ÌÇÐÄVlog

In an age of mounting crises within South African higher education, it is tempting to take comfort in legal compliance.

Even as the sector is rocked by governance failures, student exclusion and underfunded innovation ecosystems, most universities proudly assert their alignment with the and, increasingly, with the corporate governance principles enshrined in the , centred on ethical leadership and inclusivity.

Councils are in place. Risk committees meet. Strategic plans reference stakeholder engagement and sustainability. But compliance is not transformation. And in a society as unequal and historically wounded as South Africa¡¯s, good governance frameworks that are divorced from a deliberate transformation agenda risk not just irrelevance but complicity.

The ÌÇÐÄVlog Act stipulates the functions of university councils, senates and management. Additionally, institutional statutes mandate a variety of committees: not just risk, but also finance, audit and human resources. And, alongside the King IV Report, these provide both public responsibility and internal checks and balances in the governance of our institutions.

But King IV, whose intended audience includes companies, municipalities and public entities, lacks the detail and direction that a governance system tailored directly to South African higher education¡¯s unique context would provide. Combined with its voluntary nature, this limits its capacity to drive the deep, structural reforms that South African universities require. And while the ÌÇÐÄVlog Act does address our sector directly, it too fails to address the need for transformative, decolonial or responsive governance given today¡¯s socio-economic realities.

A university can have a legally compliant council, a functioning audit committee and an approved annual report and still fail to transform. It can boast ¡°clean¡± governance while simultaneously graduating fewer Black South African doctoral candidates in critical fields, such as engineering or law, than it did in 1994. It can continue to reward outdated academic hierarchies that marginalise innovation and undermine the social impact of scholarship.

It may admit only a fraction of academically qualified students because of persistent systemic funding shortfalls and, at the same time, underreport incidents of sexual harassment and fail to take decisive action on staff misconduct. And it can reproduce colonial or Eurocentric knowledge systems under the guise of internationalisation, reinforcing epistemic exclusion while claiming global relevance.

In such cases, governance becomes a performative exercise, focused on compliance, reputation and process, while evading the much more complex but essential task of reimagining the university as a transformative institution aligned with democratic, developmental and inclusive aspirations. It helps universities maintain their legitimacy in the eyes of the law and investors but not necessarily in the eyes of the society they serve. It does not make them socially just, intellectually dynamic or civically relevant ¨C and it may insulate them from the urgency they need to feel to pursue these goals.

The solution is not to disregard or do away with statutory governance, however. Rather, it is to reorient and possibly remodel governance¡¯s purpose and objectives. University statutes must be amended to include binding transformation mandates, linking council and senate decisions directly to measurable outcomes of equity, diversity and impact.

These should not be merely symbolic. Councils must establish dedicated transformation oversight committees, with the same authority as finance or audit committees. These should be empowered to monitor curriculum renewal, research relevance and demographic equity in senior appointments. And institutional dashboards should reflect more than financial health; they must include metrics on postgraduate throughput by race and gender, innovation impact and graduates¡¯ employment outcomes.

Governance structures themselves must also be reimagined. The dominance of corporate, legal and elite academic voices in councils and senates must give way to more inclusive and diverse participation. Young people, public servants, grassroots leaders and marginalised academics must be brought in too, not for show but for influence. This may require the Department of ÌÇÐÄVlog and Training to issue statutory amendments requiring a broader spectrum of lived experience in governance appointments.

Equally important is the need to link budgets to transformation. Faculties that demonstrate progress in inclusivity, curriculum relevance and community engagement should be rewarded with discretionary funds, innovation grants and staffing support. Budgeting is a governance act, and it must be used to shape behaviour, not just account for it.

Finally, all council and senate members should undergo regular training on ethics, anti-racism, decolonisation and strategic foresight. Governance cannot be fit for purpose in a rapidly changing world if it continues to rely on outdated assumptions and procedural detachment.

Some claim that transformation belongs in operational policy, not governance. However, this overlooks the reality that structure shapes substance. Without governance bodies explicitly mandated to lead transformation, operational policies often remain symbolic or are inconsistently implemented.

Others worry that embedding transformation too deeply into governance risks politicisation. But transformation is not a political slogan; it is a constitutional imperative. To fear politicisation is to misunderstand the role of universities in a democratic society. They are not ivory towers: they are instruments of social repair, and their governance must reflect this.

Still others argue that good governance, in the traditional sense, will by itself lead to transformation over time. But nearly 30 years into democracy, this has not materialised. Time alone does not disrupt inherited systems; it simply hardens them.

To meet the challenges of climate change, the digital revolution, artificial intelligence and widening inequality, we need councils that review more than financials and senates that debate more than admissions. We need governance that listens to students and staff alike, that makes equity a measurable outcome and that refuses to be complicit in maintaining the status quo.

If we do not act now to align governance with our national values, even our most well-run institutions may find themselves irrelevant in the eyes of future generations.

Fulufhelo Nemavhola is a South African academic. He writes in his personal capacity.