Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
28 May 2024 | Story Lunga Luthuli and Precious Shamase | Photo Supplied
Student Elections Debates 2024
Themba Hlasho, Executive Director: Student Affairs and Prof Prince Ngobeni, Qwaqwa Campus Principal were part of the debate series.

With South Africans going to the polls on 29 May 2024 for the seventh general elections since 1994, the University of the Free State (UFS) successfully hosted its first Institutional Elections Debate Series across its three campuses. The debates, organised by the Institutional Student Governance Office (ISGO), aimed to stimulate political engagement and intellectual discourse among students.

The debates took place on the three campuses and at different levels.  The debates were very successful; students were enthusiastic and well prepared to field critical questions to panellists.  The level of intellectual engagement was high and the facilitator, Ace Moloi – with his fine facilitation skills – helped to take the debates to higher levels.

Motlogelwa Moema, Head of the Student Governance Office, emphasised the alignment of the debates with the UFS’ commitment to societal progress and intellectual enquiry. "As an institution of higher learning, the UFS is committed to producing graduates who can function at various levels of society, contributing meaningfully to societal and intellectual enquiry. Platforms such as the debate series are important in stimulating political as well as electoral involvement while producing students who are leaders," Moema stated.

Student engagement in the electoral process was a key focus of the debates, with discussions highlighting the importance of translating campus political activity into national civic duty. Moema noted, "By bringing representatives from various political parties to all three campuses of the university, we ensured that students not only understood the importance of their votes, but also that they were able to align their values with those of the parties campaigning for their votes."

Informed voters: The debate allowed students to hear directly from the candidates about their platforms and stances on important issues. This can help students make informed decisions when they cast their votes.

Increased engagement: By hosting the debate, the Student Governance Office is encouraging student participation in the national elections. This led to a more vibrant and engaged student body.

Key themes of the debates included student funding, health care, governance, accountability, and economic policy. "The most topical theme across all three campuses was student funding. Additionally, students demonstrated great interest in the National Health Insurance, governance, and economic policies," Moema said, illustrating the depth and breadth of the discussions.

Reflecting on the role of universities in fostering political awareness, Moema acknowledged a generational disengagement from political activism. However, he stressed the importance of universities in cultivating a culture of debate and free thinking. "The recent debate series marked the beginning of the ISGO’s commitment to reviving dialogue across the university," he added.

Moema also highlighted the importance of universities in promoting critical enquiry and fact-checking, particularly during election periods. "Universities have a crucial role in creating platforms for fact-checking, critical enquiry, and clarification," he remarked.

Looking ahead, Moema hopes that the debate series will have a lasting impact on students’ democratic participation. "In the short term, the most ideal impact of the debate series should be a great turnout on election day. In the medium term, we hope to see the same energy during CSRC elections on all three campuses," he said.

The debate series was deemed a success, with significant improvements in turnout and the quality of engagement. "Our students showed a great level of tolerance for divergent views and respect for one another. The audience asked pertinent questions, showing remarkable understanding of societal dynamics, governance, social justice, and leadership values," Moema concluded.

The debates were moderated by Ace Moloi, a former student leader and award-winning journalist, whose experience and understanding of the university’s values greatly contributed to the event’s success.

The UFS is committed to developing well-rounded graduates who can think critically and contribute meaningfully to society. Looking ahead, the UFS hopes to see a high voter turnout on 29 May and continued student involvement in future elections. The debates' focus on critical thinking and informed participation aligns with Vision 130's objective of developing well-rounded graduates who can contribute meaningfully to society.

News Archive

“To forgive is not an obligation. It’s a choice.” – Prof Minow during Reconciliation Lecture
2014-03-05

“To forgive is not an obligation. It’s a choice.” – Prof Minow during the Third Annual Reconciliation Lecture entitled Forgiveness, Law and Justice.
Photo: Johan Roux

No one could have anticipated the atmosphere in which Prof Martha Minow would visit the Bloemfontein Campus. And no one could have predicted how apt the timing of her message would be. As this formidable Dean of Harvard University’s Law School stepped behind the podium, a latent tension edged through the crowded audience.

“The issue of getting along after conflict is urgent.”

With these few words, Prof Minow exposed the essence of not only her lecture, but also the central concern of the entire university community.

As an expert on issues surrounding racial justice, Prof Minow has worked across the globe in post-conflict societies. How can we prevent atrocities from happening? she asked. Her answer was an honest, “I don’t know.” What she is certain of, on the other hand, is that the usual practice of either silence or retribution does not work. “I think that silence produces rage – understandably – and retribution produces the cycle of violence. Rather than ignoring what happens, rather than retribution, it would be good to reach for something more.” This is where reconciliation comes in.

Prof Minow put forward the idea that forgiveness should accompany reconciliation efforts. She defined forgiveness as a conscious, deliberate decision to forego rightful grounds of resentment towards those who have committed a wrong. “To forgive then, in this definition, is not an obligation. It’s a choice. And it’s held by the one who was harmed,” she explained.

Letting go of resentment cannot be forced – not even by the law. What the law can do, though, is either to encourage or discourage forgiveness. Prof Minow showed how the law can construct adversarial processes that render forgiveness less likely, when indeed its intention was the opposite. “Or, law can give people chances to meet together in spaces where they may apologise and they may forgive,” she continued. This point introduced some surprising revelations about our Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).

Indeed, studies do report ambivalence, disappointment and mixed views about the TRC. Whatever our views are on its success, Prof Minow reported that people across the world wonder how South African did it. “It may not work entirely inside the country; outside the country it’s had a huge effect. It’s a touchstone for transitional justice.”

The TRC “seems to have coincided with, and maybe contributed to, the relatively peaceful political transition to democracy that is, frankly, an absolute miracle.” What came as a surprise to many is this: the fact that the TRC has affected transitional justice efforts in forty jurisdictions, including Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Cambodia and Liberia. It has even inspired the creation of a TRC in Greensborough, North Carolina, in the United States.

There are no blueprints for solving conflict, though. “But the possibility of something other than criminal trials, something other than war, something other than silence – that’s why the TRC, I think, has been such an exemplar to the world,” she commended.

Court decision cannot rebuild a society, though. Only individuals can forgive. Only individuals can start with purposeful, daily decisions to forgive and forge a common future. Forgiveness is rather like kindness, she suggested. It’s a resource without limits. It’s not scarce like water or money. It’s within our reach. But if it’s forced, it’s not forgiveness.

“It is good,” Prof Minow warned, “to be cautious about the use of law to deliberately shape or manipulate the feelings of any individual. But it is no less important to admit that law does affect human beings, not just in its results, but in its process.” And then we must take responsibility for how we use that law.

“A government can judge, but only people can forgive.” As Prof Minow’s words lingered, the air suddenly seemed a bit more buoyant.

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