Latest News Archive

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

HUMAN RIGHTS MONTH: I have the right to …

20 March 2023 | Story Prof Danie Brand | Photo Supplied

Opinion article by Prof Danie Brand, Director of the Free State Centre for Human Rights at the University of the Free State.

Opinion article by Prof Danie Brand, Director of the Free State Centre for Human Rights at the University of the Free State

What does it mean to say one has a right to something, such as access to housing or to protest or to property? What are human rights? What do they ‘do’?

One often hears of human rights being asserted as if they give one an absolute claim to something specific and discrete, which can be enforced against anything and everyone else, irrespective of the impact on the interests (and rights) of others, as well as broader public goals or values.

Perhaps the clearest example of this was the way in which the right to ownership of land was understood under apartheid property law. Ownership then was an absolutely exclusive right: it entitled its holders to exclude everyone else without a countervailing right from their land, irrespective of circumstance or context. All a landowner had to prove before a court to obtain an eviction order if they sought to evict someone from their land, was that they had the right (owned the land) and that those they sought to evict had no countervailing right in law to be on the land. If the right was proved in this way, the remedy of exclusion through eviction followed automatically – the court had to grant the eviction order.

Constitutional right to peaceful protest

A more recent example of this view was on display in the way in which members of parliament complained about their removal from the house when they attempted to shut down the President’s State of the Nation Address through protest action. Many responded by saying their removal was unjustified because, by trying to stop the address from proceeding, they were exercising their constitutional right to peaceful protest. The assumption underlying this response is that the right to protest peacefully and unarmed entitles you to protest peacefully and unarmed in any way you see fit and regardless of the consequences for other people and for society at large.

With this view of rights, a right bestows on its holders a sphere of absolute inviolability – an abstract space within which they can do what the right entitles them to do (protest, hold property, speak, associate or whatever), subject to nothing and no-one else, with no limitations. Rights are seen as instruments through which to separate ourselves from other people and unilaterally impose our will and our interests on others. Rights operate as trumps, boundaries, conversation stoppers.

Understanding human rights

Fortunately, our constitution embodies a different vision or understanding of human rights. In various ways, our constitution makes it clear that what exactly our human rights entitle us to do, or have, or experience, is never abstractly fixed, immutable, or absolute, but must always be determined anew within context. Whenever we seek to exercise one of our human rights, its precise contours and limits must be determined in light of the circumstances prevailing at the time we seek to exercise it; the history of our country; the impact that our exercise thereof will have on the rights and interests of other people; and how our conduct in terms of the right aligns with the public interest and broader constitutional goals.

In this view of rights, our understanding of the right of ownership (which is of course not one of the human rights proclaimed in our constitution but is only indirectly protected in Section 25 of the Constitution) has been moulded into something entirely different from the apartheid conception. Landowners no longer have absolute, exclusive control over their land that simply arises from the fact that they have the right to ownership. If landowners today want to remove people occupying their land without any legal right to do so – in addition to and after proving their ownership – they must persuade a court that eviction would be just and equitable in light of all relevant circumstances (prevailing circumstances; interests of others, including the occupiers of their land; the public interest; constitutional goals) before they will succeed.

WATCH: The Power of Human Rights

Building democracy

Likewise, if we seek to exercise our right to protest – in order to know what we would be entitled to do in terms of that right – we must consider how our protest will affect the rights and interests of others and whether that impact can be justified, and how the manner and form of our protest squares with constitutional goals such as building democracy. Equally, of course, if others object to our protest because of its impact on their rights and interest, they will have to contextualise their attempt to exercise their right to education, or academic freedom, or freedom of movement in light of our interests, the prevailing circumstances, the public interest, and constitutional goals such as fostering democracy, freedom of association, and freedom of speech.

That is, instead of rights in our constitutional order being abstract spheres of inviolability that can be exercised against others to protect or enforce our interests without consideration of context, keeping us apart, they are mechanisms to enable us to live together, to find accommodation between our disparate, perhaps conflicting, but often overlapping interests and concerns.

What is it then that our human rights do for us or entitle us to? Whenever our human rights-related interests are at stake, or if we rub up our fellow human beings with whom we cohabit the wrong way when our interests seem to clash, they entitle us to be taken equal account of. They require others (most importantly those in authority, usually the state) to include us and have concern for our interest, equal to the concern for others, in the conversation about what should happen and what we may or may not do. In this sense, rights do not keep us apart or stop conversations. Instead, they are acutely democratic mechanisms, making it possible for us to live together. ‘Only that?’, you may respond – but this is no small thing.

News Archive

A new dawn for student governance

2011-09-02

Our SRC presidents: Richard Chemaly (Bloemfontein Campus) and Bongani Ncgaca (Qwaqwa Campus)
Photo: Hannes Pieterse

Photo Gallery

The successful and peaceful completion of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Student Representative (SRC) elections 2011 herals a new dawn for student governance with the announcement of the results today (1 September 2011).

The SRC elections at the Qwaqwa Campus were completed on 25 August 2011, while the elections at our Bloemfontein Campus took place on 29 and 30 August 2011.

“A new dawn heralds a new day when Richard Chemaly, the son of Lebanese immigrants becomes President of an SRC, as elected by students from all racial backgrounds and from across the student body at large. A new day has arrived when candidates could have won voter support across racial lines; a new day is here when all SRC members are now recognised leaders on the basis of academic accountability,” the Dean of Student Affairs, Mr Rudi Buys, says.

A new dawn has arrived; firstly, insofar as student elections for the choice of student leaders at the UFS now proceed according to a non-racial and a non-party political basis.

Not only did the SRC elections at both the Bloemfontein and Qwaqwa Campuses achieve its required quorum, with 31% (4 729 votes) and 50% (2 112 votes) voter turnout, respectively, but the SRC elected by students at the Bloemfontein Campus is 55% black and 45% white, and 60% female and 40% male. The numbers of votes gained by successful candidates also indicate that voters from all racial backgrounds have voted for their candidates of choice.

Secondly, a new dawn has arrived insofar as student governance occupied by only some student groups claiming to speak on behalf of all students has made way for direct voting for candidates by the broad student body and the threefold increase of student governance structures on campus.

Not only did all students at our Bloemfontein and Qwaqwa Campuses (a total of 15 173 and 4 257, respectively) have the opportunity to participate in voting directly, but nine additional Student Councils were established at our Bloemfontein Campus that each holds an ex officio seat on the SRC and allows for student governance in all the major student sectors of the student body, such as for postgraduate students, international students and all categories of student associations.

The various councils now established include the Student Academic Affairs Council, the Student Associations Council, the Postgraduate Student Council, the International Student Council, the Student Media Council, the Residences Student Council, the Commuter Student Council and the Rag Community Service Fundraising and Service Councils. In addition, all faculties also introduced student representative structures at departmental and faculty level in 2011 to ensure student participation in faculty management and governance.

The SRC members at the Bloemfontein Campus are:

Elective portfolios:
President: Mr Richard Chemaly
Vice-President: Mr Lefata David Maklein
Secretary: Ms Matshepo Ramokgadi
Treasurer: Mr Werner Pretorius
Arts & Culture: Ms Alta Grobelaar
Accessibility & Student Support: Mr William Clayton
First-generation Students: Ms Petre du Plessis
Media, Marketing & Liaison: Ms Biejanka Calitz
Sport: Mr Bonolo Thebe
Student Development & Environmental Affairs: Ms Busisiwe Madikizela
Transformation: Ms Qaqamba Mhlauli

Ex officio portfolios:
Dialogue & Ex officio: Associations Student Council: Mr Anesu Ruswa
Academic Affairs & Ex officio: Academic Affairs Student Council: Mr Jean Vermaas
Residence Affairs & Ex officio: Campus Residences Student Council: Ms Mpho Mokaleng
City student Affairs & Ex officio: Commuter Student Council: Ms Annemieke Plekker
Postgraduate Affairs & Ex officio: Postgraduate Student Council: Ms Glancina Mokone
International Affairs & Ex officio: International Student Council: Mr Pitso Ramokoatsi
Student Media Affairs & Ex officio: Student Media Council: Ms Nicole Heyns
RAG Community Service & Ex officio: RAG Fundraising Council: Ms Iselma Parker
RAG Community Service & Ex officio: RAG Community Service Council: Ms Motheo Pooe

In the Qwaqwa elections, SASCO achieved 36,84% of the vote, with SADESMO, PASMA and NASMO each achieving 29,73% and 18,56% and 12,74%, respectively .

Mr Bongani Ncgaca was elected as the President of the SRC at our Qwaqwa Campus, while the names of the SRC members at the campus will be announced on 7 September 2011.

The Central SRC will be established on 8 September 2011 by a joint sitting of the two SRCs.

The successful completion of the SRC elections at the Bloemfontein Campus follows a yearlong review process of student governance by a Broad Student Transformation Forum (BSTF) that consists of 59 delegations from student organisations and residences. The BSTF adopted independent candidacy for elective portfolios and additional student councils to provide ex officio seats on the SRC as the template for student governance, following the consideration of a series of benchmarking reports on student governance nationally and internationally.

The UFS Council adopted the new SRC Constitution, as drafted and submitted by the BSTF, on 3 June 2011.

Media Release
1 September 2011
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Director: Strategic Communication
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: news@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