Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
29 June 2023 | Story Dr Ina Gouws | Photo Supplied
Dr Ina Gouws
Dr Ina Gouws is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Political Studies and Governance

University of the Free State

We find ourselves on the other side of another Youth Day in South Africa. I acknowledge the importance of this anniversary, although I recognise that it is not for me to fully comprehend the profound significance of commemorating the events of 16 June 1976. I therefore refrain from presuming to address the depth of pain, both enduring and otherwise, that this commemoration signifies.

Let me then stay with the broader significance of Youth Month in my deliberations.

Cabinet approved the theme for Youth Month 2023 to be: “Accelerating youth economic emancipation for a sustainable future”. In 2022 the theme was: “Promoting sustainable livelihood and resilience of young people for a better tomorrow”, and, in 2021 the theme was:  “The Year of Charlotte Mannya Maxeke: Growing youth employment for an inclusive and transformed society”.

Cooperation and partnership between government and the youth is fractured

For a government known for abject failure especially regarding education and economic policy, these are lofty ambitions for which we have not seen positive results. I fear that most of our country’s youths are not aware of these themes or else take note with understandable cynicism.  The trust they should have in our government to expect positive outcomes for policies and plans simply does not exist. The cooperation and partnership that needs to be forged between government and the youth in South Africa is therefore fractured to say the least. Consequently, a sense of disillusionment has taken hold.

Feelings of marginalisation and being unheard have bred disengagement, apathy, and even resentment. It appears this government can only talk a great game. None of this is news, is it? The problem is that the breakdown in trust undermines the foundation of a healthy democracy, hindering the government’s ability to effectively represent and address the needs of our youth. The effect of this failure has disastrous consequences for young people to the very core of their dignity.

It is therefore crucial to recognise the profound human consequences that come with unemployment and dire prospects. The impact of unemployment on young individuals is not to be underestimated or only boxed into aspects of economics, as it significantly disrupts their sense of self and place in the world way beyond that. I believe the approach in South Africa should therefore also recognise the intrinsic value and dignity of the youth beyond their economic productivity. As it is,  I fear they have ended up finding their self-worth in only ever being prone to confrontation and protest, instead of constructive problem-solving. It is then no surprise that a grim view of the future can hinder the formation of new social connections and limit opportunities for networking, further exacerbating the isolation experienced by unemployed youth which feeds this apathy and disinterest the majority seem to have in the political process.

What is to be done?

I don’t see any purely political drive or approach to provoke widespread youth participation being successful in this context. What is to be done? We must start with ways to create ‘willingness’ first. For that, purpose beyond politics, in which they have lost trust and interest, is necessary. I have no doubt that the country’s youth care about their communities even if they feel disconnected and have little to offer to assist because of their dire socio-economic realities. We must create spaces for dialogue, storytelling, and collective reflection to challenge societal narratives surrounding work and success, promoting alternative measures of value and worth. Emphasising the importance of empathy, compassion, and community solidarity can help combat the stigmatisation and isolation faced by unemployed youth.

Moreover, recognising the agency and potential of young people is essential for the nation's future development and prosperity. It would be best to first focus on independent initiatives and collaborations outside of the government’s sphere of influence. Emphasising grassroots movements, civil society organisations, and community-led efforts that can drive change from the bottom up, could get the youth involved without focusing on politics alone. By focusing on initiatives that bypass or work independently of the government, youth can still actively participate and work towards their goals, and I believe that willingness to participate lies just below the surface.

Change will take time

The challenge, and perhaps frustration, is to recognise that long-term perspective and focus on building a sustainable foundation for youth political engagement will be necessary. With the damage that has been done, change will take time and involve continuous efforts beyond any specific government’s tenure. And relying so heavily on any community’s resilience should be seriously questioned, especially when it comes to the youth. There must be a more positive outcome than what they have thus far lived, after showing such perseverance. I believe we can help recover a willingness in our youth to again or for the first time participate in constructive ways to promote necessary change for themselves and their communities beyond a day or a month; for a lifetime.

News Archive

Council on Higher Education LLB qualification review not yet complete
2017-05-16

The reaction from various stakeholders following the ‘Outcomes of the National Review of the LLB Qualification’ by the Council on Higher Education (CHE) on 12 April 2017 requires the CHE to clarify that the national review process has not been completed and is ongoing.

The peer-review process conducted under the auspices of the CHE is based on the LLB Standards Document which was developed in 2014-2015 with input from higher-education institutions and the organised legal profession. Following self-review and site visits by peers, the process is now at the point where commendations and shortcomings have been identified, and the statement of 12 April reflects those findings. All law faculties and schools have been asked to improve their LLB programmes to meet the LLB Standard, and no LLB programme has been de-accredited. All institutions retain the accreditation they had before the Review process began and all institutions are working towards retaining their accreditation and improving their LLB programmes.

The South African Law Deans’ Association (SALDA) has issued a set of responses regarding the LLB programme review. The following questions and answers were published to give more clarity on the questions raised.

1.    What is the effect of a finding of conditional accreditation?
The programme remains accredited.

(“Accreditation refers to a recognition status granted to a programme for a stipulated period of time after an HEQC evaluation indicates that it meets minimum standards of quality.”)

The institution must submit a progress report by 6 October 2017 that indicates how short-term aspects raised in the HEQC reports have been addressed and an improvement plan to indicate how longer-term aspects will be addressed.

2.    What is the effect of a finding of notice of withdrawal of accreditation?
The programme remains accredited.

The institution must submit an improvement plan by 6 October 2017 to indicate how the issues raised in the HEQC report will be addressed, including time frames.

3.    How does the finding of notice of withdrawal affect current students?
Students currently enrolled for the LLB programme at any institution are not affected at all. They will graduate with an accredited qualification.

4.    How does the finding of notice of withdrawal affect new applicants?
The programmes remain accredited and institutions may enrol new students as usual. This also includes students completing BA/BCom (Law) programmes who wish to continue with the LLB programme.

5.    How does the finding of notice of withdrawal affect prior graduates?
Degrees previously conferred are not affected.

6.    What happens when the improvement plans are submitted in October 2017?
The CHE will evaluate the plans when they are submitted, and the programmes remain accredited until a decision is taken whether the improvement plan is sufficient and has been fully given effect to or not. The institutions will have to submit progress reports to the CHE indicating implementation of measures contained in the improvement plan.

Should a decision at some stage be taken that a programme’s accreditation must be withdrawn, a teaching-out plan would be implemented so that all enrolled students would have the opportunity to graduate with an accredited degree.

For more information on the CHE’s pronouncement please contact Moleboheng Moshe-Bereng on MosheBerengMF@ufs.ac.za.

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