Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
06 March 2023 | Story Prof Francis Petersen | Photo Sonia Small
Prof Francis Petersen
Prof Francis Petersen.

Opinion article by Prof Francis Petersen, Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Free State.
Amid the various threats currently faced by our beleaguered country, there is one that many people seem oblivious to – but which has the potential to speedily and decisively send us over the precipice: civil society’s attitude of accepting rampant corruption, crime, and economic degradation as if it is something inevitable and unavoidable. This current culture needs to be urgently exposed and addressed. And higher education institutions have a definite role to play in preventing its destructive potential, says Prof Francis Petersen.

References to a ‘culture of acceptance’ most often conjure up a positive connotation – especially in our South African context with its unfortunate history of ‘non-acceptance’, prejudice, and discrimination. The term usually refers to an attitude of embracing a diversity of views, backgrounds, and opinions, and accommodating differences along political, cultural, gender, and religious lines. But there is a new, much more ominous ‘culture of acceptance’ taking root in our society: that of adopting an attitude of indifference and even complacency when it comes to those phenomena that are eroding our future prospects as a nation. 

Challenges to our state 

There can be little disagreement about the general state of decay we are currently experiencing in our various structures of governance on nearly all levels. This includes government departments that are not functioning properly, as well as state-owned enterprises such as Eskom, SAA, Prasa, and Transnet, which are either crumbling away or have virtually collapsed. Some of these structures have been systematically eroded through corruption, inefficiency, and cadre deployment over a sustained period of time. On top of that, we have escalating crime, ranging in manifestation from gender-based violence to mafia-style organised crime syndicates that are infiltrating and effectively paralysing some of our most important sectors, such as the construction, mining, and agriculture industries. All of these contribute to a sagging economy, preventing the economic growth that our country so desperately needs in order to move forward. South Africa’s recent greylisting by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) as a result of insufficient mechanisms to monitor and combat money laundering and terrorist financing activities, further compounds an already dire situation, as it places severe strain on our financial services sector and negatively affects our ability to attract investment.  Last minute efforts to amend legislation and prevent greylisting were evidently insufficient and much too late. Our current disconcerting national financial status is clearly the result of not only poor government performance, but also a totally deficient policy environment – the combined effect of which serves as a definite deterrent to investors. 

Indifferent response of civil society creating inflated risk 

What is also a growing cause for concern though, is civil society’s prevailing response to these calamities. One of the things that the COVID-19 pandemic has illuminated, is how quickly society can adapt to a ‘new normal’. Things that were altogether unthinkable and outside the frame of reference for most – such as a national lockdown, social distancing, and mandatory public mask wearing – quickly became acceptable and commonplace after it was introduced. Regrettably, the same trend is visible when it comes to our response to the government’s non-performance, rampant crime, and economic pressures that we are currently experiencing. The difference is that there is no greater common good that should make us summarily accept the current status quo. We get frustrated and angry when we hear that products cannot get to ports or markets; we shake our heads when we hear about yet another corruption scandal or another murder; we get irritated when power blackouts increase. But instead of speaking out or voicing our concerns in some constructive way, we tend to quickly and quietly find individual ways of working around obstacles such as load-shedding schedules, rather opting for making alternative arrangements and putting up with all the ramifications caused. 

While on some level it is admirable that ordinary South Africans are showing resilience and innovation and increasingly choosing to do things for themselves amid government failures, it is, however, also indicative of an alarming downgrading of our societal values. Things that would create a public uproar in a developed state, and almost automatically lead to picketing and a widely publicised calling to book of the responsible office holders, seem to hardly get a second glance in our battle-weary South African society. We have lowered the bar of what is seen as acceptable. And from there, it can be an alarmingly fast downhill slope to becoming a truly failed state. The fact that government often goes the route of not responding to public objection, should add fuel to the fire of outcries and protests. But unfortunately, it often has the opposite effect, where government silence is met with public silence and a growing sense of national resignation. 

What needs to be done 

The question is: has our current situation created a society that has simply accepted its fate? Or has it created a society that has become more innovative and creative, actively navigating current challenges, and finding new solutions to societal issues independent of government?  And what should be our reaction to the challenges we currently face? 

As with many things, I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. While it is vital that ordinary South Africans and the private sector find ways of working around government shortcomings, it is just as important that they remain vocal, pointing out government failures and questioning the conduct and decisions of our elected leaders. Public reaction should, however, not stay with objections alone, but evolve into physical action. There should also be a willingness to work with struggling government institutions and incorporate other role players in order to find real solutions together. As a responsible citizenry, simply being quiet and complacent is our worst option. 

Role of higher education sector 

As vital vehicles in the shaping of our next generation of citizens, universities and other higher education institutions have an important role to play in the current government versus civil society impasse. I believe this role is twofold: on the one hand, we need to educate and encourage young citizens to stand up and make their voices heard against injustice and non-delivery in the public sector. On the other hand, we are also cultivating a next generation of leaders. While they are gracing our campuses, we need to contribute towards instilling ethical values in our leaders of tomorrow and equipping them with a vision that is much broader than just individual needs and wants, but that encompasses the needs of our society as a whole. Our education efforts should always have this all-important developmental focus, where graduate attributes such as critical thinking, community engagement, ethical reasoning, and an entrepreneurial spirit are nurtured and employed in order to build a better country. We should also impress on our youth the importance of forming partnerships and collaborating with various role players from different areas of expertise and sectors of society to work together to reach this common goal.

How do we do this?

I believe an important and obvious basic building block that institutions of higher learning are already providing – and should increasingly be enabled to do – is the creation and expansion of competency through teaching, research, and engagement. By equipping our students with knowledge and skills, we empower them to play an active role in taking our country forward. This should be complemented by social justice competencies, where curricular and co-curricular programmes and activities are used to grow a sense of social justice in our leaders and citizens of tomorrow. These social justice initiatives should also be coupled with the creation of robust platforms for dialogue on topical issues of national interest, where government voices are invited, incorporated, and challenged, but in a constructive, mutually respectful context. Universities should finally also employ their research capacities in various fields to come up with real, practical, and sustainable solutions to societal issues, presenting government with new, innovative, and effective ways of addressing our current national dilemmas. 

It is vital that our leaders – and followers – of tomorrow are sensitised to an important fact: as much as South Africa needs competent, ethical leadership, it also needs an alert, active, involved citizenry to keep those leaders in check. Because a government that is dysfunctional and a society that simply accepts it, makes for a very dangerous combination.

News Archive

Media: Sunday Times
2006-05-20

Sunday Times, 4 June 2006

True leadership may mean admitting disunity
 

In this edited extract from the inaugural King Moshoeshoe Memorial Lecture at the University of the Free State, Professor Njabulo S Ndebele explores the leadership challenges facing South Africa

RECENT events have created a sense that we are undergoing a serious crisis of leadership in our new democracy. An increasing number of highly intelligent, sensitive and committed South Africans, across class, racial and cultural spectrums, confess to feeling uncertain and vulnerable as never before since 1994.

When indomitable optimists confess to having a sense of things unhinging, the misery of anxiety spreads. We have the sense that events are spiralling out of control and that no one among the leadership of the country seems to have a definitive handle on things.

There can be nothing more debilitating than a generalised and undefined sense of anxiety in the body politic. It breeds conspiracies and fear.

There is an impression that a very complex society has developed, in the last few years, a rather simple, centralised governance mechanism in the hope that delivery can be better and more quickly driven. The complexity of governance then gets located within a single structure of authority rather than in the devolved structures envisaged in the Constitution, which should interact with one another continuously, and in response to their specific settings, to achieve defined goals. Collapse in a single structure of authority, because there is no robust backup, can be catastrophic.

The autonomy of devolved structures presents itself as an impediment only when visionary cohesion collapses. Where such cohesion is strong, the impediment is only illusory, particularly when it encourages healthy competition, for example, among the provinces, or where a province develops a character that is not necessarily autonomous politically but rather distinctive and a special source of regional pride. Such competition brings vibrancy to the country. It does not necessarily challenge the centre.

Devolved autonomy is vital in the interests of sustainable governance. The failure of various structures to actualise their constitutionally defined roles should not be attributed to the failure of the prescribed governance mechanism. It is too early to say that what we have has not worked. The only viable corrective will be in our ability to be robust in identifying the problems and dealing with them concertedly.

We have never had social cohesion in South Africa — certainly not since the Natives’ Land Act of 1913. What we definitely have had over the decades is a mobilising vision. Could it be that the mobilising vision, mistaken for social cohesion, is cracking under the weight of the reality and extent of social reconstruction, and that the legitimate framework for debating these problems is collapsing? If that is so, are we witnessing a cumulative failure of leadership?

I am making a descriptive rather than an evaluative inquiry. I do not believe that there is any single entity to be blamed. It is simply that we may be a country in search of another line of approach. What will it be?

I would like to suggest two avenues of approach — an inclusive model and a counter-intuitive model of leadership.

In an inclusive approach, leadership is exercised not only by those who have been put in some position of power to steer an organisation or institution. Leadership is what all of us do when we express, sincerely, our deepest feelings and thoughts; when we do our work, whatever it is, with passion and integrity.

Counter-intuitive leadership lies in the ability of leaders to read a problematic situation, assess probable outcomes and then recognise that those outcomes will only compound the problem. Genuine leadership, in this sense, requires going against probability in seeking unexpected outcomes. That’s what happened when we avoided a civil war and ended up with an “unexpected” democracy.

Right now, we may very well hear desperate calls for unity, when the counter-intuitive imperative would be to acknowledge disunity. A declaration of unity where it manifestly does not appear to exist will fail to reassure.

Many within the “broad alliance” might have the view that the mobilising vision of old may have transformed into a strategy of executive steering with a disposition towards an expectation of compliance. No matter how compelling the reasons for that tendency, it may be seen as part of a cumulative process in which popular notions of democratic governance are apparently undermined and devalued; and where public uncertainty in the midst of seeming crisis induces fear which could freeze public thinking at a time when more voices ought to be heard.

Could it be that part of the problem is that we are unable to deal with the notion of opposition? We are horrified that any of us could be seen to have become “the opposition”. The word has been demonised. In reality, it is time we began to anticipate the arrival of a moment when there is no longer a single, overwhelmingly dominant political force as is currently the case. Such is the course of history. The measure of the maturity of the current political environment will be in how it can create conditions that anticipate that moment rather than seek to prevent it. We see here once more the essential creativity of the counter-intuitive imperative.

This is the formidable challenge of a popular post-apartheid political movement. Can it conceptually anticipate a future when it is no longer overwhelmingly in control, in the form in which it is currently, and resist, counter-intuitively, the temptation to prevent such an eventuality? Successfully resisting such an option would enable its current vision and its ultimate legacy to our country to manifest in different articulations, which then contend for social influence. In this way, the vision never really dies; it simply evolves into higher, more complex forms of itself. Consider the metaphor of flying ants replicating the ant community by establishing new ones.

We may certainly experience the meaning of comradeship differently, where we will now have “comrades on the other side”.

Any political movement that imagines itself as a perpetual entity should look at the compelling evidence of history. Few movements have survived those defining moments when they should have been more elastic, and that because they were not, did not live to see the next day.

I believe we may have reached a moment not fundamentally different from the sobering, yet uplifting and vision-making, nation-building realities that led to Kempton Park in the early ’90s. The difference between then and now is that the black majority is not facing white compatriots across the negotiating table. Rather, it is facing itself: perhaps really for the first time since 1994. Could we apply to ourselves the same degree of inventiveness and rigorous negotiation we displayed leading up to the adoption or our Constitution?

This is not a time for repeating old platitudes. It is the time, once more, for vision.

In the total scheme of things, the outcome could be as disastrous as it could be formative and uplifting, setting in place the conditions for a true renaissance that could be sustained for generations to come.

Ndebele is Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cape Town and author of the novel The Cry of Winnie Mandela

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