Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
10 February 2025 Photo Supplied
Prof Theo Neethling
Prof Theo Neethling is from the Department of Political Studies and Governance at the University of the Free State.

Opinion article by Prof Theo Neethling, Department of Political Studies and Governance, University of the Free State.


In recent days, 14 South African soldiers have died in clashes with the Rwandan-backed M23 rebels in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Several analysts argue that this marks a low point for the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) and that it is almost too late to implement the reforms needed to restore the military to an institution South Africans can once again take pride in. The incident recalls the so-called Battle of Bangui in March 2013 during the Central African Republic civil war — a major defeat for the SANDF that led to the Séléka rebels seizing control of the country.

This article aims to shed light on the challenges facing the South African military.

Following the historic transition of 1994, South Africa’s foreign policy shifted from a stance of conflict with its neighbours to one centred on regional relations built on the principles of common destiny, friendship, cooperation, and conflict resolution. The South African government sought to take on a leadership role on the continent, creating new opportunities for the SANDF as a military instrument.

Towards the end of the Mandela presidency, South Africa’s involvement in peace and security operations became a defining feature of its post-1994 foreign policy. The government demonstrated its firm commitment to regional stability by deploying the SANDF in peacekeeping operations — first in Lesotho in 1998, followed by the DRC in 1999 and Burundi in 2001.

Dwindling defence budget

However, since 1998 it became evident that the SANDF found it increasingly difficult to conduct operations as a declining budget started to constrain the SANDF. This is linked to the fact that between 1995 and 1998, the defence budget was cut by 11.1%, which eventually resulted in a growing mismatch between policy intent and execution. As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) South African defence spending had been reduced to less than 3% in the mid-1990s, which boiled down to less than 10% of total government spending. The defence budget then further decreased to 1.54% of GDP in 2004/05 and levelled out in 2014/15 at around 1.2% to 1.1% of GDP.

Despite a dwindling defence budget, the government increasingly expected the SANDF to support the SAPS as murder and death rates rose to levels comparable to — or in some cases even exceeding — those in high-intensity war zones internationally. This has placed the SANDF in an almost impossible position, forced to balance its demanding regional deployments with ongoing appeals from politicians and the public to intervene in crime-ridden hotspots where the SAPS is unable to fulfil its constitutional duty to protect South Africans.

Given these constraints and the changing global and regional geopolitical landscape in which the SANDF operated, the government appointed a task team to draft a second defence review, following the South African Defence Review of 1998, which was finally published as the 2015 South African Defence Review. The task team made it clear that the decrease in funding levels was highly problematic, and that inadequate funding would eventually severely compromise the defence capabilities of the SANDF. They emphasised that the government had to decide on one of two options: approving a greater budget allocation to the SANDF or alternatively opting for a significantly scaled-down level of ambition and commitment which is aligned to the budget allocation. One thing was clear: South Africa’s spending was low in terms of comparative international military spending practice. Since 2015 defence spending in South Africa has declined even further to about 0.7% of GDP, which is way below the international norm of more or less 2% of GDP.

Despite its budgetary challenges, in 2023, the SANDF was the fifth largest troop-contributing nation in the UN’s operation in the eastern DRC and played a key role in the SADC operation against insurgents in northern Mozambique from 2021 to 2024. However, considering the history of SANDF operations, a major problem is that the SANDF’s deployments tend to be open-ended, resulting in protracted deployments with serious implications for the defence budget. Moreover, there is no plan to either opt for an adequate defence budget on the one hand, or to scale down the level of political ambition on the other.

It should also be noted that border protection and support for the South African Police Service (SAPS) in internal operations have become increasingly important and demanding in the SANDF’s activities and responsibilities and can even be regarded as among its primary functions. However, a major concern is that the SANDF is too often used as a stopgap in South Africa’s domestic security landscape — hindering its ability to function as a professional, well-equipped armed force with a clear mandate.

For instance, in 2023, politicians called on the SANDF to assist in combating violence linked to zama zamas after the government deployed soldiers in large numbers to curb illegal mining activities. Even local communities expect the government to utilise the SANDF internally, adding pressure on the state to consider such deployments. In this context, the SANDF has little choice but to respond to political calls to assist the SAPS in maintaining internal security. Another recent example of internal deployment was the government’s decision in 2023 to deploy the SANDF to safeguard the coal power plants of South Africa’s major power utility, Eskom.

In conclusion, it should be clear from the above that there is a significant mismatch between what is expected of the SANDF at the political level and its budget and capabilities. The challenge for the SANDF is that defence remains central to its raison d’être, yet it must also be ready to respond to political calls for assistance in peace and security operations across the continent. Additionally, the SANDF is expected to support the SAPS in providing security services in a crime-ridden and fragile South African society — all while operating on a budget of approximately 0.7% of the country’s GDP. It is therefore no surprise that the SANDF is often described as institutionally overstretched and has, in fact, been in a state of ongoing decline for some time.

Critics can rightly argue that the South African government has shown little to no political will to address the SANDF’s financial challenges over the past two decades, contributing to the difficulties its members face in defending themselves against the M23 rebels in the DRC. At the same time, growing fiscal pressures and severe socio-economic challenges leave the government in a weak position to significantly increase the defence budget. Be that as it may, the SANDF’s troubles in the DRC mark a low point for the institution. Perhaps now is the time to reassess both its mandate and funding, particularly in light of the persistent gap between political expectations and available resources.

News Archive

UFS committed to transformation
2005-02-23

UFS committed to transformation

The management of the University of the Free State (UFS) takes note that plans are being made to stage a student protest at the UFS main campus on Monday 28 February 2005 .

This is in line with a concerted national campaign to highlight the issue of transformation at higher education institutions.

At this stage the UFS management has not received any application from student formations to stage such a protest at the main campus in Bloemfontein .

The UFS upholds the right of all staff and students to hold legal, non-violent protests and in this spirit encourages the student formations to apply for permission to hold their protest. However, the UFS management has been - and always will be willing to discuss the important issue of transformation of the UFS with staff unions and student formations.

Again the UFS management appeals to student formations to make use of this open door policy and not to adopt a confrontational position. In fact the management and the Senate of the UFS have come out in support of a new phase of transformation at the UFS.

In his speech at the official opening of the UFS earlier this month (on 4 February 2005 ), the Rector and Vice-Chancellor, Prof Frederick Fourie, announced that a comprehensive transformation plan for would be drafted for the UFS.

This Transformation Plan would address issues such as:

  • a new institutional culture for the UFS
  • the need for representivity in the staffing of the UFS
  • ensuring relevance of curricula for the South African and African context
  • enhancing excellence in the overall academic life of the UFS
  • ensuring greater interaction among black and white students and staff
  • addressing outstanding issues in the incorporation of the Qwaqwa and Vista campuses, among others

Concerning some of the issues that are being put forward to motivate for a protest march, the UFS would like to highlight the following facts:

  1. The situation at the Qwaqwa campus
  • It is not true that the UFS has decided to close down the Qwaqwa campus. This is a complete falsehood. The campus was incorporated into the UFS in January 2003 and since then every effort is being made to ensure the viability of the Qwaqwa campus.
  • In fact the UFS has just upgraded residences at the Qwaqwa campus – to the tune of R6,8-million.
  • In addition, another R1,4-million has been set aside for the upgrading of other facilities on the Qwaqwa campus.
  • More staff has been appointed and the library is acquiring more books etc.
  • The management of the UFS wants to assure staff at the Qwaqwa campus once again that there has been no decision to close the campus.
  • We realise that the incorporation of the campus into the UFS has given rise to certain fears and concerns, but these are being addressed, including the question of reporting lines of staff and the further delegation of powers to the head of the Qwaqwa campus, Prof Peter Mbati.
  1. The situation at the Vista campus
  • A number of processes are currently under way to address outstanding issues following the formal incorporation of the Vista campus into the UFS in January 2004.
  • This includes the integration of former Vista staff into the UFS as well as the alignment of the conditions of service of the former Vista staff with the UFS conditions of service.
  • Indeed, over the last few weeks, a climate of trust has been developing and a number of meetings have taken place in contrast to the situation that obtained at the end of 2004.
  • Just last week, the Rector reassured the Vista Task Team representing the former Vista staff that these staff members are indeed part of the UFS staff complement.
  • When the Vista campus was incorporated into the UFS, it was agreed that no new first years would be registered there, so as to avoid duplication with the main campus which is only a few kilometers away.
  • Instead, those students who were registered as Vista students at the time of incorporation (January 2004) would be allowed to complete their studies.
  • In terms of this agreement another process of consultation with key stakeholders on and off campus would be initiated to determine how the physical facilities of Vista could be used to contribute to educational and skills provision in the region and the province.
  • This process is still in its early stages and no final decision has been made regarding the long term strategic reconfiguration of the Vista campus.
  • In any case, as stated by the Rector, former Vista staff do not have to fear about their work security as this is not dependent on the future use of Vista campus – the two issues are not related.
  1. Financial aid for students at the Qwaqwa campus
  • Concerning financial aid to students at Qwaqwa, the UFS has to date (that is up to 22 February 2005 ) made available R25 000 each to 705 students.
  • That amounts to R17,6 million.
  1. Financial aid for students at the Vista campus
  • Concerning financial aid to students at Vista , the UFS has to date (that is up to 22 February 2005 ) made available R14 500 each to 104 students.
  • That amounts to R1,5 million.
  1. Registration
  • The registration processes at both these campuses are not yet completed. So final figures are not yet available.
  • What we can say so far, is that 1339 students have registered at the Qwaqwa campus and that more are expected to register. At Vista , 545 students have registered so far, and more are expected to do so.
  • In an effort to assist students during the registration process, management has put in place a structure which is called the Monitoring Committee.
  • This Monitoring Committee provides counseling on courses of study but also sorts out problems relating to academic fees, etc.
  • This is how the UFS management in a concrete way gives expression to its commitment to broadening access for academically deserving students.
  1. Alleged racism
  • There have recently been unsubstantiated allegations of racism leveled at the UFS.
  • We would like to state unequivocally, that the UFS does not and will not tolerate racism in any way.
  • There are policies and procedures in place to deal with such allegations and those who feel aggrieved should bring this to the attention of the Director of Diversity, Mr Billyboy Ramahlele.
  • The UFS also has sensitisation programmes for staff and students to assist in bringing about a truly non-racial, non-sexist, inclusive, multicultural and multilingual campus.

.

  1. Conclusion
  • The UFS management remains committed to the further transformation of the institution so that it can play its role in supporting the goal of a non-racial, democratic South Africa united in its diversity.
  • We are committed to the successful incorporation of the Vista and Qwaqwa campuses and to the speedy resolution of all outstanding issues facing staff and students on these campuses.
  • We appeal once again to staff and students on these campuses, who are indeed members of the broader UFS community, to play a constructive role in the debate about the strategic direction of the UFS and all its campuses.

 

Issued by: Mr Anton Fisher

Director: Strategic Communication

Cell: 072-207-8334

Tel: 051-401-2749

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