their actions.  In all of this, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and South Africa have remained silent. The internet shutdown was confirmed by the South African telecommunications giant MTN, stating that it had received a directive from the country’s Communications Commission. While this explanation might suffice, it is not that simple. Mswatini III is the largest independent shareholder of MTN Eswatini, and his eldest daughter, Sikhanyiso Dlamini, was appointed as one of the company’s local board of directors in 2012. To complicate matters, the late Prime Minister, Ambrose Mandvulo, was the former chief executive officer of MTN Eswatini. MTN and the royal family are firmly entwined while the impoverished Swazis languish under the yoke of oppression.  

SADC is unable to intervene

The SADC is unfortunately unable to intervene, given its own internal challenges – and one might even say – unwillingness. Years ago, the African Union’s standby arrangements tasked the SADC with creating a 3 000-strong rapid intervention force. It is safe to say that it did not do so and has been unable to intervene during the numerous previous crises in Eswatini, the dispute over the Okavango River between Botswana and Namibia, during the long ongoing tragedy in Zimbabwe, and the terrorist violence in northern Mozambique. Instead, they have been issuing statements. Their inaction in terms of Eswatini is hardly surprising. The SADC as an institution reflects the concerns of the political elite in their respective countries instead of Southern Africa’s beleaguered citizens, and as such, inaction and protecting the political elites in these countries is their want. The political opposition and civil society in Swaziland’s call for a more robust intervention has been met with a deafening silence. While a fact-finding mission has been sent, the nature of the crisis demands far more strident action from the regional body, which is simply not forthcoming.

It is worth stating that Southern Africa has failed to learn an obvious lesson regarding conflict. It is much safer, cheaper, and more effective to resolve small conflicts before they gain momentum. The lower-level protests in Eswatini should have been resolved before it turned into riots, damaging government buildings, shops, banks, and vehicles. The damage is estimated at R3 million. This crisis is now spiralling out of control. The common dominator in the country’s history of unrest is the lack of democracy. Instead of operating a multi-party system, the country insists on remaining an absolute monarchy – not a constitutional one. Pro-democracy activists in the country have vowed to intensify demonstrations until democratic reforms take place and all opposition parties are unbanned. 

South Africa has the ability to assist Eswatini

On a more positive note, South Africa has the ability to assist Eswatini in order to get out of its morass. It can intervene in the country, given its economic leverage that ranges from business to trade interests. Moreover, the intertwined marital ties between the Zulu and Swazi monarchies could assist with a Track 2 diplomacy to push the feudal kingdom to embrace a constitutional monarchy. Feudal despotism has no place in the 21st century.

For corporates such as MTN, there needs to be an understanding that putting profits above people is a sure recipe for further political instability, which will ironically undermine profits. In other words, short-term gains and medium- to long-term pains. What is desperately needed, is a new social contract in the kingdom that brings together the Royal House, the political opposition, and civil society, as well as the corporate sector. South Africa has a vested interest in securing such an outcome, as there is a strong likelihood that refugees will cross the border into South Africa should the conflict dynamics escalate. This is exactly what happened when Pretoria chose to pursue a policy of ‘quiet diplomacy’, in effect ignoring the crisis in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, which resulted in millions of its citizens seeking refuge in South Africa. 

South Africa needs to act, and act urgently – together with its fellow partners in the SADC – to ensure that Swaziland does not go the route of Zimbabwe. Given the unfolding humanitarian tragedy, South Africa should partner with UN agencies and the international donor community to first bring about a cessation of hostilities, second, to provide humanitarian assistance, and third, to broker a long-term political solution to break the impasse. South African civil societies such as Gift of the Givers could assist with humanitarian assistance, while South African corporates could examine ways with their Swazi counterparts to kick-start the moribund Swazi economy.

 

News Archive

Questions about racial integration in residences answered
2007-07-31

Answers to frequently asked questions about the racial integration of student residences at the UFS

1. Why does the UFS want to change the current situation in the student residences?

There are many reasons why a new approach to placement in the student residences is necessary. However, the main reason is of an educational nature. As a university, the UFS should create an environment in its residences where students can learn to appreciate and respect the rich diversity that is on offer at the university. A university accommodates students from many different backgrounds in terms of race, language, religion, economic status, culture and other aspects. If a student can learn to appreciate the value in this rich diversity at university, he or she will also be able to appreciate the value of this diversity in the workplace and broader society.

The current situation of predominantly white and predominantly black residences has not been able to cultivate such an appreciation for diversity and respect for one another as human beings, and will not equip students with the knowledge and skills required to manage diversity.

Besides this, there are many other areas of life in the residences that need attention. For one, we need to urgently establish a human rights culture in the residences so that the rights of all students can be respected. We need to address the abuse of alcohol, provide disabled students with their rightful place, and last but not least, really entrench a culture of learning in student residences.

Let us make the residences places we can be proud of – places of learning, of diversity, of respect; places of growth and development. This is the ideal we should all strive to achieve.  

2. Why does the management want to force us to integrate?

It is a false argument to debate the issue in terms of “force”. Any decision by a University, or any other organisation, regarding matters of policy, rules and regulations implies a restriction on the choice of an individual and an obligation to comply.  What we should focus on is whether this decision of the Council is in the best interests of our students.

The management of the university believes that it has a responsibility to give students the best education possible, not only in terms of what you learn in the lecture rooms, but especially in the residences as well. The residences can be very powerful places of learning about matters of great importance, both academic and non-academic.

The parallel-medium language policy separates students into largely white/Afrikaans and black/English classes. Efforts are being made to bridge this divide in the classroom, but we can also try to eliminate it in the residences.

The university is committed to building a new culture for the entire institution that is based on values and principles – such as an academic culture, non-racialism, respect for human rights and diversity – among staff and students.

In the context of student residences, the application of these values and principles still allows substantial room for the voluntary exercising of choice by individuals as well as by Residence Committees, notably with regard to the placement of students (they can still place 50 percent of first-year students), as well as the determination of the future character and traditions of a diverse residence.

Furthermore, students can still choose their residences (subject to availability of places), can choose a roommate, and so forth.

3. What about freedom of association?

The rights we enjoy in a democracy must be balanced against other rights, as well as the laws of the country. This means that the right to freedom of association must be balanced against laws that make it illegal to discriminate against other people on the basis of race, language or religion, for instance.

Freedom of association pertains to the right of individuals to form voluntary organisations such as clubs or private boarding houses, or their right to join or not join existing organisations.  You exercise that right when you decide to become a student of the UFS, and again when you choose to live in one of its residences.

However, once you have decided to join an organisation voluntarily, you cannot subsequently demand that that organisation should provide a “club” or residence to your liking where, for instance, you only associate with your choice of co-members. You must accept the policies of that organisation.

In any case, how would that right of yours be balanced against the right of another individual who wishes to associate with a different set of co-members? (For instance – what about the freedom of a student to associate with students NOT from his own background, but indeed from another language, cultural, racial or economic background?) 

The constitutional right to freedom of association can, in any case, not be used to exclude or discriminate on the basis of race or religion (Section 18 of the Bill of Rights).

Besides, the new policy guidelines will still make provision for freedom of association. This right can be exercised freely within a diverse residence with regard to friendships, joint academic work, socialising, sport, etc.

4. Will residences not lose their traditions?

The University appreciates that there are many valuable elements of tradition in residences. However, we must bear in mind that the traditions and character of student residences have evolved and changed over time, and they will continue to evolve and to change. In addition, we do not need to accept all aspects of residence life purely on the basis of tradition, including the unacceptably high level of alcohol abuse and unsavoury, humiliating and discriminatory orientation practices. The new approach to integrated residences provides the opportunity to retain the positive aspects of the current traditions and character, but also to develop new traditions and give residences a new character.

We can now establish a tradition and a character for each residence that are reconcilable with the values of the University as a place of scholarship and are aligned with the human rights approach of our country’s Constitution, the laws of our country and the strengths and diversity of the students in a particular residence.

5. Have students been involved in this process? Is there a role for them to play after the decision has been taken by the Council of the UFS?

In the first semester of 2007, during two rounds of consultations, the primes, SRC and student organisations were consulted about the proposed new placement policy to increase diversity in residences. Some residences also made written submissions on the matter (such as Madelief, Soetdoring, Wag-'n-bietjie, Vergeet-my-nie, Emily Hobhouse). Other residences requested and were granted more time, but did not make any submissions in the end (such as Reitz and Armentum).

Management also had several meetings with the above-mentioned structures to hear first-hand from students their concerns and solutions regarding possible challenges presented by integration in residences.

During these interactions, several excellent ideas and proposals were put forward by students. These views had a definite impact on the eventual proposal that was taken to the University Council, in particular regarding the minimum level of diversity (30%) in junior residences and the fact that residences still want to have a say in the placement of students, rather than the placement decision being left in the hands of Management alone (hence the 50% placement portion of residences). Management values the effort that was put into the process by the primes and residence committees, and thanks them for their contributions.

However, it should be stressed that consultation should not be understood as a process of negotiation, nor does it imply that consensus must be reached. What it means is that Management must take a considered decision after hearing the views of stakeholders.

Management would like students to continue to provide input and ideas regarding the implementation details of the policy guidelines. Task teams have been established and students will be informed about how they can interact with the task teams on an ongoing basis.

6. But integration in the residences was tried in the past (in the late 1990s), and then it failed. Why will it work now?

Yes, the University of the Free State did integrate its residences as far back as 1993, and for a few years it worked. The UFS did it at that time and is now doing so again, because it is the right thing to do. Yet it is important to understand why the previous attempt at racial integration in residences was not successful.

Firstly, both black and white students were much polarised because of the apartheid past. Secondly, there was insufficient management support for students in the residences, the student leaders generally as well as residence heads, in terms of dealing with diversity and related issues. Thirdly, the institutional culture of the UFS and the residences in particular was not addressed as part of broader transformation and integration in residences, whereas it is now being addressed.

In addition, the current decision to integrate residences has the benefit of being implemented after several more years of integration in schooling, sport, workplaces and other aspects of life.

This decision is also based on Management’s commitment to give all the possible support it can to this process.

This is a very important initiative that the UFS is undertaking. Management, in co-operation with students, must ensure that it succeeds. Integrated residences that produce high-quality graduates equipped to deal with the challenges of the workplace and our society is a worthwhile ideal we should all strive to achieve.

If you would like to make a proposal regarding the implementation and practical aspects of the new policy, please send it to the following email address: rector@ufs.ac.za

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