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

Academic delivers inaugural lecture on South African foreign policy
2007-08-06

 

In her inaugural lecture Prof. Heidi Hudson from the Department of Political Sciences, focused on the impact that Pan-Africanist sentiments have had on South Africa’s foreign policy. She also put the resulting contradictions and ambiguities into context. At her inaugural lecture were, from the left: Proff. Frederick Fourie (Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS), Heidi Hudson, Engela Pretorius (Vice-Dean: Faculty of The Humanities) and Daan Wessels (Research Associate in the Department of Political Science).
Photo: Stephen Collett

Academic delivers inaugural lecture on South African foreign policy

“We are committed to full participation as an equal partner … opposed to any efforts which might seek to project South Africa as some kind of superpower on our continent. … the people of Africa share a common destiny and must therefore … address their challenges … as a united force...” (Mbeki 1998:198-199).

Prof. Heidi Hudson from the Department of Political Science referred to this statement made by president Mbeki (made at the opening of the OAU Conference of Ministers of Information in 1995) when she delivered her inaugural lecture on the topic: South African foreign policy: The politics of Pan-Africanism and pragmatism.

One of the questions she asked is: “Can the South African state deliver democracy and welfare at home while simultaneously creating a stable, rules-based African community?”

She answers: “South Africa needs to reflect more critically and honestly on the dualism inherent in its ideological assumptions regarding relations with Africa. South Africa will always be expected by some to play a leadership role in Africa. At the moment, South Africa’s desire to be liked is hampering its role as leader of the continent.”

In her lecture she highlighted the ideological underpinnings and manifestations of South Africa’s foreign policy. Throughout she alluded to the risks associated with single-mindedly following an ideologically driven foreign policy. She emphasised that domestic or national interests are the victims in this process.

Prof. Hudson offers three broad options for South Africa to consider:

  • The Predator – the selfish bully promoting South African economic interest.
  • Mr Nice Guy – the non-hegemonic partner of the African boys club, multilaterally pursuing a pivotal but not dominant role.
  • The Hegemon - South Africa driving regional integration according to its values and favouring some African countries over others, and with checks and balances by civil society.

She chooses option three of hegemony. “Politically correct research views hegemony as bad and partnership as good. This is a romanticised notion – the two are not mutually exclusive,” she said.

However, she states that there have to be prerequisites to control the exercise of power. “The promotion of a counter-hegemon, such as Nigeria, is necessary. Nigeria has been more effective in some respects than South Africa in establishing its leadership, particularly in West Africa. Also needed is that government should be checked by civil society to avoid it sinking into authoritarianism. The case of business and labour coming to an agreement over the HIV/Aids issue is a positive example which illustrates that government cannot ignore civil society. But much more needs to be done in this regard. South Africa must also be very careful in how it uses its aid and should focus potential aid and development projects more explicitly in terms of promoting political stability,” she said.

Prof. Hudson said: “It is also questionable whether Mbeki’s Afro-centrism has in fact promoted the interests of ordinary citizens across Africa. Instead, elite interests in some countries have benefited. But ultimately, the single most important cost is the damage done to the moral code and ethical principles on which the South African Constitution and democracy is founded.

“In the end we all lose out. More pragmatism and less ideology in our relations within Africa may just be what are needed,” she said.

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