Adam Habib Ahmed Bawa

And

WE are in the throes of an intellectual and political struggle for the soul of South Africa’s future. This is not the struggle that is being fought on the campaign trail for the August 3 elections, yet when the dust settles it will probably have a far greater impact on our society than the rough and tumble of choosing mayors and councillors.

It is the struggle around the financing of higher education, and it is being waged in the corridors of our universities, in the flamboyance and rhetoric of student politics, and in submissions to the presidential commission on free education and the ministerial commission on a fee regime.

It can be difficult to make sense of this debate given its rhetorical flair and ideological fervour, but essentially it has three strands.

The first makes the case for free higher education and is perhaps most coherently summarised by Rasigan Maharajh, Enver Motala, Leanne Naidoo and Salim Vally in the online journal The Conversation and in their submission to the presidential commission. Essentially, this view holds that free higher education should be underwritten by a tax on the rich.

This recommendation could be more effective than the one advocated by some vice-chancellors who propose a higher fee on rich students to cross-subsidise students from poor communities. A tax would be a more effective way to get the rich to pay, not only because of its administrative efficiencies, but also because it would capture a wider range of the rich.

But here is the challenge to the free education paradigm. While taxing the rich to underwrite higher education is a far more efficient option in policy terms, is it politically feasible?

First, there is a serious trust deficit in the state, which means that the rich will engage in tax avoidance. Second, we are not sure the state has the political will to implement significant tax increases. Sections of the political elite are concerned that it may chase away investment in a world where capital has never been so mobile. Finally, we do not believe the state can afford a significant tax increase now, when economic growth is almost stagnant and there are multiple other legitimate demands on the public purse.

In this context, should higher education executives not be prudent and have a Plan B? Some bristle at this suggestion for they assume it is a means to deflect from the free education option. They raise the possibility of social mobilisation by students, and remind us of what we have often said since the protests in October last year — that the students achieved more in 10 days than vice-chancellors achieved in 10 years.

This is entirely true and points to the power of social mobilisation. But recognising this power must not lead one to fetishise it.

Protests often succeed when they take the form of short spontaneous