Latest News Archive

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

Human Rights Month reminds us to reclaim the promise of the right to vote

21 March 2024 Photo SUPPLIED

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

The failure of the law

2004-06-04

Written by Lacea Loader

- Call for the protection of consumers’ and tax payers rights against corporate companies

An expert in commercial law has called for reforms to the Companies Act to protect the rights of consumers and investors.

“Consumers and tax payers are lulled into thinking the law protects them when it definitely does not,” said Prof Dines Gihwala this week during his inaugural lecture at the University of the Free State’s (UFS).

Prof Gihwala, vice-chairperson of the UFS Council, was inaugurated as extraordinary professor in commercial law at the UFS’s Faculty of Law.

He said that consumers, tax payers and shareholders think they can look to the law for an effective curb on the enormous power for ill that big business wields.

“Once the public is involved, the activities of big business must be controlled and regulated. It is the responsibility of the law to oversee and supervise such control and regulation,” said Prof Gihwala.

He said that, when undesirable consequences occur despite laws enacted specifically to prevent such results, it must be fair to suggest that the law has failed.

“The actual perpetrators of the undesirable behaviour seldom pay for it in any sense, not even when criminal conduct is involved. If directors of companies are criminally charged and convicted, the penalty is invariably a fine imposed on the company. So, ironically, it is the money of tax payers that is spent on investigating criminal conduct, formulating charges and ultimately prosecuting the culprits involved in corporate malpractice,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala the law continuously fails to hold companies meaningfully accountable to good and honest business values.

“Insider trading is a crime and, although legislation was introduced in 1998 to curb it, not a single successful criminal prosecution has taken place. While the law appears to be offering the public protection against unacceptable business behaviour, it does no such thing – the law cannot act as a deterrent if it is inadequate or not being enforced,” he said.

The government believed it was important to facilitate access to the country’s economic resources by those who had been denied it in the past. The Broad Based Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 (BBEE), is legislation to do just that. “We should be asking ourselves whether it is really possible for an individual, handicapped by the inequities of the past, to compete in the real business world even though the BBEE Act is now part of the law?,” said Prof Gihwala.

Prof Gihwala said that judges prefer to follow precedent instead of taking bold initiative. “Following precedent is safe at a personal level. To do so will elicit no outcry of disapproval and one’s professional reputation is protected. The law needs to evolve and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to see that it happens in an orderly fashion. Courts often take the easy way out, and when the opportunity to be bold and creative presents itself, it is ignored,” he said.

“Perhaps we are expecting too much from the courts. If changes are to be made to the level of protection to the investing public by the law, Parliament must play its proper role. It is desirable for Parliament to be proactive. Those tasked with the responsibility of rewriting our Companies Act should be bold and imaginative. They should remove once and for all those parts of our common law which frustrate the ideals of our Constitution, and in particular those which conflict with the principles of the BBEE Act,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala, the following reforms are necessary:

• establishing a unit that is part of the office of the Registrar of Companies to bolster a whole inspectorate in regard to companies’ affairs;
• companies who are liable to pay a fine or fines, should have the right to take action to recover that fine from those responsible for the conduct;
• and serious transgression of the law should allow for imprisonment only – there should be no room for the payment of fines.

Prof Gihwala ended the lecture by saying: “If the opportunity to re-work the Companies Act is not grabbed with both hands, we will witness yet another failure in the law. Even more people will come to believe that the law is stupid and that it has made fools of them. And that would be the worst possible news in our developing democracy, where we are struggling to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails and that every one of us has respect for the law”.

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