Latest News Archive

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

Sona 2022: A bold statement that now is the time to walk the talk

15 February 2022 | Story Prof Sethulego Matebesi

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

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