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
10 March 2021 | Story Prof Sethulego Matebesi | Photo Supplied
Dr Sethulego Matebesi
Prof Sethulego Matebesi is a Senior Lecturer and Academic Head of the Department of Sociology at the University of the Free State.
No South African will deny that the most criticised Chapter Nine institution in recent times has been the Public Protector, Busisiwe Mkhwebane.

Five years ago, the National Assembly endorsed Advocate Mkhwebane’s candidacy as the fourth Public Protector with an overwhelming majority vote in 2016. Since then, a litany of adverse court rulings created a seesaw effect between those who support her and those who vehemently oppose her continuation as Public Protector. This rift is likely to widen after an independent panel appointed by Parliament recently concluded that there is prima facie evidence of repeated incompetence and misconduct. 

Still a long way before the Public Protector can be impeached

Of great concern is that the Public Protector failed in her attempts to obtain a court interdict to halt the inquiry into her fitness to hold office, pending her challenge of the rules that the National Assembly adopted for the impeachment process.

It is still a long way before the Public Protector can be impeached. In this regard, it is not the aim of this contribution to rehash the events leading up to the findings of the preliminary inquiry. The purpose here is to answer a question being asked about how the ANC will respond to the impeachment of the Public Protector.

One can use two critical points as prisms to understand the likely scenario that will play out: the history of voting in Parliament and the political currency of the Radical Economic Transformation (RET) faction inside the ANC.

For most of our history, voting in Parliament since the dawn of democracy has been – as can be expected – along party lines. Even when deviation occurred, this was extremely low. A safe bet is that this voting pattern will persist because of MPs' strong inclination to conformity.

What is less predictable, is just how the whippery of the ANC will respond to the possibility of voting for or against the removal of the Public Protector. Elsewhere in the world, legislators are allowed to vote according to their conscience, rather than their party's official line on contentious issues.

The PP's future depends on the ravenous political trade-offs between two ANC factions

Outside of Parliament, the ANC's RET faction has been encouraged by the actions of the party's Secretary-General and the former president. They are aptly using the political currency of victimhood to their advantage. The longer the court cases of Ace Magashule and Jacob Zuma drag on, the more political currency they gain in support of the ANC's RET faction. With so many party members facing legal challenges, some of them are inevitably drawn to conspiracies. The political behaviour fostered by this group is an antithesis of constitutional democracy. This has turned into a power conundrum for the ANC, which has exploded over the past two years.

Ironically, the Public Protector's future depends on the ravenous political trade-offs between the two factions within the ANC. Like a swinging pendulum, her support is tilted mainly by those who trust and distrust her. These differences are not part of the normal give-and-take dynamics of politics. It is an outcome of politicians whose future depends entirely on their fightback strategy. Why then would an ANC MP who is sympathetic to the cause of the RET forces vote for the removal of the Public Protector? 

In hindsight, this seems to be an eminently sensible general analysis of the issue. However, this analysis may be highly untenable in the eyes of an ANC MP. That the motion to remove the Public Protector came from the DA further compounds this situation.

But what is absurd and difficult to explain is the legal counsel of the Public Protector's argument that the DA has a vendetta against her and National Speaker Thandi Modise's questionable attitude. This is the narrative that some ANC MPs will advance to vote against the DA's motion and not protect constitutional democracy in South Africa. 

Meanwhile, the pendulum of trust and distrust in the Public Protector keeps on swinging. But if we think the only solution to deal with the myriad and severe challenges faced by the Public Protector is her removal by Parliament, our wait for a solution will be much longer.

Opinion article by Prof Sethulego Matebesi, Senior Lecturer and Academic Head of the Department of Sociology, University of the Free State

 


News Archive

MBA Programme - Question And Answer Sheet - 27 May 2004
2004-05-27

1. WHAT MUST THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE (UFS) DO TO GET FULL ACCREDITATION FOR THE MBA PROGRAMMES?

According to the Council on Higher Education’s (CHE) evaluation, the three MBA programmes of the UFS clearly and significantly contribute to students’ knowledge and skills, are relevant for the workplace, are appropriately resourced and have an appropriate internal and external programme environment. These programmes are the MBA General, the MBA in Health Care Management and the MBA in Entrepreneurship.

What the Council on Higher Education did find, was a few technical and administrative issues that need to be addressed.

This is why the three MBA programmes of the UFS received conditional accreditation – which in itself is a major achievement for the UFS’s School of Management, which was only four years old at the time of the evaluation.

The following breakdown gives one a sense of the mostly administrative nature of the conditions that have to be met before full accreditation is granted by the CHE:

a. A formal forum of stakeholders: The UFS is required to establish a more structured, inclusive process of review of its MBA programmes. This is an administrative formality already in process.

b. A work allocation model: According to the CHE this is required to regulate the workload of the teaching staff, particularly as student numbers grow, rather than via standard management processes as currently done.

c. Contractual agreements with part-time staff: The UFS is required to enter into formal agreements with part-time and contractual staff as all agreements are currently done on an informal and claim-basis. This is an administrative formality already in process.

d. A formal curriculum committee: According to the CHE, the School of Management had realised the need for a structure – other than the current Faculty Board - where all MBA lecturers can deliberate on the MBA programmes, and serve as a channel for faculty input, consultation and decision-making.

e. A system of external moderators: This need was already identified by the UFS and the system is to be implemented as early as July 2004.

f. A compulsory research component: The UFS is required to introduce a research component which will include the development of research skills for the business environment. The UFS management identified this need and has approved such a component - it is to take effect from January 2005. This is an insufficient element lacking in virtually all MBA programmes in South Africa.

g. Support programmes for learners having problems with numeracy: The UFS identified this as a need for academic support among some learners and has already developed such a programme which will be implemented from January 2005.

The majority of these conditions have been satisfied already and few remaining steps will take effect soon. It is for this reason that the UFS is confident that its three MBA programmes will soon receive full accreditation.

2. WHAT ACCREDITATION DOES THE UFS HAVE FOR ITS MBA PROGRAMME?

The UFS’s School of Management received conditional accreditation for its three MBA programmes.

Two levels of accreditation are awarded to tertiary institutions for their MBA programmes, namely full accreditation and conditional accreditation. When a programme does not comply with the minimum requirements regarding a small number of criteria, conditional accreditation is given. This can be rectified during the short or medium term.

3. IS THERE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE ACADEMIC CORE OF THE UFS’s MBA PROGRAMMES?

No. The UFS is proud of its three MBA programmes’ reputation in the market and the positive feedback it receives from graduandi and their employers.

The MBA programmes of the UFS meet most of the minimum requirements of the evaluation process.

In particular, the key element of ‘teaching and learning’, which relates to the curriculum and content of the MBA programmes, is beyond question. In other words, the core of what is being taught in our MBA programmes is sound.

4. IS THE UFS’s MBA A WORTHWHILE QUALIFICATION?

Yes. Earlier this year, the School of Management – young as it is - was rated by employers as the best smaller business school in South Africa. This was based on a survey conducted by the Professional Management Review and reported in the Sunday Times Business Times, of 25 January 2004.

The UFS is committed to maintaining these high standards of quality, not only through compliance with the requirements of the CHE, but also through implementing its own quality assurance measures.

Another way in which we benchmark the quality of our MBA programmes is through the partnerships we have formed with institutions such as the DePaul University in Chicago and Kansas State University, both in the US, as well as the Robert Schuman University in France.

For this reason the UFS appreciates and supports the work of the CHE and welcomes its specific findings regarding the three MBA programmes.

It is understandable that the MBA review has caused some nervousness – not least among current MBA students throughout the country.

However, one principle that the UFS management is committed to is this: preparing all our students for a world of challenge and change. Without any doubt the MBA programme of the UFS is a solid preparation.

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