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

Reaction by the Rector of the UFS after a meeting with student leaders
2008-02-25

Reaction by the Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS, Prof. Frederick Fourie, on the agreement reached at a meeting with student leaders held on Friday, 22 February 2008

Note: This is meant to be used together with the full joint statement that was issued by the UFS management and student leaders on 22 February 2008.

The memorandum of the primes of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) residences was handed to top management on Wednesday, 20 February 2008. In the memorandum they asked for a meeting with the UFS management by Friday, 22 February 2008. Such a meeting was arranged and took place.

The UFS top management, all the residence primes as well as the house committee member for first years, the executive of the Main Campus Student Representative Council (SRC) and residence heads were present.

In contrast to what is suggested in the Volksblad report of Saturday, the discussion went off very well. There was no consternation or shouting or “emotions that ran high”. It was a civilised, decent meeting as it should be at a good university. Of course, now and again individuals spoke out strongly and very enthusiastically, but it was all decent and orderly. The contribution of the primes was insightful and well formulated.

Because the top management and I wanted to listen very carefully what the problems and frustrations were, we spent nearly five hours in the meeting. The issues in the memorandum were discussed one by one. In some cases I could take a decision immediately and finalise the matter, in other cases, the management provided information that could largely finalise a matter. A number of other matters must be investigated further.

The management undertook to respond comprehensively and in writing to all the issues raised in the memorandum by Monday, 25 February 2008. This will be handed to the primes but will not be handed to the media beforehand.
It is obvious that there are matters at the university that can be better managed and that there are problems with communication within the Student Affairs division. A major change such as the new policy on diversity places huge demands on management and the administration, and problems were to be expected. However, we understand the frustration of the students in residences.

On the other hand, students don’t always make matters easier. The strong opposition of white student leaders last year, and their unwillingness to co-operate in preparation for 2008 is well known. This year it is going better. But often student leaders take positions that are very inflexible. They also see no room for adapting old habits and simply want their own way. Their contributions are then full of statements such as “It cannot be done”. This delays measures such as the full implementation of expert interpreting services, which, for the management, is a very important measure (and which is functioning very well in certain residences). Communication from student leaders to management is also not always what it should be.

At the end of the meeting student leaders and management reached an important agreement and issued a joint statement in which they committed themselves to the integration process and to good co-operation and communication. This was an important step which is a sign of rebuilding trust. Naturally everyone will still have to work hard to build on this and to strengthen mutual trust.

The course and outcome of Friday’s discussions, as requested by the student leaders, show that issues can be addressed and resolved by means of us talking to one another. This is why it is so sad that primes and house committee members went on strike on Wednesday already and stayed in tents in front of the Main Building – leaving their residences without its leadership. This created an opening for what appears to have been well planned and co-ordinated acts of vandalism by inhabitants of residences on the campus on Wednesday.

Such vandalism is unacceptable and no one can justify it.

Fortunately, order could be restored quickly during the night and all academic activities could resume without any disruption on Thursday and Friday.

FCvN Fourie

Media Release
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za   
24 February 2008

 

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