In South Africa, we know the words “State Capture” well. In Higher Education, we speak of something similar: “Institutional Capture.”
In March, Universities South Africa (USAf) hosted a dialogue focused on institutional capture following growing concerns among sector leaders about external actors seeking governance influence over university operations.
Distinguished Professor of Education at Stellenbosch University, Jonathan Jansen, defined institutional capture as “a systematic, deliberate and intentional process of undermining governance and management processes in order to trigger institutional instability, thereby shifting authority to other powers in the university.”
Let us take that definition and apply it to what we have seen happening at CPUT over these past few weeks. It has been a period marked by violent protests, a burnt building, damages ranging into the millions, and an academic project that had to be suspended in an attempt to halt the violence.
READ: SA cannot afford to wait for better times
On the surface, it looks like yet another student protest over fees, accommodation inadequacies, and university management. For the most part, that is how the media have framed the story—seldom moving beyond the burning cars and buildings to ask the greater question, “Why?”
Students, for their part, have raised legitimate concerns about registration costs, residence fees, the NSFAS accommodation ceiling, historical debt, and the proposed 2027 financial recovery plan. Their memorandum to Parliament contained more than 20 demands.
But there are growing questions about whether the instability at CPUT is being exploited by a much smaller network of interests whose objectives extend beyond student welfare.
This is where the language of “institutional capture” becomes relevant. It involves influence over decision-making, procurement, appointments, contracts, accommodation, and institutional resources, with competing networks attempting to place themselves in positions from which they can benefit.
The most important question in the CPUT crisis may, therefore, not be “Who is responsible for the protest?” but rather “Who stands to benefit from the institutional paralysis?”
Across the sector, concerns have been raised regarding former student leaders who attempt to influence university governance structures long after leaving—sometimes establishing companies to benefit from university contracts while attempting to influence appointments and procurement decisions.
Universities can be particularly vulnerable to predatory individuals because they control substantial budgets, property portfolios, accommodation systems, procurement processes, construction projects, and outsourced services while simultaneously operating through complicated governance structures involving management, council, students, staff, and other constituencies.
The danger is that genuine student grievances can become the vehicle through which entirely different interests pursue power and privilege.
Let us take the example of a perennial issue plaguing CPUT—that of accommodation.
READ: Premier calls Minister Buti Manamela to intervene in Fort Hare student protests
Who controls access to it? Who determines which private residences are recognised? Who negotiates leases? Who determines transport arrangements? Who has influence over procurement? Who benefits from contracts?
A Labour Court judge recently ordered a former University of Johannesburg student affairs director to pay back R18 million after being found guilty of accepting bribes related to student accommodation. This serves as evidence that individuals inside universities can manipulate the system for personal or commercial benefit.
There is a temptation to explain everything happening at CPUT through one of two simplistic narratives:
-
Students are simply angry because management is incompetent.
-
Students are simply being unreasonable and are responsible for the chaos.
Neither explanation is sufficient.
There are genuine socioeconomic grievances. CPUT’s student debt burden is roughly R2.1 billion. But genuine grievances can coexist with organised opportunism, and this is the uncomfortable possibility that needs to be investigated.
Is legitimate student anger being used as a political cover for a struggle over institutional resources?
CPUT deserves better than falling along the way as yet another captured institution.
We do not need a Commission of Inquiry years later to tell us that chaos can serve as a smokescreen for more nefarious ambitions.
The burning of a university building is an immediate crisis. But the deeper crisis would be allowing an institution to be quietly captured while everyone is distracted by the flames.
- Prof Driekie Hay-Swemmer is the Acting Deputy Vice-Chancellor for Operations at CPUT. She has over 30 years of experience in higher education roles.
- In South Africa, we know the words “State Capture” well.
- In Higher Education, we speak of something similar: “Institutional Capture.” In March, Universities South Africa (USAf) hosted a dialogue focused on institutional capture following growing concerns among sector leaders about external actors seeking governance influence over university operations.
- Distinguished Professor of Education at Stellenbosch University, Jonathan Jansen, defined institutional capture as “a systematic, deliberate and intentional process of undermining governance and management processes in order to trigger institutional instability, thereby shifting authority to other powers in the university.” Let us take that definition and apply it to what we have seen happening at CPUT over these past few weeks.
- It has been a period marked by violent protests, a burnt building, damages ranging into the millions, and an academic project that had to be suspended in an attempt to halt the violence.
- READ: SA cannot afford to wait for better times On the surface, it looks like yet another student protest over fees, accommodation inadequacies, and university management.
