Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
09 July 2024 | Story André Damons | Photo Stephen Collett
Thought-Leader panel discussion July 2024
The University of the Free State (UFS) hosted its UFS Thought-Leader panel discussion in collaboration with the Free State Literature Festival, featuring Gert Coetzee, former editor, Volksblad (left); Sanet Solomon, Lecturer, Department of Political Sciences, Unisa; Prof Francis Petersen, Vice-Chancellor and Principal of the UFS (centre, facilitator); Ebrahim Fakir, Consultant Election Analyst, Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa (EISA); and Prof Erwin Schwella: Director, Centre for Good Governance in Africa, School of Social Innovation, Hugenote Kollege.

Even though there might be concerns about South Africa’s newly established Government of National Unity (GNE) and the associated challenges, there are also hope, optimism, and a lot of opportunities that come with this new reality.

This was according to the panellists at the University of the Free State (UFS) Thought-Leader panel discussion, titled Navigating a new era of democracy in South Africa. The discussion took place on Thursday (4 July) as part of the 2024 Thought-Leader Series presented in collaboration with the Free State Literature Festival. The discussion was facilitated by Prof Francis Petersen, Vice-Chancellor and Principal of the UFS.

The panellists included Ebrahim Fakir, Consultant Election Analyst from the Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa (EISA); Prof Erwin Schwella, Director of the Centre for Good Governance in Africa, School of Social Innovation at the Hugenote Kollege; Sanet Solomon, Lecturer in the Department of Political Sciences, College of Human Science at the University of South Africa; and Gert Coetzee, former editor of Volksblad.

Substantive uncertainty

Fakir started the conversation by saying that over 30 years, South Africans have experienced the use of authority without accountability and power without responsibility. The seventh democratic elections may usher in a new era – an era of substantive uncertainty.

“Substantive uncertainty is important for any democratic society, because it means that anyone who wishes to acquire power can no longer simply rely – as the governing party has for the past 30 years of our democracy – on the support of voters in an unqualifying way. Which means that in a year of substantive uncertainty, a key aspect and a key element of democracy, namely uncertainty, comes into play.

“In so far as uncertainty and substantive uncertainty can be a boon in a democracy, it can also be a bust. Why? Because substantive uncertainty comes not just with the uncertainty of political parties assuming a level of political support in society, it also means that a set of rules by which we engage in political behaviour become uncertain.

“One of the most interesting features post the 29 May elections is the uncertainty about the formation of the government. There are no rules governing how coalition must or should be formed. There are no guiding principles on how this should happen,” said Fakir.

According to him, there are potential benefits, but also significant risks. The first benefit is that there is now space for citizen activism and for influence of political parties.

“There are significant risks to what we do now. If there is going to be a fundamentally new policy regime, in what direction will this flow? I think we must hold out hope for this new form of coalition government, but we shouldn’t be blind to the fact that there are two significant features that will impact the evolution of this GNU: South Africa goes to a local government election in two years’ time.”

“The ANC goes into its own elective conference in a few years’ time when President Ramaphosa comes up for a potential replacement. And this is a significant risk for how the GNU evolves and which partners continues to remain in this, and which don’t.”

No trust in a single political party that governs

One of the things that started happening in 2019/2020 was a push for people to select their government not only from political parties, but also to have individuals representing them at national level. This led to the introduction of the Electoral Amendment Bill. This all came together with the 2024 election where you had independent candidates participating.

“For a number of years, South Africa enjoyed a single party-dominated state, where you had stability in terms of how your country would be governed and who would be in government. The drop in the support of the ruling party has created a lot of challenges and a number of concerns for people,” Solomon said.

According to Solomon, this does not necessarily have to be a scary time for the country, as one of the great things about democracy is that it moves. Eventually, all democracies move from a single party that dominates to a more competitive democracy.

“This is also something to be excited about. One of the concerns was that South Africa could be like Germany where it took six months to form a government, but fortunately we didn’t find ourselves in a situation like that.”

“While there are a lot of concerns, I think the results from the 2024 elections showcases that South Africans don’t necessarily trust a single political party to govern the country, but rather want different political parties to come together. While this GNU will come with challenges, I also think it holds many opportunities,” she concluded.

A new ethos is needed

Prof Schwella introduced three sets of variables; the first is somewhat philosophical and therefore on the level of inspiring ideas. The second is much more institutional. It links to having all the ideals of democratic government and governance, but is it governable? This links to the third, which is more practical, namely – can you implement it impactfully?

According to him, the current disposition has hopefully relieved the country from not only continued state capture, but from the capture of inertia to create new, exciting, and inspirational opportunities.

“A new ethos of continuous quality improvement at the level of implementation through a process of assessing needs to be established, which will then have to be continuously built back into the redesign of the system. There is a lot of hope and optimism in that.”

“Share that journey with us, co-create an exciting and prosperous new South African state. We nearly lost it in the first 30 years of democracy. We stuffed it completely under apartheid. But now is the opportunity. Now is the chance. Let's get together and just do it.”

Be careful of what you wish for

For Coetzee, the way forward is not clear cut, and the country now has a window of opportunity. How this opportunity will be managed is what will set the future, he said.

“We can see where we are now and the main positive of the government of national unity is that we have a government of national unity – a little more than a month ago this would have been unthinkable.”

He talked about the composition of the cabinet and said the DA should be careful of what they wished for.

“The DA got six very important portfolios. Which enables them to make a huge difference, but each of these portfolios can also be a poisoned chalice. Of course they have Home Affairs, so if there's a delay with my passport now, I'm going to be fed up with the DA.”

News Archive

Reaction by the Rector of the UFS after a meeting with student leaders
2008-02-25

Reaction by the Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS, Prof. Frederick Fourie, on the agreement reached at a meeting with student leaders held on Friday, 22 February 2008

Note: This is meant to be used together with the full joint statement that was issued by the UFS management and student leaders on 22 February 2008.

The memorandum of the primes of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) residences was handed to top management on Wednesday, 20 February 2008. In the memorandum they asked for a meeting with the UFS management by Friday, 22 February 2008. Such a meeting was arranged and took place.

The UFS top management, all the residence primes as well as the house committee member for first years, the executive of the Main Campus Student Representative Council (SRC) and residence heads were present.

In contrast to what is suggested in the Volksblad report of Saturday, the discussion went off very well. There was no consternation or shouting or “emotions that ran high”. It was a civilised, decent meeting as it should be at a good university. Of course, now and again individuals spoke out strongly and very enthusiastically, but it was all decent and orderly. The contribution of the primes was insightful and well formulated.

Because the top management and I wanted to listen very carefully what the problems and frustrations were, we spent nearly five hours in the meeting. The issues in the memorandum were discussed one by one. In some cases I could take a decision immediately and finalise the matter, in other cases, the management provided information that could largely finalise a matter. A number of other matters must be investigated further.

The management undertook to respond comprehensively and in writing to all the issues raised in the memorandum by Monday, 25 February 2008. This will be handed to the primes but will not be handed to the media beforehand.
It is obvious that there are matters at the university that can be better managed and that there are problems with communication within the Student Affairs division. A major change such as the new policy on diversity places huge demands on management and the administration, and problems were to be expected. However, we understand the frustration of the students in residences.

On the other hand, students don’t always make matters easier. The strong opposition of white student leaders last year, and their unwillingness to co-operate in preparation for 2008 is well known. This year it is going better. But often student leaders take positions that are very inflexible. They also see no room for adapting old habits and simply want their own way. Their contributions are then full of statements such as “It cannot be done”. This delays measures such as the full implementation of expert interpreting services, which, for the management, is a very important measure (and which is functioning very well in certain residences). Communication from student leaders to management is also not always what it should be.

At the end of the meeting student leaders and management reached an important agreement and issued a joint statement in which they committed themselves to the integration process and to good co-operation and communication. This was an important step which is a sign of rebuilding trust. Naturally everyone will still have to work hard to build on this and to strengthen mutual trust.

The course and outcome of Friday’s discussions, as requested by the student leaders, show that issues can be addressed and resolved by means of us talking to one another. This is why it is so sad that primes and house committee members went on strike on Wednesday already and stayed in tents in front of the Main Building – leaving their residences without its leadership. This created an opening for what appears to have been well planned and co-ordinated acts of vandalism by inhabitants of residences on the campus on Wednesday.

Such vandalism is unacceptable and no one can justify it.

Fortunately, order could be restored quickly during the night and all academic activities could resume without any disruption on Thursday and Friday.

FCvN Fourie

Media Release
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za   
24 February 2008

 

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