![Next Pope could change everything [video]](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thesouthafrican.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2025%2F04%2Fpexels-pixabay-372326_optimized_100.jpg.optimal.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
Next Pope could change everything [video]
Watch the full version of the ' Could the next Pope come from Africa?' article – in a minute.
As the Catholic Church prepares to select a new leader following the death of Pope Francis, hopes are rising among African Catholics that the next pontiff could be the first Black pope in modern history.
The growing prominence of African Catholicism – now accounting for approximately 20% of the global Catholic population – has sparked calls for representation at the highest level of the Church hierarchy.
The African continent is currently the fastest-growing region for the Catholic Church, a trend that many believe should be reflected in the upcoming papal election.
For the latest political news, bookmark The South African website's dedicated section for free-to-read content
Among the prominent African cardinals drawing attention are Ghana's Cardinal Peter Turkson, Congo's Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo Besungu, and Ivory Coast's Cardinal Ignace Bessi Dogbo.
Cardinal Turkson, who has served in key Vatican roles and is known for his advocacy on social justice and environmental issues, has been considered a leading candidate in previous conclaves.
Looking for quick updates?
Watch News in a Minute videos on The South African's YouTube page for all the key stories you need to know!
Catch all the latest videos on news, lifestyle, travel, sports and more – there's always something to watch!
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and BlueSky to stay connected and get your news on the go!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
Ceasefires and future fires — unholy trinity of Iran, Israel and the US presages a murky future
Following a week when the ceasefire between Israel and Iran (with the US as a supporting actor) took hold, it is still unclear what happens next, how things will evolve, or if a more permanent, peaceful settlement among the protagonists is even possible. The newly negotiated — and, so far, holding at the time of this writing — ceasefire between Iran and Israel (along with the US in its supporting role as both a midwife of the ceasefire and the deployer of those bunker-buster bombs) opens the door to several possibilities. Some of them are good, some are bad; some are exciting, and, of course, some are truly terrifying. What might some of those possible futures look like? Over the past three-quarters of a century, the Middle East has been the cockpit for a catalogue of ceasefires between combatants. Some have eventually — and painfully — evolved into actual peace arrangements, such as the negotiated settlement between Egypt and Israel via the Camp David Accords. Others barely survived their announcement before fighting began anew. Still others produced cold cessations of hostilities, usually monitored by the UN but without an actual peace agreement or treaty. This could include the line-of-control arrangements that ended fighting in 1948 between Jordan and the then nascent state of Israel. That ceasefire did not, of course, lead to the establishment of state-to-state relations between the two parties. (Jordan later relinquished a claim to administer the West Bank following the Six-Day War in 1967. Only years later was a chilly peace between Jordan and Israel achieved.) Meanwhile, further to the east, the India-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir and Jammu has remained unsettled since 1947. This has been despite ceasefires following bouts of fighting that have periodically erupted across the disputed Line of Control. Or, consider the fighting between Iran and Iraq that began with Iraq's invasion of Iran over a land dispute (and with some important foreign encouragement) in 1980 and lasted until 1988. That conflict raged on until the two exhausted nations grudgingly accepted a UN Security Council resolution. Ceasefires thus do not always bring about a longer, more permanent peace unless one side is vanquished completely — thus the periodic fighting between India and Pakistan that resists a final resolution. Alternatively, consider the rivalry between Rome and Carthage over two millennia ago that lasted for more than a century, a struggle that included wars and peaceful periods, until Carthage was destroyed by a rising Rome. Or consider Europe in the 1600s with conflicts that ran for more than four destructive decades as part of a monumental struggle between the Catholic Church and rulers insistent on individual state sovereignty in matters of faith. Then, throughout the 1700s and early 1800s, the rivalry between Britain and France generated conflict around the globe, including the Napoleonic Wars. It was a rivalry that was only brought to an end when the competition was redirected into building colonial empires at the end of the nineteenth century. In the immediate aftermath of the most recent clash that pitted Israel — and the US — against Iran, one key variable, at least publicly, has been that leaders from all three nations are claiming versions of success as a result of their respective aerial actions. US triumphalism For the US, as the whole world knows by now, President Donald Trump's typically over-bombastic claim has repeatedly been that three Iranian nuclear processing plants (with their uranium isotope, gaseous separation centrifuges and stockpiles of already enriched U-235) were 'totally obliterated' by a group of B-2 stealth bombers, employing 30,000-pound (13.6-tonne) bunker-buster bombs designed to reach deep into the ground and then explode. Almost immediately after that mission was completed, the president (and his eager subordinates) engaged in public chest thumping, insisting the attacking planes had carried out an unparalleled mission. However, the glow from neutralising the three Iranian nuclear sites was soon undermined by a leaked, initial evaluation from the Defense Intelligence Agency (the US government has more than a dozen separate intelligence gathering or analysis agencies, each focusing on different aspects of intelligence) that the bombing had not come close to obliterating the sites. In fact, per the agency's leak, rather than obliteration, the bombing may have only set back potential Iranian nuclear weapons developments by some months. It is important to note that all of the other intelligence agencies and their analyses have yet to be released publicly, and they may (or may not) have different conclusions or interpretations. Nevertheless, in the days that followed, Trump continued to insist the bombing's objectives and their effects were the 'obliteration' of Iran's nuclear capabilities. In rebuttal to the leaked report, Trump cited information apparently gleaned from Israeli sources and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — as well as arguing that other US intelligence bodies would reinforce his assessment once their analyses were in. And so, what is the course for the US's strategic framework vis-à-vis Iran? The bottom-line US objective remains a non-nuclear-capable Iran, especially after the Iranians managed a symbolic attack on a major US military base in Qatar. The effect of that, however, was performative rather than substantive. But the continuing ability of Iran to launch missiles remains a concrete threat to the US, given that 40,000 military personnel are stationed in facilities in the Persian Gulf region in several nations, along with naval berths and airfields. Reports indicate that most US aircraft and personnel had been removed from their base in Qatar before the missiles were launched, and the Iranians gave a heads-up to Qatari authorities that the missiles were coming. Further, it has been reported that the Trump administration gave quiet acquiescence to the attack and its symbolic rather than substantive impact, once there was little possibility of harm to personnel or military assets. Still, despite everything, there are comments from Trump administration officials that they would entertain negotiations with Iran over its presumed nuclear programme, effectively recapitulating in some way the agreement that had been hammered out during the last stages of the Obama administration. This is except for the fact that Iran's nuclear programme has presumably advanced since the Trump 1.0 administration's withdrawal from that agreement. Unwisely, the Trump administration rescinded its participation in the five-nation agreement, a decision effectively lowering restrictions for future Iranian nuclear developments. If the Americans have a realistic plan to address their relationship with Iran, they have failed to articulate it plainly in any public forums. In the absence of such a plan, the mutual hostility is likely to continue, absent a plausible Plan B and off-ramp from confrontation. Stark choices for Israel As far as Israel is concerned, the policy choices are more dramatic — and starker. One reason is that while most Iranian rockets launched at their nation were destroyed before they could do grievous damage and fatalities, Israel's Iron Dome air defence system was not infallible. The immediate, primary threat, therefore, is not a nuclear-armed Iran, but the possibility of a vengeful Iran eager to even the score somehow. That 'somehow', of course, is the question. Does Iran still have a significant supply of launchable rockets and the means to launch a major salvo of them? While the Israelis have made a major success in greatly blunting Hamas and Hezbollah as credible fighting forces (at enormous, continuing cost and suffering to the inhabitants of Gaza), as well as being able to applaud the change in the government and orientation of Syria, they have been unable to offer a clear plan for their withdrawal from Gaza — or who will take over the governance of the shattered territory. Moreover, Israel's policies towards the West Bank remain seriously problematic, especially as the Israeli government continues to authorise new Jewish settlements in the territory. As some observers argue, while Israel's strategic position has improved significantly vis-à-vis the region at large, the closer one looks at its immediate neighbourhood, the more troubling the lack of a coherent strategy becomes. For many Israelis, furthermore, the key issue remains gaining the release or return of the remaining 7 October hostages — or the remains of those who have died in captivity — rather than continuing the attacks in Gaza. Major complicating factors for the Netanyahu government remain its slender coalition in the country's parliament — which is dependent on some serious hardliners — and the growing likelihood of an imminent corruption trial of the incumbent prime minister. Difficult questions for Iran And what of Iran? After undergoing serious nuclear and missile infrastructural damage (albeit without real clarity of just how much), as well as the deaths of key military leaders and nuclear scientists, the country's leaders must face the question of just how they plan to address the new strategic imbalance. Do they wish to 'double down' on nuclear developments and continue to enrich uranium to near or at weapons grade and assemble sufficient amounts to begin a nuclearisation process — at great cost and sacrifice — and the possibility of additional raids against such efforts? Once they do that — if they choose to do so — do they want to create potential weapons out of that uranium? The next choice is whether they would signal that effort quietly (as with Israel) or publicly (in the manner of North Korea some years ago). If they do so with the strictest secrecy, would they choose to avoid inspections by the IAEA, and formally leave the limitations of the non-proliferation treaty — an agreement to which they remain signatories? Beyond their nuclear conundrum, do they want to — or can they — reconstitute their collection of allies and proxies surrounding Israel? This would be despite Syria now being in very different hands, Hamas and Hezbollah being shattered, and Russia having its hands full with its own war of choice in Ukraine. Would they try to prevent the flow of oil and natural gas through the Strait of Hormuz — a seaway used by around 20% of all such flows globally? Regime change Hanging over all of this, of course, is how Iranians decide to respond to the authoritarian theocracy they live under, which has brought them to this place. Will there be a push for a fundamental change of government by restive minorities around the periphery of the core of the Iranian state, as well as younger people (and especially women) tired of the restrictions on thought, travel and free expression that the supreme leader's government continues to carry out? Even as those muttered semi-threats of 'regime change' from the outside are unrealistic, the country's leadership must surely be casting a wary eye in all directions over the possibility that a change of regime could be pushed for by Iranians on their own. (It did, after all, happen in 1979-80 with the fall of the shah and the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini as supreme arbiter of the country. This was true even if the original student proponents of the change to eliminate the shah's regime were shoved aside by religious fanatics.) What this points to is that it is impossible, now, to predict what the outcome of any change of regime would look like in Iran. Would it be a more fanatical regime eager to rebuild its influence in the region, or might it be one focused on rebuilding the fabric and economy of the nation? In sum, among the three antagonists, an aura of unpredictability remains. There are too many ways things could go sour. Given the unpredictability of Trump's foreign policy, fissures in Israeli society over the country's current strategies, and the impossibility of knowing which course of action the Iranian government will take, the best that can be hoped for may be a tense, cold ceasefire, but one that holds. Nevertheless, a more permanent settlement via the hard work of real diplomacy, rather than weapons flexing and chest beating, will almost certainly be the only way to move forward more permanently. Right now, such an outcome is unlikely. DM
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
BRICS+ Series: Reshaping Global Food Production through Brazilian Agriculture
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (C) gestures during a meeting with African agriculture ministers as part of the II Brazil-Africa Dialogue on Food Security at the Itamaraty Palace. Brazil has tremendous agricultural potential with some of the most arable land in the world. Innovation in this sector can clearly see a vast economic improvement of Brazil's agricultural sector. Modernisation in terms of precision agriculture practices and digital tools, sustainable farming methods addressing environmental concerns, and the future of the globalised agricultural market for Brazil. Brazil's increased emphasis on environmental protection–particularly that of the Amazon, means that the country's environmental policies are stringently enforced, illustrated by its renewable energy dominance. Agriculture in Brazil accounts for around 6.8% of the country's GDP (Gross Domestic Product), although it has massive growth potential, this is largely because less than 30% of its land area is being used for agriculture. Various advanced methods and resources are applied throughout the various crop-cycles. This information is used and coded into machine-learning. This revolutionisation of quality, productivity, and cost-efficiency is a new feat for the agricultural sector. Primary data collected for precision agriculture includes information about soil, crops, climate, and machine usage. This interconnectedness, especially regarding soil, climate and crop yield creates a bit of a challenge. Citing research from UNESP and Embrapa Soja, the utilisation of neural networks indicates that factors like lime application and plant height play a critical role in production. One of the agricultural companies, AGCO, spearheads the increase of farm profitability by 20% over the next 5 years. As the fourth-largest food producer in the world, the Brazilian government emphasises the preservation of land and livelihoods for a sustainable future. The Brazilian legislature has implemented a number of practices through initiatives like the Agricultural plan (Plano Safra) and the National Program for Low-Carbon Emissions in Agriculture–with a focus on crop production finance, these initiatives are aligned to climate goals. The Brazilian government has allocated roughly $340 billion for rural credit, supporting rural farmers representing 29% of total agricultural production. Brazil's agricultural economy suffers when devaluation occurs, causing the prices of commodities in local currency to rise and costs measured in foreign currency decrease, leading to higher profit margins and increased revenues, however, those with debt denominated in foreign currencies sees its debt burden increase. The economic effects of devaluation on Brazil's agricultural and food industries depend on the price structure within the economy and how relative commodity prices respond. For example, during Brazil's severe recession in 2015–16, the weaker real contributed to record growth in agricultural exports. The devaluation encouraged farmers to bring more land into production and increase double cropping, which, despite low global dollar-denominated prices, resulted in higher net returns for Brazilian farmers in local currency terms. Overall, bridging the gap between agriculture-technology-sustainability becomes extra important, needing solutions that are efficient and effective to harness the maximal potential of Brazil's agricultural sector. The role of the legislature and regulations plays an important role regarding development and the environment. Therefore, Brazil's willingness for environmental protection is undisputed. Written by: *Dr Iqbal Survé Past chairman of the BRICS Business Council and co-chairman of the BRICS Media Forum and the BRNN *Cole Jackson Lead Associate at BRICS+ Consulting Group Chinese & South American Specialist **The Views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Independent Media or IOL. ** MORE ARTICLES ON OUR WEBSITE ** Follow @brics_daily on X/Twitter & @brics_daily on Instagram for daily BRICS+ updates
IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
‘Firing Nkabane alone is unfair, Simelane, Ntshavheni must go too,' says analyst
SASCO and political parties push for Higher Education Minister Dr. Nobuhle Nkabane's dismissal, but one political expert says other corrupt accused ministers should also be held accountable. Image: Twitter The South African Students Congress (SASCO) has joined a growing number of voices calling for the removal of Higher Education Minister Dr. Nobuhle Nkabane, but one political analyst says she should not be fired alone while other ministers accused of corruption remain. SASCO, which has joined parties such as the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the Democratic Alliance (DA), has called on President Cyril Ramaphosa to dismiss Nkabane. Nkabane is facing mounting allegations of corruption and misleading Parliament about the process used to appoint the SETA board members - a list which was dominated by African National Congress (ANC) affiliates, including the son of Mineral Resources Minister Gwede Mantashe, Buyambo. Addressing the media on Sunday, SASCO President Alungile Amtshe said Nkabane had failed students on multiple fronts, including by failing to appoint a National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS). "The crisis facing students today is not incidental. It is the direct result of poor governance by the Department of Higher Education and Training and the opportunistic, malicious, and poor bourgeoisie agenda by the university and college management," Amtshe said. 'We contend that DHET, led by Minister Nobuhle Nkabane, within the government of national unity, has consistently failed to deliver on its most basic responsibilities - from the catastrophic delays in NSFAS disbursements to the flawed appointment of strategic boards meant to accelerate access to education and training.' Amtshe also criticised the chronic underfunding of institutions that serve working-class communities and accused university managers of treating higher education as a profit-driven enterprise. 'These managements are complicit in the systemic exclusion of Black and working-class students, perpetuating a two-tier education system that serves capital, not the people,' he said. He added that SASCO has no choice but to take a 'drastic stance' and called for Nkabane's immediate removal. Meanwhile, political analyst Professor Bheki Mngomezulu told IOL News that calls for Nkabane's firing appear selective, pointing out that other ministers implicated in corruption allegations remain in office. 'There have been mounting calls on President Cyril Ramaphosa to fire Nkabane, but what are they saying about Human Settlements Minister Thembi Simelane? It will be unfair to focus on Nkabane while ignoring others,' Mngomezulu said. Simelane, while mayor of Polokwane, allegedly took out a R575,600 loan from the now-defunct VBS Mutual Bank to purchase a Sandton coffee shop. She has since denied any wrongdoing and was later moved from the Justice and Constitutional Development Ministry to Human Settlements. Simelane also faced scrutiny for alleged inflated billing linked to a R700,000 Eskom contract, which she vehemently denied. Another minister under fire is Khumbudzo Ntshavheni, the minister in the presidency, who was under the Hawks investigation for R2.5 million in alleged tender fraud dating back to her time in the Ba-Phalaborwa Municipality, in Limpopo. She has not responded to the allegations. However, ANC secretary general Fikile Mbalula has defended her, saying the party would only respond when it has 'something tangible.' The controversy intensified following public outcry in May after Nkabane recommended several politically connected individuals for the SETA boards. In addition to Buyambo, those who were appointed included former KwaZulu-Natal Premier Dr. Nomusa Dube-Ncube, provincial transport official Siboniso Mbhele, and ANC Johannesburg Deputy Regional Secretary Loyiso Masuku. Critics have accused Nkabane of political patronage and misleading Parliament regarding the selection process.
