Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
23 November 2021 | Story Gcina Mtengwane | Photo Supplied
Gcina Mtengwane is a lecturer in the community development programme at the University of the Free State, QwaQwa Campus. He believes democracy is more than just voting. It is the expansion of self-determination opportunities.

Opinion article by Mr Gcina Mtengwane, Lecturer: Community Development Programme, University of the Free State.


Voter apathy has been diagnosed as part of the reason for the low voter turnout in the 2021 local government elections. The turnout was the lowest since democracy the dawn of democracy, with only about 12 million (46%) of about 26 million registered voters casting ballots. Apathy among voters in representative democracies is defined as a lack of interest in voting. Some choose to view this apathy as a threat to South Africa’s democracy. But it may not be the case, as some would like to put it. Instead, it may reflect the evolution of South Africa’s democracy and the expansion of choices available to South Africans outside of the voting principle commonly used to define democracy.

While I am inclined to agree with the view that this voter apathy has some messaging on the state of South Africa’s democracy, I argue that it is only a small part of the big picture. Democracy is, among many other things, the freedom to make choices. One of the permissible choices is the right not to vote. Defining the success or failure of democracy by voting is quite restricting and problematic   at least for me.

Local government is about addressing challenges in daily live

Local government is mainly about addressing issues and challenges in our daily lives. It does not require much of an overly ideological stance. Put simply, a community member at an informal settlement or village does not need to know the works of Marx, Fanon, and Biko to know that she or he does not have a road, potable water, or ablution facilities. It takes building materials, not political slogans or party ideology to build a house for those without houses or to provide food for the hungry.

What is more interesting has been the activism of young people outside the banner of political parties. Young people are engaged in issues that affect them in their daily lives. They are also engaged in lending a helping hand to others. They are doing this outside of formal party politics. The writings of Adam Prezowski (2003) identify ‘autonomy’ as the ability to participate in the making of collective decisions, which is a paltry notion of freedom. Prezowski asks whether democrats should value the freedom to choose. He further asks whether people value facing distinct choices when they make collective decisions. In the absence of concrete answers to these questions, Prezowski comments that “true” democrats must be prepared that their preferences might not be realised as the outcome of the collective choice. When many people cannot vote for what they most desire, democracy suffers. The low voter turnout may indicate that none of the political parties offered what most South Africans desire, hence they see no impetus to vote. 

Democracy is more than just voting

Democracy is about the expansion of opportunities and choices. Choosing not to vote does not necessarily reflect badly on our democracy. Instead, it speaks positively on the freedom of citizens to choose other arenas through which to have their issues heard. It is the freedom to decide on the relevance or lack thereof of the formal party-political system. The choice not to part take in party politics has allowed young people such as Lonalinamandla Bawuti, who responded to the plight of a young boy from the Eastern Cape living with his grandmother who needed support to go to initiation school. Bawuti appealed for assistance from South Africans to get the youngster to initiation school. 

It is the freedom of a group of businesspeople putting money together to create boreholes for a community without access to potable water. It is Nasizo Mndende,  a young social work graduate in the Eastern Cape seeing the plight of young rural girls and starting an NGO to educate on sexual and reproductive health rights. It is young people creating crowdfunding for students in need of university registration fees and for students wanting to go to university.

It is many others doing what they can with what they have and their influence contributing to change in communities.
The point I am making is that democracy is more than just voting. It is the expansion of self-determination opportunities. Low voter turnout may not be such a disastrous thing after all. This is because a lot of young people are contributing to making a better South Africa outside of the confines of political party membership.

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

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