Latest News Archive

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

16 Days of Activism Against GBV: Is it merely political lip service?

30 November 2021 | Story Dr Claire Westman | Photo Supplied

Dr Claire Westman is a Postdoctoral Researcher at The Free State Centre for Human Rights, University of the Free State (UFS)

The 25th of November marked the beginning of 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence (GBV), in South Africa and the world. This is a global, annual campaign that began on November 25 as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and runs until 10 December, International Human Rights Day. In South Africa this campaign is referred to as 16 Days of Activism for No Violence Against Women and Children. The theme for this year’s campaign is “The Year of Charlotte Mannya Maxeke – 16 Days of Activism – Moving from awareness to accountability”.

According to the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa (2021), “The campaign aims to raise awareness of the negative impact that violence and abuse have on women and children and to rid society of abuse permanently.” It suggests that GBV “continues to cripple our society, depriving women and children of their right to be safe and continue with their daily lives without fear of being murdered or raped, if not both”. The 16 Days of Activism campaign thus calls on South Africans to be aware of GBV, call out those who commit such violence, and no longer protect those (primarily men) who benefit from the abuse and subordination of women and children. While GBV includes various forms of violence, such as emotional, psychological and physical, a pervasive form of such violence is sexual violence.

Sexual violence continues to increase unabated

In contrast to the campaign’s calls for an end to violence against women, South Africa’s most recent crime statistics reveal that instead of decreasing, sexual violence continues to increase unabated. These statistics show that during the three-month period of 1 July to 30 September 2021, nearly 10 000 people (primarily women) were raped, and of a sample of 6 144 of these cases, 3 951 were committed in the victims’ homes. According to these statistics, there has been a 7.1% increase in the number of rapes committed during this period compared to the previous reporting period. It is well-known, however, that the number of rapes and incidences of GBV that are reported are only a fraction of those that take place. This prevalence of sexual violence has also been exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. As an example of this, the South African Police Service (SAPS) received over 2 300 calls during the first week of South Africa’s strict lockdown, alone, related to GBV, and between March and June of 2020, 21 women and children had been killed by intimate partners in South Africa.

While the government has implemented some measures to address issues around sexual and GBV, clearly not enough is being done to deal with the endemic levels of violence against women. Pumla Gqola (2015: 3) refers to the constant threat of violence women in South Africa experience as the ‘female fear factory’. She argues that sexual violence is used to police women’s behaviour in an attempt to ensure that they adhere to the hetero-patriarchal norms that pervade the nation. Within this hetero-patriarchal logic the gains women have made socially, economically, and legally are seen as a threat to the patriarchal foundation and the power it affords men. Consequently, Gqola (2015: 15) asserts that “it is no coincidence that South African women, who, on paper are so empowered and have won so many freedoms, are living with the constant fear of violence”. She further adds that “an effective backlash always does much more than neutralise gains, though, it reverses the gains we see everywhere and it reminds those who might benefit from such gains that they are not quite free”. In other words, sexual and gender-based violence are seen as effective means through which to keep women in positions of subordination and maintain the patriarchal status quo.

So, while it is vital that government create measures that punish perpetrators, and allow for women to leave abusive settings, it is also imperative that the discourse around sexual violence be addressed. Toxic discourse is often used as a means to justify violence, and in patriarchal societies, it is often this kind of discourse that positions women as inferior to men, and women as unworthy of respect. Rape myths and rape culture underlie much of the discourse that allows for rape to be as prevalent as it is in South Africa. Lankster (2019) claims that “these myths include that females are to be blamed for their own rape, that victims ‘ask for it’, and that victims enjoy being raped”. Similarly, much discourse perpetuates the notion that women cannot be raped by their husbands. That is, because they are married, the man is entitled to sex, and therefore, any sex within the marriage is consensual. Clearly then the endemic nature of sexual violence stems from the socio-symbolic positionings of men and women within hetero-patriarchal cultures and their corresponding discourses and ideologies. If sexual violence is to be effectively addressed, then these pervasive and toxic notions need to be challenged and dismantled.

Discourse around sexual violence ignores the perpetrators

Additionally, most of the discourse around sexual violence focuses on the victims / survivors, while ignoring the perpetrators of the violence. The burden is placed on women to avoid situations that might be dangerous, leave abusive relationships, and “break the silence” (Gqola, 2015: 15) around sexual violence. The responsibility for preventing and combating sexual violence is thus removed from men, who are the primary perpetrators, and women are impelled to ‘protect themselves’ from these seemingly abstract figures who commit such violence. As such, a shift to a discourse that places the onus on men to call out other men, reflect on their own attitudes and behaviours towards women and to actively work to put an end to sexual violence needs to occur. President Cyril Ramaphosa (2021), asserted that “this year’s 16 Days of Activism campaign aims to shift from awareness to accountability and create an environment for men to play a greater role in GBV prevention.” However, while the government impels the members of the nation to move towards accountability, the government itself perhaps needs to take heed of its own advice.

As recently as the 16 November 2021, Icosa leader, Jeffrey Donson, a man convicted of rape, was elected to the position of mayor within the Kannaland Municipality. This was done with the support of the ANC. After outcries around Donson being elected mayor, the ANC has now claimed it will “review its decision to form a coalition with Icosa”, however, this has not led to Donson’s removal from the mayoral post or seemingly led to much concern from the government as to how such a person is eligible for this position to begin with. The government claims it is against sexual and GBV, and urges us to hold men accountable, and yet, they have endorsed the placement of a man charged with rape into a powerful governmental position (something that is not altogether unfamiliar with many positions of authority in South Africa).

Greater accountability is needed from the government

In order to address GBV, greater accountability is needed from the government, along with a much stronger stance on gender-based and sexual violence. As Gqola (2015: 15) so succinctly states, we need “to pressure the government to create a criminal justice system that works to bring the possibility of justice to rape survivors” – a government that holds itself accountable, a justice system that holds rapists accountable, and a society that holds itself and the men within it accountable.

Overall, while the 16 Days of Activism campaign has admirable intentions (and is used by many rights organisations and NGOs as a means through which to actively create awareness and address violence), one wonders whether this campaign is merely used by the government as a form of political lip service, a way to make it seem as though they care about GBV, when in reality little is being done to combat the war on women’s bodies and the effects this violence has on women’s lived realities, as well as the ways in which violence impacts upon women’s abilities to effectively participate and thrive in the democratic nation.

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