Fort Hare crisis exposes deeper flaw in university governance model
· Citizen
The latest developments at the University of Fort Hare have once again placed university governance under the national spotlight.
Public attention has focused on the institution itself – its council, leadership and the immediate decisions now shaping its future.
Visit extonnews.click for more information.
Yet there is a danger in treating Fort Hare as an isolated case.
If similar governance crises continue to emerge across South Africa’s public universities, perhaps the time has come to ask a more fundamental question: is the real challenge no longer individual institutions, but the governance model itself?
Over the past decade, several public universities have experienced prolonged governance disputes involving councils, vice-chancellors, organised labour, students and, at times, intervention by the minister of higher education.
While the facts differ from one institution to another, the recurrence of such disputes should invite deeper reflection.
Former president Thabo Mbeki has often reminded us that before prescribing a solution, we must first understand the nature of the problem. It is a principle that should guide the national conversation about higher education.
Public debate frequently gravitates towards personalities. Should a vice-chancellor remain in office, has a council has acted appropriately, or has the minister intervened correctly?
These are important questions, but they rarely address the broader pattern.
Why do governance crises recur across different institutions, under different councils, different vice-chancellors and different political administrations?
South Africa’s Higher Education Act provides mechanisms for ministerial intervention when serious governance failures arise. Those powers exist for good reason.
Universities are public institutions entrusted with educating future generations, advancing research and contributing to national development. When governance breaks down, public interest is affected.
But if ministerial interventions, independent assessments and governance disputes become recurring features of our higher education landscape, another question deserves attention.
Are we responding effectively to recurring crises, or are we repeatedly treating the symptoms while leaving the underlying causes untouched?
Fort Hare provides an opportunity to ask that question.
Its significance extends beyond its proud history. Fort Hare occupies a unique place in South Africa’s democratic and intellectual heritage. Precisely because of that history, the institution deserves governance that inspires public confidence and protects its academic mission.
The same is true of every public university.
South Africa’s universities should not become known primarily for governance disputes.
They should be recognised for academic excellence, research, innovation and the development of future leaders.
This requires governance arrangements capable of supporting institutional stability over the long term. The present moment, therefore, calls for a broader national conversation.
Do university councils possess the governance capacity required of complex institutions?
Are the respective roles of councils and executive management sufficiently understood?
Does the current legislative framework strike the appropriate balance between institutional autonomy and public accountability?
Should parliament undertake a review of university governance in light of the recurring challenges experienced across multiple institutions?
Healthy democracies periodically examine whether their public institutions remain fit for purpose. Such reflection should never be interpreted as an attack on higher education.
On the contrary, it reflects confidence that our institutions can be strengthened through honest public debate and thoughtful reform.
The debate about Fort Hare should, therefore, not end with the resolution of one dispute. Instead, it should encourage South Africans to examine whether our higher education governance architecture is producing the resilient institutions our democracy requires.
Fort Hare may be today’s headline. Tomorrow it may be another university.
If similar governance crises continue to emerge across different institutions, perhaps the real question is no longer why one university is experiencing difficulty.
Perhaps the question is whether our governance model itself deserves careful national review.
Before prescribing another cure, we owe it to our universities, our students and our democracy to ensure that we have correctly diagnosed the disease.