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

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

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