Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
21 March 2024 Photo SUPPLIED
Dr-Ina-Gouws
Dr Ina Gouws is a Senior Lecturer: Political Studies and Governance, at the University of the Free State.

Opinion article Dr Ina Gouws, Senior Lecturer: Political Studies and Governance, University of the Free State.


In a year where at least 64 countries will hold elections, it is inevitable that we reflect on issues such as the right to vote, the importance of voting, and the role of elections in a democratic process. The truth is, since the earliest elections were held in Greece in around 508 BC, exclusions were part of the process. Only wealthy landowners were allowed to vote. Male landowners, that is. The first popular election where all citizens could vote, and the majority vote won, is believed to have taken place in Sparta in 745 BC. For many centuries, examples like these were very few.

The right to vote

The history of the right to vote is mostly depicted in the history of suffrage – defined as ‘franchise’, or the right to vote – and the exercising of that right. These movements are rooted in the plight of minority groups and generally disenfranchised groups (those discriminated against, such as the poor and the landless), and their fight for the right to vote. You can easily read up on the most chronicled movements in history, such as Women’s Suffrage. The bravery, determination, and suffering endured to secure the right to vote is legendary. And once they finally won the right to vote, this did not mean they could run for office. Another fight was ahead for this democratic right. The Civil Rights movement in America is another example of a movement where the disenfranchised fought for, amongst other civil rights, the right to vote. This included, of course, black women, who were discriminated against from within various Women’s Suffrage movements.

In South Africa, the history of the right to vote is entangled with our colonial history. After the two Boer Wars, decisions had to be made as to who would be the decision-makers going forward. In the Cape Colony, all races had the right to vote – but only if you were male and had the economic qualifications, which means only the male elite across races could vote. In the negotiations to unify the Boer republics with the Cape Colony and Natal at the time, black people’s right to vote came under scrutiny. When South Africa finally became a union, its Constitution was put forward to the British government for approval. The British government was not keen to allow voting rights for black people. Thus, in the 1909 Constitution, only black people in the Cape retained their right to vote. The prevalent racial intolerance in South Africa kept this issue very high on the agenda, and in the 1930s the South African Parliament finally had the two-thirds majority needed to remove voting rights for black people from the Constitution. Finally, in 1951, the Coloured Voters Roll was also scrapped. In resistance against the diminishing civil rights experienced by these groups in South Africa, liberation movements such as the ANC were formed. One of the civil rights they fought for, for many decades, was the right to vote; a right finally won and exercised for the first time in 1994. 

The value of voting

So why am I providing this VERY brief look at history and the right to vote?

The value of voting has lost its lustre in South Africa. Despite all this history of the disenfranchised winning the right to vote, and the great enthusiasm for and faith in this aspect of the democratic process, South Africans look at voting with far less excitement only 30 years after the first democratic elections. Of course, we come by our growing indifference honestly. Those the majority have given their vote to have let us down greatly. And when we look at the candidate lists for the governing party for our upcoming elections, it doesn’t seem that we can expect better.

But this is still a democracy, dear voter! There will be more parties than ever on the ballot in 2024. We have a Constitution protecting this right to vote for any party you choose. What a notion! Looking back at history, especially from the vantage point of this current Human Rights Month, this right to vote is still at the centre of a system where the people have the final say. You must exercise this right with vigour, with determination, and with defiance against anything or anyone who wishes to weaken our country even further.

I mentioned decision-making earlier. This is what voting is. Look around you and decide if you are content with your circumstances. Look at your wider community and communities in your province and how they make an existence, and decide if you are satisfied with what you see and hear. The vast majority of people in this country can’t possibly be content or satisfied with what they see or what they LIVE through every day. Dear voter, neither are you, right?

So, VOTE in these elections if you are eligible. VOTE. It is your RIGHT. 

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.

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