Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
15 February 2022 | Story Prof Sethulego Matebesi
Prof Sethulego Matebesi
Prof Sethulego Matebesi, University of the Free State

Long before delivering his fifth State of the Nation Address (Sona), concerns reverberated in the political and social corridors surrounding President Cyril Ramaphosa, urging him to make conclusive statements, to have the heads roll of those implicated in corruption, and to report on achievements and challenges. However, the somewhat overwhelming dismissive responses from prominent opposition party leaders may seem as if they are not eager to engage with the Sona constructively. Thus, it seems that no matter how well the Sona is delivered, there will always be those who dismiss it as a trivialisation of South Africa’s challenges.

There were times during one or two of the ‘family meetings’ – live broadcasts by the President, addressing the nation on the status of the COVID-19 pandemic and the regulations to be amended – that it was vividly evident that Ramaphosa was taking strain. However, all this was gone when President Ramaphosa delivered the Sona like a true statesman, without any visible signs of the ambush he was facing from within and outside his own political party. In fact, the need to be bold and resolute about the government’s stability has never been stronger after recent attacks on several national key points across the country.

Assumed power of reports from commissions, advisory panels, and advisory councils

In a recent Reading Group Session of the Department of Sociology, we discussed the assumed power of documents when conducting research. The emphasis was on the need to avoid an over-zealous reduction of a research question to documentary evidence without considering the document’s terms (or context). Similarly, it is interesting to note that since 2018, President Ramaphosa has established 24 advisory panels, advisory councils, task committees, and commissions. While it may seem rather obvious that some of these panels have been designated by statute for a specific purpose, the assumed powers of the reports produced are sometimes the most difficult to unravel.

One such instance is the report of the Zondo Commission of Inquiry into State Capture, which was viewed as a magic wand that would root out corruption and strengthen the rule of law. In the face of the complex set of interlocking challenges that are hampering structural growth and change in South Africa, reports from committees may provide an in-depth examination of issues. However, there are at least two problems with policy makers who invariably think that these reports, including national addresses such as Sona, are solutions to the country’s myriad challenges.

First, a recent publication of Transparency International highlights how some governments are trivialising the results of its Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). The trivialisation mainly happens when leaders who have come into office with a strong anti-corruption narrative, fail to make inroads against this scourge. For example, in South Africa, pronouncements on corruption – one of the leading causes of the state’s failure to deliver on promises – have been so subtle that those involved in corrupt practices may not even notice the seriousness of their acts.

The other problem is the reluctance to change non-performing accounting systems that are susceptible to abuse. South Africa has been trying to fix the puzzle of corruption long before the arrival of the Zondo Commission. Therefore, acknowledging that public institutions and state-owned enterprises (SOEs) have been infiltrated by a criminal network intent on looting public money is merely a starting point but not a satisfactory explanation in its own right. Moreover, it does not account for the government’s glaring failure to act upon the Auditor-General’s annual findings on irregular and unaccounted expenditure. It would have been more desirable for the government to insist on better financial accountability than its over-reliance on commissions or advisory panels.

As the nation waits with bated breath to see how corruption is tackled ‘once and for all’, as the President announced, a further qualification needs to be made regarding the proposed disposal of the government’s non-strategic SOEs. Estimates of global trends in privatisation indicate that privatisation activities are on the rise. In South Africa, there is a great deal of evidence that a handful of politically connected individuals often benefit from the privatisation of government assets. This raises important questions that are beyond the scope of this contribution, for example, how SOEs will be further weakened to hasten the process of privatisation.

Victorious we can emerge, but only if …

President Ramaphosa made a bold statement through his promise and commitment to revitalise the country’s weak economy, deal with Eskom’s unreliable electrical supply, and bring about changes to security agencies, among others. The extent, urgency, and sincerity with which the government will implement these and many other commitments, will determine whether we will ‘emerge victorious’, as Ramaphosa announced.

Mr President, we know the road ahead will not be easy. But in many ways, there has been an improvement. One possible solution to continue this trajectory of accountability and improved service delivery is to take full advantage of the benefits of the digital age. A digitisation drive underscored by a consequence management approach may assist in implementing the Sona promises and commitments in a more efficient, flexible, and sustainable manner. In this way, South Africa will begin to ‘walk the talk’ against poverty, unemployment, and inequality.


News Archive

Lessons of The Spear
2012-08-16

Discussing weighty issues at the UFS were from left: Prof. Jonathan Jansen; Vice-Chancellor and Rector; Nic Dawes, Editor-in-Chief, Mail & Guardian; Max du Preez: Investigative journalist and political columnist; Ferial Haffajee: Editor, City Press; and Justice Malala: Political commentator and newspaper columnist.
Photo: Johan Roux
14 August 2012

What were South Africans left with after The Spear? More importantly, what did we learn from The Spear?

These were the issues discussed at a seminar, Beyond the Spear, on the controversial Brett Murray painting at the Bloemfontein Campus of the University of the Free State (UFS) on Monday 13 August 2012.

The university hosted this seminar, Beyond the Spear, in conjunction with acclaimed journalists, to look deeper into the lessons that South Africans learnt from this painting and the reaction from the public and politicians following soon after it went on display at the Goodman Gallery in Johannesburg.

The four panellists, Mr Justice Malala (political analyst, journalist and host of the news show, The Justice Factor), Mr Nic Dawes (editor in chief of Mail & Guardian), Mr Max du Preez (investigative journalist and political columnist) and Ms Ferial Haffajee (editor of City Press), all presented their views and experiences on the public’s perceptions of this artwork.

In his opening remarks, Prof. Jonathan Jansen, Vice-Chancellor and Rector, said the purpose of the seminar was to help us make sense of what happened. Prof. Jansen also chaired this seminar.

“This being South Africa, there will be more ‘Spears’. More public crises will unfold that divide the nation and that will stir the emotions. We need to understand what happened so that we are better prepared to deal with the coming ‘Spears’.”

Issues on leadership, South Africa’s hurtful past and the freedom of expression were some of the topics raised by the panellists.

“This has taught us that South Africans – especially the older generation – still need to vent their anger… White South Africa must be patient and allow black citizens to shout at them,” said Mr Du Preez. He warned that this anger should serve a constructive purpose. In reaction to a question if Brett Murray did not disrespect Pres. Jacob Zuma’s dignity with his controversial painting, he said that this painting was “…rude and disrespectful.”

“It was meant to be. It was not honouring him.” He said that politicians will do anything, including messing with the country’s stability, to further their own interests. “From now on we need to be far more alert, far more cynical about our politicians.”

Mr Dawes shared his experience and said that the debates around The Spear were very painful considering where the nation has come from. He said the painting opened up painful pasts and difficult spaces. “It is up to the media to open up these difficult spaces.” He said the painting also brought up questions of how South Africans deal and live with pain. “South Africa must live with its past. The debate should now be how to preserve space for the country’s ghosts and how its citizens could get the resilience to deal with it.”

Ms Haffajee, who was caught in the crossfire between freedom of expression and human dignity and who refused to remove a picture of the painting from the City Press website, said that the media was viciously played by politicians.

“This had shown that achieving freedom took many lives, but it took very little to kill it.” She said The Spear is art that it is part of a rich cultural heritage of protest art.

Mr Malala said with the debates around The Spear painting, something died in South Africa. “The debate was taken away from us. We let politicians get to us.”

After the panellists delivered their presentations, Prof. Jansen led a discussion session between the audience and the panellists.

 

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