Latest News Archive

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

From fragmentation to coalition: The SA election aftermath

27 June 2024 | Story Michelle Nöthling | Photo iStock

The UFS Centre for Gender and Africa Studies, in conjunction with the South African Institute of Race Relations (IRR), recently hosted the fifth instalment of the Africa Dialogue Series. The webinar series – established by Prof Hussein Solomon – has rapidly grown in stature. The latest discussion on the SA Election Aftermath: Economic, Security and Political Considerations drew high-profile international attendance that included several ambassadors, military attachés, and representatives of security communities.

“Part of the success of the Africa Dialogue Series,” Prof Solomon says, “is that we include a variety of speakers in each discussion. This ensures that the conversation remains relevant.”

Economic challenges amid coalition governments

Prof Philippe Burger, Dean of the UFS Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, opened the discussion by highlighting the complexities of coalition governments in South Africa – especially given the country’s lack of experience with such political arrangements. Prof Burger further pointed out the difficulty of managing coalitions amid economic stagnation, high unemployment, poverty, and mounting debt. At the time, Prof Burger forecast that a coalition with the Democratic Alliance (DA) might push for pro-market reforms, but that such an agreement could still suffer from instability due to ideological differences. Prof Burger predicted a ‘rocky five years’ ahead for any coalition government.

A shift in security strategy

Transitioning to security matters, Eeben Barlow, Chairman and CEO of Executive Outcomes, stressed the paramount importance of a robust national security strategy for the new government's stability and South Africa's interests. He advocated for a comprehensive reassessment of the current strategy, urging a shift from reactive policies to a proactive, pre-emptive approach. Barlow underscored the need to align intelligence, law enforcement, and military efforts within this revamped strategy through proper structuring, training, and resourcing. He warned that without comprehensive security planning and decisive implementation, South Africa risks further instability, economic decline, and international reputational damage.

Political fragmentation

Next, Terence Corrigan, Project and Publication Manager at the IRR, offered a sobering analysis of the election results. He noted the severe weakening of the previously dominant ANC, which no longer serves as the nation's ‘moral voice’. Despite this, the opposition failed to capitalise decisively, with the DA potentially reaching its voter ceiling. Corrigan expressed concern over the rise of anti-constitutional parties such as the EFF and MK, which exploit public grievances and pose a ‘populist challenge’ to democratic institutions. He predicted increased political fragmentation and ‘fractious politics’ as South Africa navigates this political landscape.

Legislative gridlock and electoral reform

Adding to the discussion of political challenges, Marius Roodt, Deputy Editor of Daily Friend, noted the worrying decline in voter turnout, and reiterated the concerns regarding South Africa’s fragmented politics. Roodt warned that this fragmentation could lead to legislative gridlocks from minority governments or unstable coalitions unable to pass laws. To address these issues, he proposed electoral reforms, including minimum vote share thresholds, extended time frames for forming governments, binding coalition agreements, and restrictions on motions of no confidence. While some view gridlock as a check against radical policies, Roodt acknowledged that an inability to pass the necessary laws could hamper investment.

Broader political implications

Concluding the presentations, Sanet Solomon, a political analyst and lecturer at UNISA, provided an overarching analysis of South Africa's political landscape post-elections. She called attention to the historic significance of three decades of democracy and fluctuating voter turnout influenced by various challenges and achievements. Solomon emphasised the critical nature of policy alignment in coalitions, particularly the ANC's collaboration with the DA. She also discussed the complexities of maintaining macroeconomic stability, the urgent need for rule of law and anti-corruption measures, and the importance of strategic, cohesive policy making in the nation's future.

The webinar underscored the multifaceted challenges facing South Africa's new coalition government, highlighting the need for strategic economic, security, and political planning to navigate the uncertain road ahead.

Click to view document Click here to watch the full dialogue.

News Archive

“To forgive is not an obligation. It’s a choice.” – Prof Minow during Reconciliation Lecture

2014-03-05

“To forgive is not an obligation. It’s a choice.” – Prof Minow during the Third Annual Reconciliation Lecture entitled Forgiveness, Law and Justice.
Photo: Johan Roux

No one could have anticipated the atmosphere in which Prof Martha Minow would visit the Bloemfontein Campus. And no one could have predicted how apt the timing of her message would be. As this formidable Dean of Harvard University’s Law School stepped behind the podium, a latent tension edged through the crowded audience.

“The issue of getting along after conflict is urgent.”

With these few words, Prof Minow exposed the essence of not only her lecture, but also the central concern of the entire university community.

As an expert on issues surrounding racial justice, Prof Minow has worked across the globe in post-conflict societies. How can we prevent atrocities from happening? she asked. Her answer was an honest, “I don’t know.” What she is certain of, on the other hand, is that the usual practice of either silence or retribution does not work. “I think that silence produces rage – understandably – and retribution produces the cycle of violence. Rather than ignoring what happens, rather than retribution, it would be good to reach for something more.” This is where reconciliation comes in.

Prof Minow put forward the idea that forgiveness should accompany reconciliation efforts. She defined forgiveness as a conscious, deliberate decision to forego rightful grounds of resentment towards those who have committed a wrong. “To forgive then, in this definition, is not an obligation. It’s a choice. And it’s held by the one who was harmed,” she explained.

Letting go of resentment cannot be forced – not even by the law. What the law can do, though, is either to encourage or discourage forgiveness. Prof Minow showed how the law can construct adversarial processes that render forgiveness less likely, when indeed its intention was the opposite. “Or, law can give people chances to meet together in spaces where they may apologise and they may forgive,” she continued. This point introduced some surprising revelations about our Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).

Indeed, studies do report ambivalence, disappointment and mixed views about the TRC. Whatever our views are on its success, Prof Minow reported that people across the world wonder how South African did it. “It may not work entirely inside the country; outside the country it’s had a huge effect. It’s a touchstone for transitional justice.”

The TRC “seems to have coincided with, and maybe contributed to, the relatively peaceful political transition to democracy that is, frankly, an absolute miracle.” What came as a surprise to many is this: the fact that the TRC has affected transitional justice efforts in forty jurisdictions, including Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Cambodia and Liberia. It has even inspired the creation of a TRC in Greensborough, North Carolina, in the United States.

There are no blueprints for solving conflict, though. “But the possibility of something other than criminal trials, something other than war, something other than silence – that’s why the TRC, I think, has been such an exemplar to the world,” she commended.

Court decision cannot rebuild a society, though. Only individuals can forgive. Only individuals can start with purposeful, daily decisions to forgive and forge a common future. Forgiveness is rather like kindness, she suggested. It’s a resource without limits. It’s not scarce like water or money. It’s within our reach. But if it’s forced, it’s not forgiveness.

“It is good,” Prof Minow warned, “to be cautious about the use of law to deliberately shape or manipulate the feelings of any individual. But it is no less important to admit that law does affect human beings, not just in its results, but in its process.” And then we must take responsibility for how we use that law.

“A government can judge, but only people can forgive.” As Prof Minow’s words lingered, the air suddenly seemed a bit more buoyant.

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