Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
25 February 2025 | Story Anthony Mthembu | Photo Kaleidoscope Studios
G20 - 2025
G20 delegates from member countries and other invited guests in attendance at the G20 Research and Innovation Working Group (RIWG) and G20 Initiative on Bioeconomy (GIB) meetings and other side events.

Against the backdrop of the upcoming G20 Summit to be hosted by South Africa in November 2025, the University of the Free State (UFS) – in partnership with the Department of Science, Technology and Innovation (DSTI) – held the G20 Research and Innovation Working Group (RIWG) and G20 Initiative on Bioeconomy (GIB) meetings on 23 and 24 February 2025.

In her opening address to G20 delegates from member countries, national and international knowledge partners, members of the Free State provincial government, and representatives of the DSTI, Prof Hester Klopper, Vice-Chancellor and Principal of the UFS, indicated, “It is an honour for the UFS to be among the few South African universities to host this essential Research and Innovation Working Group.” In addition, she highlighted that the deliberations and discussions set to take place during this important workshop can set in motion chains of events ultimately contributing to improved lives for everyone. These sentiments were also echoed by Prof Blade Nzimande, Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation, who underscored the importance and historic nature of the upcoming G20 Summit.

In his virtual address, Minister Nzimande explained that South Africa’s chosen theme for the G20 Summit – Solidarity, Equality and Sustainability – was inspired by the general complexity of our time, “in particular the transnational nature of these complexities, such as conflict, the displacement of people, poverty”, among other things. As such, he expressed that in this case, cooperation among nations is becoming increasingly essential.

As they concluded their addresses, Prof Nzimande and Prof Klopper, wished the delegates well in their deliberations. ‘’May your discussions be successful, and your goals be achieved. And may your time with us lead to a renewed experience of the value of innovation through connection, ‘’expressed Prof Klopper.

 

Contributing events

As part of the programme at these proceedings, several side events took place. These included panel discussions with indigenous knowledge holders such as Telle Hoeses, Chief Language Practitioner for Khoi and San Languages, along with experts of indigenous medicine. The conversation focused on indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) and some of the key concerns and progress that these knowledge holders have made in the space. In addition, these knowledge holders, many of whom are business owners who sell products made from indigenous medicines, also had the opportunity to exhibit their products. According to Dan du Toit, Deputy Director-General: International Cooperation and Resources at the DSTI, these panel discussions with young people, bioeconomy researchers, and indigenous knowledge holders were an opportunity to gain access to a diversity of voices, which would not normally find expression in formal meetings. “It is also an opportunity for our international guests to get insight into who we are as a country and what some of our concerns might be,” said Du Toit.

One of the highly anticipated side events on the programme was the joint G20 RIWG and GIB event titled ‘UNESCO Women and Girls in Science’, which took place on 25 February 2025. The event took the form of a round-table discussion, in an attempt to answer the question: Based on your experiences in various roles within higher education in South Africa, Africa, and globally, what are some key insights regarding the role of universities in closing the gender gap in STEM, specifically concerning professional development and creating supportive research environments where everyone, especially women, can thrive?

Prof Anthea Rhoda; Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Academic at the UFS, was one of the contributors in this session. In response to the question, Prof Rhoda highlighted, “Universities should also be spaces characterised by intellectual freedom and freedom of expression, where archaic ideas about male superiority and patriarchy can be openly confronted and contested, without fear of victimisation. She expressed that an active way in which the UFS has committed itself to a culture of diversity and inclusion is through Vision130.

As she was wrapping up her address, Prof Rhoda also highlighted, “To address areas of underrepresentation of women in senior academic and leadership positions within the university, a Working Group on Gender Parity in Academic Leadership was established, with the critical mandate to drive attitudinal shifts, advocate for changes where necessary, and highlight barriers to women’s advancement.”

 

The programme comes to an end

The last day of the programme was reserved for comments, reflections, and discussions on deliverables. As such, there were positive responses to the way the deliberations took place. In fact, Hoese, speaking in her capacity as an indigenous knowledge holder, said, “This was a good platform for us to make progress towards language recognition and officialisation.”

News Archive

Media: Sunday Times
2006-05-20

Sunday Times, 4 June 2006

True leadership may mean admitting disunity
 

In this edited extract from the inaugural King Moshoeshoe Memorial Lecture at the University of the Free State, Professor Njabulo S Ndebele explores the leadership challenges facing South Africa

RECENT events have created a sense that we are undergoing a serious crisis of leadership in our new democracy. An increasing number of highly intelligent, sensitive and committed South Africans, across class, racial and cultural spectrums, confess to feeling uncertain and vulnerable as never before since 1994.

When indomitable optimists confess to having a sense of things unhinging, the misery of anxiety spreads. We have the sense that events are spiralling out of control and that no one among the leadership of the country seems to have a definitive handle on things.

There can be nothing more debilitating than a generalised and undefined sense of anxiety in the body politic. It breeds conspiracies and fear.

There is an impression that a very complex society has developed, in the last few years, a rather simple, centralised governance mechanism in the hope that delivery can be better and more quickly driven. The complexity of governance then gets located within a single structure of authority rather than in the devolved structures envisaged in the Constitution, which should interact with one another continuously, and in response to their specific settings, to achieve defined goals. Collapse in a single structure of authority, because there is no robust backup, can be catastrophic.

The autonomy of devolved structures presents itself as an impediment only when visionary cohesion collapses. Where such cohesion is strong, the impediment is only illusory, particularly when it encourages healthy competition, for example, among the provinces, or where a province develops a character that is not necessarily autonomous politically but rather distinctive and a special source of regional pride. Such competition brings vibrancy to the country. It does not necessarily challenge the centre.

Devolved autonomy is vital in the interests of sustainable governance. The failure of various structures to actualise their constitutionally defined roles should not be attributed to the failure of the prescribed governance mechanism. It is too early to say that what we have has not worked. The only viable corrective will be in our ability to be robust in identifying the problems and dealing with them concertedly.

We have never had social cohesion in South Africa — certainly not since the Natives’ Land Act of 1913. What we definitely have had over the decades is a mobilising vision. Could it be that the mobilising vision, mistaken for social cohesion, is cracking under the weight of the reality and extent of social reconstruction, and that the legitimate framework for debating these problems is collapsing? If that is so, are we witnessing a cumulative failure of leadership?

I am making a descriptive rather than an evaluative inquiry. I do not believe that there is any single entity to be blamed. It is simply that we may be a country in search of another line of approach. What will it be?

I would like to suggest two avenues of approach — an inclusive model and a counter-intuitive model of leadership.

In an inclusive approach, leadership is exercised not only by those who have been put in some position of power to steer an organisation or institution. Leadership is what all of us do when we express, sincerely, our deepest feelings and thoughts; when we do our work, whatever it is, with passion and integrity.

Counter-intuitive leadership lies in the ability of leaders to read a problematic situation, assess probable outcomes and then recognise that those outcomes will only compound the problem. Genuine leadership, in this sense, requires going against probability in seeking unexpected outcomes. That’s what happened when we avoided a civil war and ended up with an “unexpected” democracy.

Right now, we may very well hear desperate calls for unity, when the counter-intuitive imperative would be to acknowledge disunity. A declaration of unity where it manifestly does not appear to exist will fail to reassure.

Many within the “broad alliance” might have the view that the mobilising vision of old may have transformed into a strategy of executive steering with a disposition towards an expectation of compliance. No matter how compelling the reasons for that tendency, it may be seen as part of a cumulative process in which popular notions of democratic governance are apparently undermined and devalued; and where public uncertainty in the midst of seeming crisis induces fear which could freeze public thinking at a time when more voices ought to be heard.

Could it be that part of the problem is that we are unable to deal with the notion of opposition? We are horrified that any of us could be seen to have become “the opposition”. The word has been demonised. In reality, it is time we began to anticipate the arrival of a moment when there is no longer a single, overwhelmingly dominant political force as is currently the case. Such is the course of history. The measure of the maturity of the current political environment will be in how it can create conditions that anticipate that moment rather than seek to prevent it. We see here once more the essential creativity of the counter-intuitive imperative.

This is the formidable challenge of a popular post-apartheid political movement. Can it conceptually anticipate a future when it is no longer overwhelmingly in control, in the form in which it is currently, and resist, counter-intuitively, the temptation to prevent such an eventuality? Successfully resisting such an option would enable its current vision and its ultimate legacy to our country to manifest in different articulations, which then contend for social influence. In this way, the vision never really dies; it simply evolves into higher, more complex forms of itself. Consider the metaphor of flying ants replicating the ant community by establishing new ones.

We may certainly experience the meaning of comradeship differently, where we will now have “comrades on the other side”.

Any political movement that imagines itself as a perpetual entity should look at the compelling evidence of history. Few movements have survived those defining moments when they should have been more elastic, and that because they were not, did not live to see the next day.

I believe we may have reached a moment not fundamentally different from the sobering, yet uplifting and vision-making, nation-building realities that led to Kempton Park in the early ’90s. The difference between then and now is that the black majority is not facing white compatriots across the negotiating table. Rather, it is facing itself: perhaps really for the first time since 1994. Could we apply to ourselves the same degree of inventiveness and rigorous negotiation we displayed leading up to the adoption or our Constitution?

This is not a time for repeating old platitudes. It is the time, once more, for vision.

In the total scheme of things, the outcome could be as disastrous as it could be formative and uplifting, setting in place the conditions for a true renaissance that could be sustained for generations to come.

Ndebele is Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cape Town and author of the novel The Cry of Winnie Mandela

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