Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
22 May 2024 | Story Prof Sethulego Matebesi | Photo Kaleidoscope Studios
Prof Sethulego Matebesi
Prof Sethulego Matebesi, Associate Professor and Academic Head of Department of Sociology, University of the Free State.

Opinion article by Prof Sethulego Matebesi, Associate Professor and Academic Head of Department of Sociology, University of the Free State


South Africa has entered a pivotal stage of the 2024 General Elections. Aside from the usual drama surrounding electoral politicking ─ the twists and turns of new political parties and election campaigns ─ the forthcoming elections have yielded theatrical spectacles that have kept us intrigued over the past few months.

 

Depending on how far back you want to reflect your aesthetic lens, the drama began with the furore over the spike in the number of young people who registered as new voters. In light of this, political parties had run relentless campaigns targeting young voters. There is a deeper issue here, however. Over the past three decades, voter apathy among young people in the country has been a knotty and vexing challenge that many scholars and policymakers have grappled with. What is provided ─ almost constantly ─ by the youth as a reason for the general apathy is a distrust of formal politics.

Here, I contend that while young people may see voting as trivial, especially in comparison to their purported different and new forms of engaging with democracy, I grapple with understanding how they will be staking a claim in the future of a country they will inherit.

New entrants the harsh reality of personality-driven politics

There is one thing South Africans are certain of about the elections: the proliferation of new political parties. Insofar as this year’s elections are concerned, of the independent candidates and newly registered parties expected to contest the elections ─ including Build One SA (Bosa) and Rise Mzansi — it is the emergence of uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party, backed by former President Jacob Zuma, and former African National Congress (ANC) Secretary-General Ace Magashule’s African Congress for Transformation (ACT), that ushered in a new era of unprecedented opposition politics in the democratic and political space.

Ironically, the MK Party, whose leader has been blamed for state capture and many other of the country’s failures, has enjoyed prominent winning streaks in the courts to ensure that Zuma is not removed from its parliamentary lists, and the party continues to use the name and logo of uMkhonto weSizwe that the ANC claimed belonged to its military wing.

Given Zuma and Magashule’s complex and frosty relationship with the ANC and their open hostility towards President Cyril Ramaphosa, these populist leaders idealised the forthcoming elections as a thrilling adventure with countless opportunities to provide a viable alternative to the ANC. For example, the MK Party’s radical socialist and conservative policies will ensure the state has almost everything. On the other hand, ACT, which is set to launch its manifesto soon, is still determined to unseat the governing ANC and disrupt the status quo, especially in the Free State.

These are exciting developments as both leaders were once at the helm of the ANC and are now promising a systematic political blueprint that will bridge the gap between the state and citizens.

Nevertheless, regardless of strong rebukes of these former leaders by the ANC Secretary-General, Fikile Mbalula, that had the unintended consequence of illustrating how the party protects its leaders at the expense of advancing national priorities, this leads me to another, and often ignored point: the harsh realities of elections.

For one, elections come and go, but personalities remain. And with the MK Party and ACT being led by shrewd leaders with almost unconstrained power, it is unsurprising that the two parties are already facing internal strife.

In the US it took Americans a while to realise that a current and former president would compete for the White House for the first time in that country’s history. This reality for American voters is that a win for either Joe Biden or Donald Trump will yet again yield one of the oldest presidents in the history of the US.

Generally, a harsh reality for many new political parties will hit the hardest when they realise that beneath all the glamour and shine of election campaigns are many other variables besides political rhetoric that determine election outcomes. I reckon this is a lesson learned by the two major opposition parties ─ the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF).

The DA national flag saga a misstep in tactics

As the tumultuous clock of the high-stakes elections ticks on, the DA decided to provide its own twist to the political theatre through its advertisement featuring the burning of the South African flag.

The DA’s provocative move, intended to make a strong statement about the party’s view on the performance of the ANC, has backfired and caused outrage among most citizens. The DA’s response that their advert was well-intentioned is of even more significant concern.

In a country already fraught with racial tension and polarisation, using intentions as a blanket justification for disrespectful actions towards national symbols sets a dangerous precedent. Resorting to such extreme measures to capture attention illuminates a lack of understanding of the far-reaching consequences of such actions.

As the curtain is about to close on campaigns, it is more important than ever that citizens and political parties approach national symbols with the reverence and respect they deserve.


Institutional experts can be found at: https://www.ufs.ac.za/media/leading-researchers

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