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

Stem cell research and human cloning: legal and ethical focal points
2004-07-29

   

(Summary of the inaugural lecture of Prof Hennie Oosthuizen, from the Department of Criminal and Medical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State.)

 

In the light of stem cell research, research on embryo’s and human cloning it will be fatal for legal advisors and researchers in South Africa to ignore the benefits that new bio-medical development, through research, contain for this country.

Legal advisors across the world have various views on stem cell research and human cloning. In the USA there is no legislation that regulates stem cell research but a number of States adopted legislation that approves stem cell research. The British Parlement gave permission for research on embryonic stem cells, but determined that it must be monitored closely and the European Union is of the opinion that it will open a door for race purification and commercial exploitation of human beings.

In South Africa the Bill on National Health makes provision for therapeutical and non therapeutical research. It also makes provision for therapeutical embryonical stem cell research on fetuses, which is not older than 14 days, as well as for therapeutical cloning under certain circumstances subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill prohibits reproductive cloning.

Research on human embrio’s is a very controversial issue, here and in the rest of the world.

Researchers believe that the use of stem cell therapy could help to side-step the rejection of newly transplanted organs and tissue and if a bank for stem cell could be built, the shortage of organs for transplants would become something of the past. Stem cells could also be used for healing of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

Sources from which stem cells are obtained could also lead to further ethical issues. Stem cells are harvested from mature human cells and embryonic stem cells. Another source to be utilised is to take egg cells from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. This will be morally unacceptable for those against abortions. Linking a financial incentive to that could become more of a controversial issue because the woman’s decision to abort could be influenced. The ideal would be to rather use human fetus tissue from spontaneous abortions or extra-uterine pregnancies than induced abortions.

The potential to obtain stem cells from the blood of the umbilical cord, bone-marrow and fetus tissue and for these cells to arrange themselves is known for quite some time. Blood from the umbilical cord contains many stem cells, which is the origin of the body’s immune and blood system. It is beneficial to bank the blood of a newborn baby’s umbilical cord. Through stem cell transplants the baby or another family member’s life could be saved from future illnesses such as anemia, leukemia and metabolic storing disabilities as well as certain generic immuno disabilities.

The possibility to withdraw stem cells from human embrio’s and to grow them is more useable because it has more treatment possibilities.

With the birth of Dolly the sheep, communities strongly expressed their concern about the possibility that a new cloning technique such as the replacement of the core of a cell will be used in human reproduction. Embryonic splitting and core replacement are two well known techniques that are associated with the cloning process.

I differentiate between reproductive cloning – to create a cloned human embryo with the aim to bring about a pregnancy of a child that is identical to another individual – and therapeutically cloning – to create a cloned human embryo for research purposes and for healing human illnesses.

Worldwide people are debating whether to proceed with therapeutical cloning. There are people for and against it. The biggest ethical objection against therapeutical cloning is the termination of the development of a potential human being.

Children born from cloning will differ from each other. Factors such as the uterus environment and the environment in which the child is growing up will play a role. Cloning create unique children that will grow up to be unique individuals, just like me and you that will develop into a person, just like you and me. If we understand this scientific fact, most arguments against human cloning will disappear.

Infertility can be treated through in vitro conception. This process does not work for everyone. For some cloning is a revolutionary treatment method because it is the only method that does not require patients to produce sperm and egg cells. The same arguments that were used against in vitro conception in the past are now being used against cloning. It is years later and in vitro cloning is generally applied and accepted by society. I am of the opinion that the same will happen with regard to human cloning.

There is an argument that cloning must be prohibited because it is unsafe. Distorted ideas in this regard were proven wrong. Are these distorted ideas justified to question the safety of cloning and the cloning process you may ask. The answer, according to me, is a definite no. Human cloning does have many advantages. That includes assistance with infertility, prevention of Down Syndrome and recovery from leukemia.

 

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