The ongoing struggle of South Africa's youth: Beyond Youth Month
This is not a June issue. This is a July issue, an August issue, and an every-month issue until change comes.
I was born on Youth Day. Not just into a date, but into a mission. For most people June 16 is a symbol. For me, it has been a summons. A daily reminder of what it means to inherit a nation still searching for its soul, and what it means to carry forward a legacy written in both blood and possibility.
At 26 years old, I was elected one of the youngest councillors in South Africa. I was often referred to as a youth leader, but the title came with more weight than celebration.
In my community, a councillor is not just a representative – he is the father, the fire extinguisher, the provider, the undertaker. I buried the young dead, negotiated with the government, calmed burning streets, and stood in courtrooms where hope had long since withered.
The role forced me to grow up fast. My youth was different from that of others – it was something I endured while carrying the burdens of others.
Now, at 33, I find myself looking back and forward all at once. I am still called 'young', but how does a 33-year-old, forged by duty, truly relate to an 18-year-old who is trying to find their place in a country where the rules keep changing, the jobs keep disappearing, and the violence keeps knocking at the door?
But I have learned that being young is not the same as being new. And what South Africa needs today are not just youthful faces, but new voices rooted in community, disciplined by purpose, and shaped not by entitlement.
Youth in South Africa are not just 'challenged' – they are bleeding: economically, mentally, and spiritually.
Unemployment among youth (ages 15–34) is a staggering 46.1%. Among those aged 15–24, it is over 60%. That is not a statistic; it is a quiet war.
Let me be clear: I have met many hardworking young people who want nothing more than a chance. But there is also a growing culture, which we must confront, of expectation without preparation.
We speak of the 'born-free' generation as though the end of apartheid was the end of injustice.But our youth were born into a freedom that often feels like fiction.
I have stood with and fought for them. Like some, I too live with a disability. In 2022, I was violently attacked and left with permanent damage to my dominant hand. I can no longer use my hand or fingers fully. I feel very little in that hand. But I have learned to adapt – to create artwork for the first time, to appear in court again.
I sometimes choose to wear a gold glove on that hand, not to hide it, but to remind myself that even pain can shine when purpose leads the way.
Too many youth enter politics thinking it is a job. Too many youth think activism is a career. It is neither.
Politics, at its core, is service. Activism is sacrifice. If you are not prepared to fight when there is no crowd, to serve when there is no salary, to speak when no one is listening, then you are not ready to lead.
What we need now are young leaders who are not chasing perks but principles. Leaders who are not loyal to factions or hashtags, but to people and their pain.
I recently met young people who gather at the BAT Centre in Durban. They meet every week – sharing poetry, art, music – and they do so without expectation. Just for the cause. Just for community. I was humbled by them. They remind me that we are not without hope. We are simply without investment in the right places.
I want to reflect on three people – among many – who are advocating for youth. Clive Pillay, who has spent decades building young leaders at the Nelson Mandela Community Youth Centre in Chatsworth.
Ravi Pillay, who creates platforms for youth to be heard – not just spoken to – by those in power. And Kiru Naidoo, who documents the untold stories of our communities so that young people may know who they are and what they survived.
Three different paths, but with one mission: to uplift. We each have a role.
So what now? First, let us reimagine how we define 'youth.' Not merely by age, but by contribution, courage, and creativity.
Second, let us build spaces where youth can be more than passive recipients, but actual architects of the future.
Third, we must demand more – from our youth and for our youth. There can be no revival of this country without their full, fearless, and honest inclusion.
Finally, we must listen – truly listen – to our young. Not to pacify them, but to understand what they are trying to say: 'This country belongs to us too. Let us shape it.
Now that Youth Month has passed, let us not reduce our young people's future to hashtags and forgotten speeches. There are young leaders already among us.
Let us build that country together. Not later. Now.
Previn Vedan is a lawyer, human rights advocate and activist based in Durban
*The opinions expressed in this article does not necessarily reflect the views of the newspaper.
DAILY NEWS
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TimesLIVE
13 minutes ago
- TimesLIVE
You should have withdrawn from GNU: Mbeki's open letter to Steenhuisen
Former president Thabo Mbeki has penned a scathing open letter to DA leader John Steenhuisen, saying he would have found it logical for the DA to withdraw from the GNU. Mbeki labelled Steenhuisen and DA federal council chair Helen Zille 'arrogant' after the party's decision to pull out of the national dialogue. In the 11-page letter, Mbeki said it was clear that the DA had serious problems with President Cyril Ramaphosa and the ANC concerning the functioning of the GNU after Ramaphosa removed deputy minister of trade, industry and competition Andrew Whitfield of the DA. 'It is also obvious that despite this you and the DA decided that you will not withdraw from the GNU and it is established that instead with the final straw ... you and the DA have decided not to participate in the national dialogue,' he said. Mbeki criticised Zille's statements that the dialogue was an ANC campaign strategy. He said the dialogue had absolutely nothing to do with Zille's 'fertile imagination of an ANC's 2026 election campaign, or what you called an ANC-run national dialogue'. 'And as you know, Zille, and therefore presumably the DA's view, is that the absence of the latter from the 'Parliament of the People' will make the Parliament 'a sham' and 'a hollow exercise'. It is very good that, at last, Zille has openly expressed her eminently arrogant and contemptuous view of the masses of the people, that these cannot think and plan their future correctly, without the DA. 'That, presumably, is also the view of the federal leader of the DA who must have felt very proud when he announced that effective immediately, the DA will therefore 'have no further part in this process. We will also actively mobilise against it.' I hope that in time the DA will explain to the people why it signed up to the commitment in the statement of intent of the parties in the GNU that parties commit to an all-inclusive national dialogue process, whereas, as Zille said, she had been very opposed to it from the start.' Mbeki said he would like to assure Steenhuisen that representatives of South Africans would attend the dialogue, adding that he was confident the dialogue would make historic and seminal contribution to the efforts to chart a way forward for the country. 'I sincerely hope that all political leaders and the parties they lead will recognise the inalienable reality that the people are our country's sovereign authority ... As I have said I have no doubt that the DA acts against its own direct interests when it decides to isolate itself from its sovereign authority when the latter decides to engage in a national dialogue to determine our countries (sic) future,' he said. He said the national dialogue was borne (sic) out of a 2016 agreement by the FW de Klerk, Thabo Mbeki, Helen Suzman, Desmond and Leah Tutu, Kgalema Motlanthe and Robert Sobukwe foundations who formed the National Foundations Dialogue Initiative with the dialogue as one of its objectives. He said while the ANC had agreed to a national dialogue, he advised the party that civil society would not agree to participate in the process led by the ANC and the GNU, proposing that instead the matter should be led by foundations. Ramaphosa then constituted a group of 4/5 people to engage the foundations, he said. He added that the national dialogue preparatory task team, made up of Nedlac executives, the foundations and four presidency officials, will cease to exist after it hands over the reins to the national convention in August. Mbeki said the ministry of finance should provide the funds necessary to hold the dialogue over and above donations from interested parties. 'In fact, the costs of the preparations to date have been borne by the foundations themselves while the day-to-day work relating to the national dialogue has been carried out by volunteers who are committed to building a better South Africa. These are men and women who are ready to lead the way in ensuring that citizens claim their agency,' he said. He said that the preparatory team believed that various matters would arise during the dialogue which will require action from government without having to wait for the dialogue's conclusion. This, he said, was why Ramaphosa appointed an interministerial committee to be on standby to act on those matters. 'It would seem to me that the DA is also saying that the people have forfeited the confidence to the DA. Perhaps the DA ... should distribute leaflets along the Nelson Mandela Boulevard in Cape Town telling the people that they should redouble their efforts to win back the confidence of the DA or face dissolution,' he said.
The Citizen
an hour ago
- The Citizen
Allowing GNU to dictate foreign policy is ‘micro-management'
Minister Ronald Lamola said he is following his commitment to the Constitution of South Africa by implementing foreign policy objectives. South Africa's foreign policy is dictated by several existing frameworks and not the whims of parties within the government of national unity (GNU). This was the sentiment relayed by Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Ronald Lamola in the build-up to his department's budget speech on Thursday. GNU members have been critical of South Africa's stance on international issues, accusing the ANC of inserting its own bias into foreign relations. 'Follow procedure' A Freedom Front Plus (FF+) delegation this week returned from the United States, and a DA parliamentarian earlier this year called for an overhaul of the nation's foreign policy. Lamola stressed that his department's work was bound by the African Union's Agenda 2063, South Africa's framework document on national interest, the Foreign Services Act, and the Constitution of South Africa. He stated that the ANC, as the previous majority leader in parliament, followed all required paths of participation and consultation in formulating and enacting the current policies. The minister urged any parliamentarian or party that wished to change the mandate of his department to follow parliamentary procedure. 'If there is any GNU partner that wants a review or consultation on the foreign policy, they can initiate the process,' said Lamola. 'We are implementing the policy perspective of the South African government, so there is no basis for anyone to complain because we are not out of line,' he explained. GNU opposition FF+ leader Corner Mulder earlier this week called President Cyril Ramaphosa's meeting with US President Donald Trump a 'failure', saying their visit had a different tone to the star-studded visit in May. Mulder said his delegation was told that in order to better diplomatic ties with the US, the ANC needed to denounce the 'kill the boer' chant. Additionally, farm attacks needed to be declared a priority crime, land expropriation without compensation must be scrapped, and US companies must be exempt from employment equity laws. In the same month as Ramaphosa's visit, DA spokesperson on International Relations Emma Powell called for a 'consensus-based' review of how South Africa portrayed itself on the international stage. 'In light of the critical need to grow our economy and create jobs, South Africa's foreign policy must now be driven by an unwavering commitment to our country's domestic growth, rather than being dictated by the ANC's historical and fraternal allegiances,' Powell stated. 'Micro-management' Lamola said they would not promote policy positions put forward by GNU members simply because they had earned a seat at the collective governance table. 'There is no political party that, just on the basis that they are a member of the GNU, can impose its policies on South Africans. 'It's shocking that they would want us to implement what is not in the law, but implement what [they] themselves as political parties want us to do. That is not in the interest of South Africans,' Lamola said. He added that all GNU members had agreed to uphold the Constitution of South Africa and existing policies, and that allowing any one member to dictate policy changes would be against the spirit of the GNU's statement of intent. 'It's not practically possible, but that also becomes micro-management. In all our international platforms we go to, we seek a mandate from Cabinet [first].' US participation in G20 Lamola was asked about the US' participation in the G20 summit to be held in Johannesburg in November, with the minister urging US officials to play a constructive role in the gathering. He said the G20 was a consensus-based organisation and that the US had a pivotal role in shaping the G20's policies. 'It is important they make contributions towards the outcomes document…and work towards a consolidated final declaration,' 'It would be great if the US participates so that the outcome is embraced by all member countries,' said Lamola. NOW READ: FF Plus claims White House officials want ANC to publicly denounce 'Kill the Boer' chant
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
When Playing Politics Misinforms the Public
The community of KwaNdengezi has been without running water for weeks which has made their lives even harder because it is during school holidays. Image: Tumi Pakkies / Independent Newspapers Media reports tell us that the Powers and Privileges Committee recently referred uMkhonto we Sizwe party member and parliamentarian, Visvin Reddy to the Disciplinary Committee following his yelling "Pemmy must go" on March 4, 2025 during a sitting of the National Assembly to debate unreliable water supply to residents in Germiston. The Pemmy in question being, of course, Minister of Water and Sanitation, Pemmy Majodina who Mr. Reddy blamed for her (mis)handling of that crisis. Next year, it will be 30 years since the promulgation of the Constitution. Next year too, we shall be voting in local elections and it is worth asking South Africans whether our politicians are serving us well. In this case, Mr. Reddy, rather than Ms. Majodina, failed South Africa dismally as he played politics. To begin, the complaint that was being debated on the day in question was in reference to a 2023 petition that affected residents of Wards 20, 29, 36 and 92 in Germiston. At that time, Ms. Majodina was not the Minister heading that portfolio. Even if she were, neither her Ministry nor would she have been the right person to rail against. Many of us do not know who owns water and generally it becomes an issue only when it's not flowing from our taps otherwise its not something we think much about. A small tutorial as received from Rand Water Chair who also happens to be Chair of Association of Water and Sanitation Institutions of South Africa (AWSISA), Mr. Ramateu Monyokolo proved that Mr. Reddy railed against the wrong person and department. In South Africa, water belongs to the Department of Water and Sanitation. The water boards then get water from the department and purify it and provide to municipalities. Municipalities provide the water to the consumers (us). And yes. Unfortunately this water doesn't always trickle down when we want it and how we want it but the rand and rant must and should stop, by and large, with municipalities who tend to politicise their roles, in the case in question, Ekurhuleni Municipality. Much like our Constitution which it is a part of, South Africa has a water policy that is admired worldwide but that does not always deliver to the people. In my chat with Mr. Monyokolo, I tried to understand how some of the problems we have in accessing water can be solved. The fact that, I, a regular Thandi, can be curious enough to be an active citizen and seek this information out should make the Honourable Member of Parliament, and his party, ask the same about his actions, more so because he has the responsibility of making laws for the rest of us. Perhaps the key questions that Mr. Reddy should have been asking – and which I have been asking since I travelled the country in an attempt to understand the state of the nation last year – should have been more on why, as we go into local elections next year, our municipalities are failing us in water provision. It's worth noting that in 1994, there were 19 Water Boards. Due to non-payment of bills by municipalities, many of those water boards went bankrupt and now we currently have seven water boards nationwide with at least two about to shut down due again to non-payment of bills timeously by municipalities. This is particularly irking as municipalities have no problem cutting water supplies when individuals and companies do not pay what's owed to them so why exactly are they not passing on the payments they receive from us so that water boards can continue doing their jobs? Both water boards, as State Owned Enterprises, and municipalities, are public bodies that exist to serve the people of South Africa. It would therefore be problematic for water boards to take the municipalities, some of them often bankrupt, to court to ensure that they meet their obligations. And water is a basic need so often water boards, at their own expense, find themselves providing water and then risking bankruptcy. How then do we ensure that municipalities keep their end of the bargain to the water boards and pay what is owed and how too do we ensure they provide service to residents so that we can be guaranteed clean water? These are the questions Mr. Reddy should be asking. Another worthwhile question to ask, again to municipalities, is how they are not serving the no/low-income citizens. Our national water policy gives us equitable access to water which includes Free Basic Water or subsidised basic water services to low-income households. Unfortunately while the idea is great in theory, it has been difficult to implement practically and this is not due to failure from the Department or the Water Boards but again from the municipalities and a different Ministry. The community of KwaNdengezi has been without running water for weeks which has made their lives even harder because it is during school holidays. Image: Tumi Pakkies / Independent Media
