Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
07 March 2024 Photo SUPPLIED
Gcina Mtengwane teaches in the Community Development Programme at the Centre for Gender and Africa Studies, University of the Free State, Qwaqwa Campus.

Opinion article by Gcina Mtengwane, Centre for Gender and Africa Studies, University of the Free State.


The notion that 2024 could echo the transformative spirit of 1994 holds weight. South Africans find themselves in a pressing need for positive social, economic, and political change. Yet, the avenue through which this change will manifest - a reformed African National Congress (ANC), an opposition party or a coalition government - remains unchartered territory. South Africa is on a downward trajectory. As various international indexes project corruption and poor governance, noting also that those indexes may not at times be accurate, the lived experiences of South Africans echo despair, disillusionment, and a betrayal of promises for a better life, particularly among the working class and the poor. 

The first democratic election in 1994 heralded an era where a new government had the opportunity to represent the interests and aspirations of all citizens, countering the discriminatory policies of apartheid. It fostered optimism for equal access to opportunities and life chances regardless of race, religion, gender, class, or ethnicity.

However, the transition to democracy, like any new venture, brought forth both opportunities and challenges. Actualising the vision of a ‘rainbow nation’ necessitated tangible legislative reforms and macroeconomic strategies beyond mere rhetoric. Consequently, initiatives such as the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) in 1994, the Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) strategy in 1996, The Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa (ASGISA) in 2005, the new Growth Path in 2010, and the National Development Plan vision 2030 were implemented. While the efficacy of these macroeconomic frameworks remains contested, there is a consensus that more can be done and perhaps differently.

Parallels between 2024 and 1994? 

South Africa grapples with high unemployment, alarming crime rates, and an education system ranked among the world’s worst. South Africa is among the most unsafe countries in the world with an estimate of 27 494 murders recorded in 2022-2023. Ranked at 50th out of 63 countries, its education system is rated among the worst performing in the world. The education system fails to equip matriculants with practical skills for sustainable livelihoods. Additionally, funding exclusions and high dropout rates plague higher education, exacerbating the crisis. NSFAS has proposed defunding certain qualifications from its budget and half of those who do make it to universities drop out in their first year.  Moreover, South Africa measures the highest income inequality in the world, with a Gini coefficient of around 0.67, race being a key factor in a society where 10 per cent of the population owns more than 80 per cent of the wealth.

Persistent income inequality and deeply entrenched racial disparities are hindering the opportunities for upward social and economic mobility for the majority, notably the youth. The unemployment rate among youth, which includes persons between 15 and 35 years old, is around 60%. There is low support for and a high failure rate of start-up small to medium enterprises (SMMEs) with between 70% to 80% failing in the first five years of operations. There is a high rate of youth neither in employment nor in education or training (NEETs).  Data shows that 32.6% of graduates struggle to find work within the first two years of graduation, implying that for some, regardless of educational attainment, there is no optimism regarding the prospects for a better future.

The issues highlighted above are just some of the issues facing South Africa. These challenges underscore the urgent need for well-conceived and actionable solutions. A governing party must demonstrate clear policy direction and effective implementation mechanisms to uplift the most vulnerable while safeguarding the rights of all citizens, irrespective of race. However, certain radical policy proposals, like affirmative action and land expropriation without compensation, pose significant ideological divides.

Opportunity to nurture democracy

South Africa boasts over 30 years of democratic experience, providing invaluable lessons from past elections. There is a unique opportunity to nurture democracy and freedom, as is enshrined in the constitution, ensuring the well-being of current and future generations. The prospect of a coalition government looms large, potentially marking a historic shift. While unprecedented at the national level, coalition governance has been trialled in various municipalities including Johannesburg, Nelson Mandela Bay, and Ekurhuleni. However, these experiments often resulted in governance failures, characterised by instability and policy dissonance, rather than cohesive leadership. Political rivalry among the parties undermined service delivery and good governance, leading to the failure of coalition governance at the local government level.

Policy misalignment emerges as the key impediment to coalition success. The recent formation of the ‘Moon-shot pact’ underscores the necessity for aligned policy positions among coalition partners to avert governance crises.

Voter implications

Voting entails entrusting a political party with the responsibility to serve the interests of millions. It demands an informed understanding of the party’s policies as outlined in its manifesto. While individual charisma may sway voter preferences, informed decisions are imperative amidst South Africa’s challenges and opportunities. 

News Archive

Council on Higher Education LLB qualification review not yet complete
2017-05-16

The reaction from various stakeholders following the ‘Outcomes of the National Review of the LLB Qualification’ by the Council on Higher Education (CHE) on 12 April 2017 requires the CHE to clarify that the national review process has not been completed and is ongoing.

The peer-review process conducted under the auspices of the CHE is based on the LLB Standards Document which was developed in 2014-2015 with input from higher-education institutions and the organised legal profession. Following self-review and site visits by peers, the process is now at the point where commendations and shortcomings have been identified, and the statement of 12 April reflects those findings. All law faculties and schools have been asked to improve their LLB programmes to meet the LLB Standard, and no LLB programme has been de-accredited. All institutions retain the accreditation they had before the Review process began and all institutions are working towards retaining their accreditation and improving their LLB programmes.

The South African Law Deans’ Association (SALDA) has issued a set of responses regarding the LLB programme review. The following questions and answers were published to give more clarity on the questions raised.

1.    What is the effect of a finding of conditional accreditation?
The programme remains accredited.

(“Accreditation refers to a recognition status granted to a programme for a stipulated period of time after an HEQC evaluation indicates that it meets minimum standards of quality.”)

The institution must submit a progress report by 6 October 2017 that indicates how short-term aspects raised in the HEQC reports have been addressed and an improvement plan to indicate how longer-term aspects will be addressed.

2.    What is the effect of a finding of notice of withdrawal of accreditation?
The programme remains accredited.

The institution must submit an improvement plan by 6 October 2017 to indicate how the issues raised in the HEQC report will be addressed, including time frames.

3.    How does the finding of notice of withdrawal affect current students?
Students currently enrolled for the LLB programme at any institution are not affected at all. They will graduate with an accredited qualification.

4.    How does the finding of notice of withdrawal affect new applicants?
The programmes remain accredited and institutions may enrol new students as usual. This also includes students completing BA/BCom (Law) programmes who wish to continue with the LLB programme.

5.    How does the finding of notice of withdrawal affect prior graduates?
Degrees previously conferred are not affected.

6.    What happens when the improvement plans are submitted in October 2017?
The CHE will evaluate the plans when they are submitted, and the programmes remain accredited until a decision is taken whether the improvement plan is sufficient and has been fully given effect to or not. The institutions will have to submit progress reports to the CHE indicating implementation of measures contained in the improvement plan.

Should a decision at some stage be taken that a programme’s accreditation must be withdrawn, a teaching-out plan would be implemented so that all enrolled students would have the opportunity to graduate with an accredited degree.

For more information on the CHE’s pronouncement please contact Moleboheng Moshe-Bereng on MosheBerengMF@ufs.ac.za.

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