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

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