Latest news with #DarylSwanepoel
IOL News
23-06-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
Managing Diversity in South Africa: Learning from the UAE experience
South Africa's rich diversity is enshrined in its progressive Constitution, yet social cohesion remains a challenge, writes Daryl Swanepoel. Image: IOL / Ron AI South Africa is a country of profound diversity, in race, ethnicity, language, culture and religion. Its Constitution, one of the most progressive in the world, recognises and protects this diversity. It provides for human dignity, equality, non-racialism and non-sexism, as well as the right to freely practice one's culture and language. Institutions such as the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (CRL Rights Commission) exist precisely to protect these constitutional values. Yet, despite these mechanisms, the country continues to face serious challenges in achieving genuine social cohesion, with high levels of poverty and inequality, largely still shaped along racial lines, contributing to tensions between communities. Historical divisions from apartheid continue to manifest in mistrust, exclusion and lack of cross-cultural understanding. Moreover, the lack of a comprehensive social cohesion strategy has meant that efforts to unify South Africa's people are sporadic, reactive, and often symbolic rather than systemic. Even though initiatives such as the 2012 National Cohesion Summit and government frameworks like the National Development Plan (NDP) identify social cohesion as a priority, implementation has been weak. Social cohesion remains elusive not because the constitutional architecture is flawed, but because the country lacks a focused, strategic approach to operationalise it in daily governance, education and community life. South Africa is in urgent need of a new, practical model that can guide it toward meaningful unity in diversity. For this, the experience of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) offers valuable lessons. The United Arab Emirates provides a striking example of how a society can consciously build mechanisms to manage diversity. With a population consisting of more than 200 nationalities and multiple religious and cultural groups, the UAE is one of the most diverse nations in the world. Unlike South Africa, the UAE did not emerge from a formalised system of racial oppression, yet, due to the diversity that comes with the range of nationalities now in the country, it faces immense challenges in integrating its multicultural population within a cohesive national framework. To respond to this challenge, the UAE government adopted a deliberate, structured approach and in 2016, it established a Ministry of Tolerance and Coexistence, which is dedicated to promoting harmonious relationships among the country's various cultural, religious and ethnic groups. It is not a ceremonial office; it plays an active role in policymaking, education and public engagement to foster shared values and social understanding. The UAE's approach is proactive and institutionalised. It goes beyond symbolism, embedding tolerance and intercultural respect into its national vision. One of its flagship initiatives was the Year of Tolerance in 2019, during which numerous programmes, campaigns and interfaith events were held. A key outcome was the establishment of the Abrahamic Family House, a complex in Abu Dhabi housing a mosque, church and synagogue, a powerful physical symbol of religious co-existence. Importantly, the UAE's model embraces both a unifying national identity and the preservation of individual cultural identities, rather than enforcing rigid assimilation. The state encourages diversity within a shared framework of mutual respect, which duality balances common civic values and cultural particularity. The UAE also links social cohesion to national development. It understands that diversity, if managed well, is an asset that can strengthen innovation, global engagement and social stability. Hence, tolerance is not only treated as a social imperative, but also as a contributor to economic resilience and political continuity. Recommendations for South Africa: From fragmentation to unity Drawing from the lessons of the UAE and recognising South Africa's unique history and democratic values, several strategic recommendations emerge to strengthen social cohesion domestically: Establish a dedicated social cohesion institution South Africa lacks a central agency mandated to coordinate social cohesion efforts across government, civil society and the private sector. A national structure, akin to the UAE's Ministry of Tolerance, should be established to drive strategic planning, monitor progress and champion inclusive values across all spheres of society. Develop a national social cohesion strategy The current approach is fragmented. South Africa must adopt a comprehensive, well-resourced national social cohesion strategy aligned to the Constitution. This strategy should integrate the work of existing institutions, set measurable goals and be embedded within national and provincial governance plans. It should also prioritise conflict resolution, intercultural education and multilingual communication. Reimagine civic education to promote unity in diversity Educational curricula must be transformed to teach young people the value of diversity, inclusion and active citizenship. Cultural literacy, empathy and human rights should be key components of schooling, alongside fostering pride in South Africa's rich cultural tapestry. As the UAE does, this education must not just reside in theory but be reinforced through national campaigns and visible leadership. Institutionalise public symbols and dialogue platforms South Africa should follow the UAE's example by introducing national dialogue platforms and visible public initiatives to promote cross-cultural understanding. For example, hosting an annual National Year of Social Cohesion could mobilise schools, faith institutions and media around a shared theme of unity. Public art, festivals and symbols must reflect the country's collective history and future aspirations. Strengthen the role of the CRL Rights Commission The CRL Rights Commission already exists to support cultural, religious and linguistic communities. However, its potential is underutilised. It should be capacitated further to lead local dialogue initiatives, mediate cultural disputes and advise government on inclusive policies. As with the UAE's tolerance ministry, the CRL must be a visible champion for unity. Promote equitable access to services and opportunity At the root of many social tensions is economic exclusion. The state must accelerate efforts to redress inequalities in housing, education and employment. Spatial integration, equitable service delivery and inclusive urban design are essential to break historical divides and build shared spaces where cohesion can flourish. Partner with religious and cultural leaders Faith-based and cultural institutions remain powerful influencers in South African society. A formal partnership model should be developed where government and these groups co-develop community programmes, especially in areas prone to conflict or marginalisation. The UAE's success is partly built on engaging religious leaders to promote peace and coexistence. Similarly, cultural leaders from across all groups should be consulted, engaged and involved in promoting social cohesion. Conclusion: A Cohesion compact for a shared future Social cohesion is not a luxury. It is the foundation of democratic stability, national development and collective dignity. South Africa has the legal frameworks, the civil society energy and the multicultural richness to become a global model of inclusion. What it lacks is coordination, leadership and strategic vision. The UAE has shown that it is possible to intentionally build unity amidst diversity, not by flattening difference, but by nurturing respect and belonging. South Africa should not replicate its political system, but it must replicate the deliberateness of its social cohesion agenda. By embedding inclusion into our institutions, education, public symbols and development priorities, we can transform our diversity from a source of tension into a wellspring of strength. The Constitution lights the path; it is now time to walk it, together. * Daryl Swanepoel is a research fellow at the School for Public Leadership Stellenbosch University and the Chief Executive Officer of the Inclusive Society Institute. This article draws its inspiration the Institute's recently published report 'Managing Social Cohesion in diverse communities: Can South Africa draw lessons from United Arab Emirates'. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
IOL News
17-06-2025
- Business
- IOL News
Rethinking Leadership: A Diplomatic Reflection on US Global Primacy in a Changing World
In a world increasingly defined by rivalry, Daryl Swanepoel explores the implications of US global primacy and the potential for a cooperative approach to leadership in a multipolar landscape. Image: Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images / AFP By Daryl Swanepoel In recent months, I have found myself increasingly reflecting on the shifting nature of global politics, specifically the intensifying polarisation between the United States and its perceived rivals. The increasingly assertive tone from Washington, the vilification of competing powers and the strategic hardening of positions have given rise to a growing sense of unease. What is driving this renewed emphasis on confrontation and to what end? As someone who believes deeply in the value of cooperation, mutual respect and inclusive progress, I worry that we are witnessing the re-emergence of a Cold War mindset. One that risks undermining the hard-won gains of multilateralism, development cooperation and global solidarity forged in the post-World War II and post-Cold War eras. This article is not written to cast blame or take sides. Not at all. Rather, it is a diplomatic reflection, offered in the spirit of constructive questioning. It is an invitation to consider whether the United States, in its response to rising global competitors, particularly China, might find greater strength not in reasserting dominance, but in reimagining leadership for a multipolar world. The question of economic supremacy: Zero-sum or shared growth? At the heart of US strategic thinking lies a long-standing belief that being the world's number one economy is essential, not just for domestic prosperity, but for global leadership. This belief is understandable, especially given the remarkable contributions the United States has made to global development, innovation and stability over the past century. However, in today's deeply interconnected world, the notion of absolute economic dominance may no longer be the most rational or productive aspiration. Global prosperity increasingly depends on collaboration, mutual resilience and inclusive growth. Nations benefit when others succeed. A more prosperous China, India, Brazil or South Africa, for instance, can become valuable partners in trade, climate action and technological progress. If the primary concern is the well-being of ordinary Americans, it may be worth asking whether the US economy truly requires global supremacy or whether a competitive, but cooperative international environment would better serve national interests. After all, many high-income, high-wellbeing nations have flourished without being number one. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ Military strength and strategic intentions: Security or supremacy? The United States maintains by far the world's most powerful military. Officially, this is framed as a commitment to protecting global peace and defending democratic allies. Yet, as with any great power, questions inevitably arise around intent. Are all military deployments and alliances purely defensive in nature or are they at times a means to maintain strategic dominance? This is not to cast doubt on America's intentions. Rather it is to raise a broader philosophical question: Can lasting peace be achieved through perpetual pre-eminence or does real security come from shared norms and mutual respect among sovereign states? Indeed, the human cost of military overreach is significant, not just for those abroad, but also for American taxpayers and veterans. Might some of these resources be more effectively channelled into serving domestic priorities, such as education, health, infrastructure and innovation, as well as multilateral diplomacy? The Rare Earths race: A case study in strategic anxiety Rare earth elements, crucial for green energy, high-tech manufacturing, and defence, have become a flashpoint in US - China competition. Understandably, the US seeks to secure its supply chains and reduce dependence. But here, too, a distinction should be made: Is the primary goal strategic autonomy or the preservation of industrial dominance? The answer matters, especially when we consider how resource competition can shape global policy. If the priority is sustainability and global equity, international cooperation, including with China, on responsible mining, environmental safeguards and technology sharing may be more ethical and effective than a scramble for control. Self-interest and the ethics of leadership It is fair and expected that nations act in their own interests. But the United States has long aspired to more than that. It has projected itself as a moral leader, a defender of freedom and a steward of international norms. From a global humanistic perspective, this moral leadership is best upheld not through dominance, but through example. That means: Applying human rights principles consistently, regardless of a country's strategic value. Supporting democratic institutions globally without coercion. Championing fair trade, climate finance and technology access for developing nations. The concern, increasingly voiced in academic and diplomatic circles, is that the moral clarity of US leadership may be muddied when values appear to be applied selectively. When the US critiques China's governance, but at the same time maintains close ties with other autocratic states for strategic reasons, the message becomes blurred. Again, this is not a criticism, but a concern that selective advocacy may inadvertently diminish the US's soft power and global legitimacy. China's rise: A threat or a test of adaptability? It is true that China operates under a vastly different political model and is increasingly assertive in its foreign policy. Differences as to the Chinese interpretation of human rights, assertiveness in the South China Sea and digital surveillance are valid and deserve attention. However, China's economic rise is not, in itself, an aggressive act. It reflects long-term planning, population scale and integration into global markets. In many ways, China's development mirrors that of other industrialised nations, only faster. Its growing influence, particularly in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, presents a real challenge to US influence. But is the best response to contain China or to renew US engagement with these regions on more equal, less conditional terms? The Global South increasingly sees China as a viable partner, not necessarily because of ideology, but because of perceived respect and responsiveness. The question I am pondering is whether the United States can respond to this shift not by resisting change, but by reimagining its own global engagement. Toward a shared future At this pivotal moment, the United States has a choice. It can double down on hegemony, viewing China's rise as a zero-sum threat to be countered at all cost. Or it can step into a more mature form of leadership; one that recognises the inevitability of a multipolar world and embraces cooperative stewardship over combative supremacy. This path does not demand retreat. Rather, it calls for confidence. Confidence in America's enduring strengths: its open society, its innovation culture, its civil society and its democratic ideals. Being 'number one' may no longer be the most important metric. Perhaps being first among equals, in ethics, generosity, and global cooperation, will define the most respected and resilient leaders of tomorrow. Conclusion The United States has long stood at the crossroads of power and principle. As global dynamics shift, its greatest strength may lie not in resisting change, but in embracing it with humility, adaptability and renewed moral clarity. The world does not need a guardian, it needs a partner. And there is perhaps no nation better positioned than the United States to lead in that spirit, if it so chooses. * Daryl Swanepoel is the Chief Executive Officer of the Inclusive Society Institute. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
