Latest News Archive

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

Africa Day reflection – Africa’s crisis of leadership and lack of credible institutions

25 May 2021 | Story Dr Sunday Paul C. Onwuegbuchulam | Photo Supplied

DrSundayOnwuegbuchulam_web read more — Dr Sunday Paul C Onwuegbuchulam is from the Centre for Gender and Africa Studies, University of the Free State (UFS) who writes that African politicians must learn to respect the land and the people.

It is once again the month of May and there are many preparations being made for the celebration of Africa Day. I do not believe in or subscribe to the logic of having a specified day or month to celebrate Africa. But importantly, the present state of the socio-political and economic landscape of Africa leaves nothing to celebrate. It still baffles me that there is notable hype surrounding this so-called Africa Day celebration, especially considering the state of decay in the continent. I am aware I sound rather negative, but this is how I feel about the continent which almost 1.3 billion people, including myself, call home. There are several issues that we can talk about that go to ascertain that there is indeed nothing to celebrate today in Africa but the fact is we should rather be mourning. My focus is on the crisis of leadership and the weak institutions in most African countries.

I am not saying that Africa has not made progress after the years of slavery and colonialism meted on the continent. No, I am sure that good stories are coming out of some African countries, seen in different forms of development, strong institutions and credible leadership in the said countries. Botswana offers a good case in point, as it is a country that has used its diamond resources to develop itself and its citizens. Arguably, Botswana’s success story can only be credited to the availability of strong institutions and leadership which considers the interest of the country and the wellbeing of the people as a priority. Perhaps another good story coming from Africa is the way South Africa, and indeed some other African countries, have dealt with the issue of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is said that Africa, with close to 17% of the world’s population, came out rather ‘okay’ with regards to not bearing the brunt of the negative impact of the pandemic. This can also be attributed to some good leadership, especially as seen in South Africa, which, though not perfect, debatably helped to minimise the impact of COVID in the country. It is also true that some African countries were not honest in reporting the levels of infections and some were in denial of the pandemic, which in itself led to the deaths of many including some among the political class in these countries.

Leadership in Africa

Let me then talk about the issue of problematic leadership in Africa which has left the continent on its knees: today most African countries suffer from the problem of having inept and morally bankrupt leaders. South Africa is currently still going through the state capture saga playing out at the Zondo commission. The stories emerging from that commission, if true, point to a growing culture of corruption and sleaze that needs to be addressed, if South Africa will avoid becoming like other African countries ruined by the corruption phenomenon. Nigeria as a case in point is battling systemic corruption which has eaten deep into the socio-political and economic fabric of the country. Nigeria’s fight against corruption has become a losing battle with the current president, Muhammadu Buhari, obviously inept in dealing with the syndrome. Buhari coming into power in 2015 made several assurances that he would fight corruption and insecurity in the country. A few years into the second term of that administration, it can be said Nigeria is worse than Buhari found it. Corruption, insecurity and economic hardship have left Nigerians dazed and the assertion in some circles is that the Buhari campaign was the greatest fraud on Nigerians since its independence.

Nigeria’s case perhaps offers a basis for the analysis of the crisis of leadership and weak institutions in African countries. Africa’s mostly ageing ruling class has failed African countries as a result of their power hunger, blatant ineptitude and lack of moral and political will to establish strong institutions. On these, it will seem that some African politicians are yet to learn what democracy and respect for the will of the people are all about. We have African presidents changing their constitutions to stay longer in office. There has been a history of this phenomenon in many African countries. For example, Djibouti, with president Ismail Omar Guelleh in 1999; Chad with president Idriss Déby in 2005; Cameroon with president Paul Biya in 2008 who has now stayed in office for close to 39 years; Zimbabwe with the late Robert Mugabe in 2013; Congo Brazzaville with president Denis Sassou Nguesso in 2016; 2017 in Rwanda with president Paul Kagame, who has now stayed in office 21 years and counting; Uganda in 2005 under Yoweri Museveni with the supreme court quashing the age limit for the president, thereby allowing Museveni to contest the 2021 elections.

The case of Uganda’s Museveni is perhaps the one that warrants dwelling on. The man is being sworn in for the sixth time as president of Uganda amidst claims of a rigged election. Events leading up to and during the said election leaves one with little to write home about, with reported widespread intimidation of opposition party supporters, shutting off the internet and all sorts of electoral abuses which are callously engineered to steal the people’s mandate. It is pathetic to hear Museveni always tout “democratically elected” in answer to any question which seems to suggest that he is now a dictator after having ousted one (Idi Amin).

One interesting thing that emerges in the discussion of African leaders wanting to stay in office longer than they should is their rebuttal that democracy in Africa should not be seen as democracy as obtained elsewhere in the world – the US for instance, where a president has only two terms of four years each. African presidents see themselves and indeed democracy in Africa as incommensurate with that in Europe and the West. Hence it is not susceptible to being measured by the standards of democracy in other parts of the world. In their view, democracy is not perfect anywhere, therefore they need the world to leave them alone to practise the understanding of democracy as they see it. It is interesting to hear some politicians disingenuously use as an example the Trump saga in the US and his refusal to acknowledge defeat in an election – to buttress their point about democracy not being perfect anywhere. On this, it will seem to me that these African leaders fail to understand that Trump’s case was just what the philosopher JJC Smart called a nomological dangler. Trump’s case is a nomological dangler because it was outside of the norm in the history of relatively successful American democracy, which perhaps has become the archetype of democracy in the modern world. It is sadder to see how these politicians use the Trump case as a basis to justify their incessant craving for power and their wish to die in office. It would seem that some African leaders have converted monarchical rule to what they call democracy. A feature of democracy is the choosing and replacing of representatives through a free and fair election. This presupposes a limited time in the office of a representative, who then is replaced through a free and fair election. Democracy is then not a monarchy in which leaders die in office and or abdicate because of some reasons. Notably, in the case of African politicians, they do not leave office even when they are incapacitated by health issues. Take the recent case of Ali Bongo of Gabon.

Live liyengcayelwa

Africa is really in trouble if this trend in leadership continues. Africa cannot progress when politicians in different countries think they are the best the country can produce to lead. African politicians should learn to stay their time in office and leave when it is time, handing over to successors who will continue where they stopped and move their countries forward. Elections and the will of the people should be allowed to reign and politicians should stop the pogrom meted out on the will of the people. This needs strong institutions which are lacking in most African countries and this is because in most cases these morally bankrupt and inept politicians have rendered these institutions useless in their countries. It is a sad issue and one which needs to be corrected if Africa and African countries will have anything good to celebrate.

A very important African ethos is vital for us to begin to solve our problems and that is live liyengcayelwa. Live liyengcayelwa is an isiSwati saying that admonishes respect for the land and the people. This is what I am proposing to African politicians – that they learn to respect the land and the people. They do this by accepting when their time in office is up and leave peacefully. They should learn to establish strong institutions which will help in stabilising true democracy and achieving proper development in African countries. Through these, we might perhaps have a true cause to celebrate Africa.

Opinion article by Dr Sunday Paul C. Onwuegbuchulam, Centre for Gender and Africa Studies, University of the Free State.

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

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