Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
24 March 2022 | Story Portia Arodi | Photo Supplied
Portia Arodi
Portia Arodi, Interdisciplinary Master’s in Human Rights, Free State Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law

Opinion article by Portia Arodi, Interdisciplinary Master’s in Human Rights, Class of 2022 Free State Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of the Free State.
Human Rights Day means different things to different people. For some people, Human Rights Day means commemorating the day of the 1960 massacre when 69 people were shot and killed by police in Sharpeville.   In my opinion, Human Rights Day not only symbolises the historical events that occurred in 1960, but it also provides evidence of the inequalities that currently exist in South Africa.   The labour market in South Africa is still racialised and gender biased. The black majority in the labour market earns way less than their white counterparts, even though both are immersed in the same working conditions. According to Statistics South Africa (2015), the differences in the income of South Africans remain heavily racialised. Furthermore, since 1994, bridging the gap between gender and race continues to be a struggle. On the other hand, black women experience the same inequalities as their male counterparts. The difference is that black females are subject to double discrimination, based not only on their race, but on their gender as well. Despite occupying the same positions as males and assuming similar duties and workload, their salaries remain low. 
  
Human rights in an unequal society

On the other hand, for some categories of people – namely the elite and those in power – Human Rights Day amounts to a democratic South Africa, a country where the constitution is the supreme law of the land and where everyone (without exception) enjoys freedom and human rights. For this particular section of the ruling class and elite, Human Rights Day attests to the effective transition from the apartheid era to a democratic society characterised by freedom, equality, and dignity for all.

For those who lack access to basic needs such as water, food, shelter, health care, electricity, and sanitation, their perception of Human Rights Day may be very different, as they live in poverty with no promising future prospects.  In fact, for the larger section of the population, democratic South Africa is nothing but a burden that does not have much to offer.  Indeed, how to explain that in 2022, the black majority still relies on the bucket system for sanitation; how to understand that to date, they still survive in squatter camps and go through days and nights on an empty stomach? 

It is my contention that the celebration of Human Rights Day has failed to consider a holistic approach to highlighting and raising awareness on critical issues, including poverty and inequality. The realisation of socio-economic rights by authorities exists only on paper but is yet to be done effectively. The provision of service delivery, health-care services, infrastructure, the right to food, education, and other basic needs remains characteristic of modern South African society. From this perspective, it means that we are celebrating one part while neglecting the other.

Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when there are still children studying under trees?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when there are children going to school without food?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when there are children who are not able to go to school or receive basic education?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when racism is still occurring in our schools and workplaces?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when children are being raped by their teachers at school?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when some universities are still using Afrikaans as their primary language?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when our students are being deprived of education due to the mandatory vaccination policy?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when white privilege still exists among university students?

Is Human Rights Day still worth commemorating?

What are we celebrating on Human Rights Day?  Are we celebrating the achievements of the minority population? Are we celebrating the few changes that have occurred since the advent of a democratic South Africa? Are we celebrating the Fees Must Fall movement that occurred in a contest where some students who were fighting for free education were arrested, shot, and even killed? Are we simply referring to what occurred in 1960? Why are we not celebrating the Fees Must Fall movement? Why are we not celebrating the Rhodes Must Fall movement? Why are we not celebrating the Steyn Must Fall movement? 

On 21 March 2022:

We need to celebrate the Fees Must Fall movement.  
We need to celebrate the Rhodes Must Fall movement.
We need to celebrate the Steyn Must Fall movement.
We need to fight for the voiceless. 
We need to get commitment from government to abolish the use of the bucket system.
We need to get a commitment from government to build more schools, hospitals, shelters, roads, and other infrastructure.
We need to get commitment from government to hire more teachers. 
We need to get commitment from government on protection against racism that occurs in schools and universities. 

We need to get commitment from government regarding the abolition of the mandatory vaccination policies at universities.

On Human Rights Day, let us evaluate whether the Constitution of South Africa is protecting and safeguarding the rights of all human beings, irrespective of their gender, race, ethnic group, socio-economic status … etc.  Is this the democratic South Africa we would want our children and great-grandchildren to have in 50 years? If not, then we have a responsibility to find better ways in which the Constitution of South Africa functions as intended. 

News Archive

Nat Nakasa the inspiration behind UFS academic’s PhD thesis
2017-01-09

 Description: 001 Dr Willemien Marais Tags: 001 Dr Willemien Marais

Photo: Supplied

“I’m interested in alternative ways of approaching things, so I wanted to look at how journalism can be used in an unconventional way to contribute to a developing society.”

This is why Dr Willemien Marais, a lecturer in the Department of Communication Science at the University of the Free State (UFS), decided to title her thesis: Nat Nakasa as existential journalist, describing a form of journalism that places emphasis on the individual’s experiences.

“Existentialism is a philosophy that provides scope for an individual approach to life, and I like Nat Nakasa’s writing because of his excellent sense of humour despite his horrific circumstances as a black journalist during apartheid,” she says.

A practical approach to writing

Dr Marais analysed Nat Nakasa’s approach to journalism through articles he wrote in the early 1960s. She searched for relevant themes of existentialist philosophy in Nakasa’s work in order to prove that he could be read as an existential journalist.

She mentions that in terms of contemporary relevance, Nakasa’s approach to journalism suggests that existentialism could provide the journalist with a practical approach to writing, especially for those journalists working in developing societies.

“The relevance of this approach lies in the fact that any society is always between things – the old and the new – which might require the journalist to operate outside the boundaries of conventional journalism.”

This study was qualitative in nature because of the interpretation required. She mentions that it was basically one of many possible interpretations of Nakasa’s work; with this one using existentialism as a lens.

An intellectually stimulating thesis

Dr Marais quotes French existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, who said that interpreting someone’s work, especially someone who was no longer alive, was open to “thousands of shimmering, iridescent, relevant meanings”, and her research represents one of these possible meanings of Nakasa’s work as a journalist.

When asked how long she had worked on her thesis, Dr Marais simply answered “too long!” She mentions that her thesis was initially more of an intellectual exercise. Whereas the actual act of writing took about four months, she spent many years thinking about the topic. “Now that all is said and done, I realise I had to grow into the topic. It took me a while to realise that true understanding does not come overnight!”

Dr Marais mentions that other than herself and the work of Nat Nakasa, there were no other roleplayers involved. “For many, many years it was just Nat Nakasa and I. It was frustrating and exhilarating all at the same time.”

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