Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

South Africa’s budget impasse teeters on the edge of an already fractured GNU

22 April 2025 | Story Terrance Molobela | Photo Supplied

Opinion article by Terrance Molobela, Lecturer in the Department of Public Administration and Management, University of the Free State.

Despite fierce opposition of the already passed National Fiscal Framework, the African National Congress (ANC) convened several meetings within and outside the Government of National Unity (GNU) mostly pioneered by its Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula who recently stated: “We are not trickers; we do not trick people. We engaged with ActionSA, and they said they do not want VAT; that’s not tricking anyone.”

One thing is clear, there is nothing binding on the GNU that after receiving additional budget proposals to raise revenue from ActionSA and Building One South Africa (BOSA), the VAT hike will be dropped. In fact, on 16 April 2025 in an interview with Newzroom Afrika the Minister of Finance Enoch Godongwana said: “I am not married to any increase or percentages”. The minister pointed out that the initial budget without VAT hikes was still on the table, however, he further highlighted that VAT increases remain Parliamentary policy issues. His advice is: “If you remove the 0.5% VAT increase, you must find an equivalent amount on the expenditure side to ensure the fiscal framework remains balanced.”

As the budget impasse stands, people need to understand that once the budget is passed by Parliament, the minister cannot unilaterally reverse the VAT increase. This is cemented by Section 12 of the Public Finance Management Act and Section 7(4) of the VAT Act. This ball is in Parliament’s court to reverse the budget and revenue proposal once alternative revenue generation proposal have been brought forward.

With 1 May 2025 looming, South Africans have a bitter pill to swallow as they will be charged R15.50% for every R100 spent. The media covered the VAT increase with rage and concerns from various communities across the country. The people feel punished by the GNU, while facing deep-rooted socio-economic problems like inequality, high unemployment, and poverty.

Despite the GNU deadlock and its fiscal crisis, several members within the ANC have unanimously admitted that the party has grossly failed to reach an amicable consensus within the GNU to freely support the VAT hike, hence it is vehemently opposed from all sides. Some critics suggest that the ANC-led government is poised to drop the VAT hike, but it’s unclear as to where and how the minister of finance would find the money to plug the fiscal gap.

Marriage may be sweet, but divorce is bitter

Both the ANC and DA knew ahead of time that forming the GNU with other parties was what is commonly known as “a marriage of inconvenience”. Before and on the wedding day, you both blind yourselves because of the sweet cake, joy, guests, and presents that long-lost friends will bring along. You create this beautiful picture that only exists in your head and hope that the other party shares a similar picture. But after you have entered the marriage, you then realise that you each functions on different levels and do not have complementary ideologies.

The DA’s ideologies on governance and policy is far the opposite of the ANC, and although it could work, the ANC have demonstrated their thirst for power and control, hence, their ability to share power equally remains a foreign language. DA leader John Steenhuisen has made it clear that they will not sacrifice citizens’ votes for a piece of cake but would rather fight and support a budget that caters for economic growth and job creation. This they have demonstrated by challenging the legality of the budget process in court, with hopes of blocking the implementation of a VAT increase, which has led to widening the rift within the fragile GNU.

The authenticity of the parliament – flawed budget process?

Amid mounting tensions created by the budget impasse, the National Assembly narrowly facilitated the national budget process, the DA, Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), and uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party rejected the budget, whilst the ANC-led government through coalescing outside GNU with parties like Action SA, secured majority support for the approval of the fiscal framework.

Parliament passed the 2025 National Fiscal Framework without the formal amendment of the mounting VAT and tax hikes. This was approved without binding recommendations, although budget committees suggested that the VAT and tax hikes be reconsidered at a later stage. As 1 May 2025 approaches for the VAT hike to kick in, reversing the VAT increase would be a lengthy process because it appears untenable.

The DA leader raised concerns that the Finance Committee acted ultra vires of the standing rules of Parliament, meaning the budget was not properly presented to the committee to reject or approve it, and that only a single proposal from the ANC was prioritised, whilst neglecting the DA proposal. This legal anomaly occurred under the watch of the National Assembly on the 2 April 2025. Hence, the DA have been challenging the budget.

One would ponder – “if the tables were turned, and the DA was in the position of the ANC and visa-versa, would the National Assembly opted to approve the budget framework?” I guess we would never know.

Where does the road lead now?

GNU: the ANC has already held several talks and meetings indirectly citing that the DA should hand over their divorce papers. But the president of the ANC needs the DA to remain in the coalition because of further economic shocks, which saw R1 trillion wiped out on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE). Investor confidence in the economy has hit rock-bottom, and the current trade wars have put pressure on multiple businesses to tighten their investment belts until it is safe to continue investing. The DA has not yet declared whether they want a divorce, but critics suggest that the Deputy President, Paul Mashatile, would be delighted if the DA left since they rejected the very same budget that they expect to reap from. As for ActionSA, it is unclear whether they have decided to join the GNU, but its leader Herman Mashaba has shown interest in joining the GNU, which most critics have weighed as a betrayal to the people of South Africa.

Ordinary citizens: It is time for South Africa’s citizens to brace themselves for the oncoming VAT hike. As much as the minister of finance has argued that it was necessary to stretch the already deeply embedded financial distress of citizens grappling with over-taxation of income, the bitter pill remains theirs to swallow. The 0.5% in VAT carries an underestimated distress for households who will be left alone to deal with increased prices of goods, services, and essentials.

What should be done thus far?

More tax on the people, goods and services kills jobs, which results in reducing revenue generation by government. To avoid further inflationary hikes, the government needs to approach the problem in an unusual way – this means placing strict rules and regulations on any government transaction that takes effect, deal with corruption and mismanagement at every sphere of government. Monies lost and stolen through unfinished projects should be recovered and ensuring that all state projects remain frequently monitored.

The government needs to change its ways of approaching industries, companies, and businesses to create jobs, and transfer some of their skills to the people of South Africa. The youth is yearning to be seen, supported, trained, and placed into the real world to unleash their potential, which might be something the economy needs to re-establish and position itself in the right direction to stir desired economic growth.

News Archive

Questions about racial integration in residences answered

2007-07-31

Answers to frequently asked questions about the racial integration of student residences at the UFS

1. Why does the UFS want to change the current situation in the student residences?

There are many reasons why a new approach to placement in the student residences is necessary. However, the main reason is of an educational nature. As a university, the UFS should create an environment in its residences where students can learn to appreciate and respect the rich diversity that is on offer at the university. A university accommodates students from many different backgrounds in terms of race, language, religion, economic status, culture and other aspects. If a student can learn to appreciate the value in this rich diversity at university, he or she will also be able to appreciate the value of this diversity in the workplace and broader society.

The current situation of predominantly white and predominantly black residences has not been able to cultivate such an appreciation for diversity and respect for one another as human beings, and will not equip students with the knowledge and skills required to manage diversity.

Besides this, there are many other areas of life in the residences that need attention. For one, we need to urgently establish a human rights culture in the residences so that the rights of all students can be respected. We need to address the abuse of alcohol, provide disabled students with their rightful place, and last but not least, really entrench a culture of learning in student residences.

Let us make the residences places we can be proud of – places of learning, of diversity, of respect; places of growth and development. This is the ideal we should all strive to achieve.

2. Why does the management want to force us to integrate?

It is a false argument to debate the issue in terms of “force”. Any decision by a University, or any other organisation, regarding matters of policy, rules and regulations implies a restriction on the choice of an individual and an obligation to comply. What we should focus on is whether this decision of the Council is in the best interests of our students.

The management of the university believes that it has a responsibility to give students the best education possible, not only in terms of what you learn in the lecture rooms, but especially in the residences as well. The residences can be very powerful places of learning about matters of great importance, both academic and non-academic.

The parallel-medium language policy separates students into largely white/Afrikaans and black/English classes. Efforts are being made to bridge this divide in the classroom, but we can also try to eliminate it in the residences.

The university is committed to building a new culture for the entire institution that is based on values and principles – such as an academic culture, non-racialism, respect for human rights and diversity – among staff and students.

In the context of student residences, the application of these values and principles still allows substantial room for the voluntary exercising of choice by individuals as well as by Residence Committees, notably with regard to the placement of students (they can still place 50 percent of first-year students), as well as the determination of the future character and traditions of a diverse residence.

Furthermore, students can still choose their residences (subject to availability of places), can choose a roommate, and so forth.

3. What about freedom of association?

The rights we enjoy in a democracy must be balanced against other rights, as well as the laws of the country. This means that the right to freedom of association must be balanced against laws that make it illegal to discriminate against other people on the basis of race, language or religion, for instance.

Freedom of association pertains to the right of individuals to form voluntary organisations such as clubs or private boarding houses, or their right to join or not join existing organisations. You exercise that right when you decide to become a student of the UFS, and again when you choose to live in one of its residences.

However, once you have decided to join an organisation voluntarily, you cannot subsequently demand that that organisation should provide a “club” or residence to your liking where, for instance, you only associate with your choice of co-members. You must accept the policies of that organisation.

In any case, how would that right of yours be balanced against the right of another individual who wishes to associate with a different set of co-members? (For instance – what about the freedom of a student to associate with students NOT from his own background, but indeed from another language, cultural, racial or economic background?)

The constitutional right to freedom of association can, in any case, not be used to exclude or discriminate on the basis of race or religion (Section 18 of the Bill of Rights).

Besides, the new policy guidelines will still make provision for freedom of association. This right can be exercised freely within a diverse residence with regard to friendships, joint academic work, socialising, sport, etc.

4. Will residences not lose their traditions?

The University appreciates that there are many valuable elements of tradition in residences. However, we must bear in mind that the traditions and character of student residences have evolved and changed over time, and they will continue to evolve and to change. In addition, we do not need to accept all aspects of residence life purely on the basis of tradition, including the unacceptably high level of alcohol abuse and unsavoury, humiliating and discriminatory orientation practices. The new approach to integrated residences provides the opportunity to retain the positive aspects of the current traditions and character, but also to develop new traditions and give residences a new character.

We can now establish a tradition and a character for each residence that are reconcilable with the values of the University as a place of scholarship and are aligned with the human rights approach of our country’s Constitution, the laws of our country and the strengths and diversity of the students in a particular residence.

5. Have students been involved in this process? Is there a role for them to play after the decision has been taken by the Council of the UFS?

In the first semester of 2007, during two rounds of consultations, the primes, SRC and student organisations were consulted about the proposed new placement policy to increase diversity in residences. Some residences also made written submissions on the matter (such as Madelief, Soetdoring, Wag-'n-bietjie, Vergeet-my-nie, Emily Hobhouse). Other residences requested and were granted more time, but did not make any submissions in the end (such as Reitz and Armentum).

Management also had several meetings with the above-mentioned structures to hear first-hand from students their concerns and solutions regarding possible challenges presented by integration in residences.

During these interactions, several excellent ideas and proposals were put forward by students. These views had a definite impact on the eventual proposal that was taken to the University Council, in particular regarding the minimum level of diversity (30%) in junior residences and the fact that residences still want to have a say in the placement of students, rather than the placement decision being left in the hands of Management alone (hence the 50% placement portion of residences). Management values the effort that was put into the process by the primes and residence committees, and thanks them for their contributions.

However, it should be stressed that consultation should not be understood as a process of negotiation, nor does it imply that consensus must be reached. What it means is that Management must take a considered decision after hearing the views of stakeholders.

Management would like students to continue to provide input and ideas regarding the implementation details of the policy guidelines. Task teams have been established and students will be informed about how they can interact with the task teams on an ongoing basis.

6. But integration in the residences was tried in the past (in the late 1990s), and then it failed. Why will it work now?

Yes, the University of the Free State did integrate its residences as far back as 1993, and for a few years it worked. The UFS did it at that time and is now doing so again, because it is the right thing to do. Yet it is important to understand why the previous attempt at racial integration in residences was not successful.

Firstly, both black and white students were much polarised because of the apartheid past. Secondly, there was insufficient management support for students in the residences, the student leaders generally as well as residence heads, in terms of dealing with diversity and related issues. Thirdly, the institutional culture of the UFS and the residences in particular was not addressed as part of broader transformation and integration in residences, whereas it is now being addressed.

In addition, the current decision to integrate residences has the benefit of being implemented after several more years of integration in schooling, sport, workplaces and other aspects of life.

This decision is also based on Management’s commitment to give all the possible support it can to this process.

This is a very important initiative that the UFS is undertaking. Management, in co-operation with students, must ensure that it succeeds. Integrated residences that produce high-quality graduates equipped to deal with the challenges of the workplace and our society is a worthwhile ideal we should all strive to achieve.

If you would like to make a proposal regarding the implementation and practical aspects of the new policy, please send it to the following email address: rector@ufs.ac.za

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

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