HOW THE SOUTH AFRICAN GOVERNMENT CAN HELP YOUNG ENTREPRENEURS

It is of great concern that the unemployment rate in South Africa in the fourth quarter of 2020 was at 46% according to StatsSA. With more than two out of five young people unemployed and slim-to-no chances of formal employment after a year of COVID-19, boosting entrepreneurship among the young people is the only option for South Africa. It became evident that most young entrepreneurs from South Africa are males with a higher share operating in the formal sector. Most of these males are white and Indian youth.

There is no doubt about the urgency needed to boost entrepreneurial activities of young people in South Africans as the coronavirus pandemic hits this sector the hardest. The most vulnerable groups - such as young women and those operating in the informal sector have also been hit the hardest by COVID-19 and require urgent assistance. There are a few recommendations, as proposed by various expects, that the South African government should look into so as to minimize unemployment in the country. These recommendations include promoting entrepreneurship as a career path, rather than as a last resort. The government should get more young women into entrepreneurial activities. The government should also encourage the youth with tertiary education to be more enjoyed in entrepreneurial activities through incentives. The government should offer bursaries targeting youth entrepreneurs with the aim of graduating many youth entrepreneurs from a lower education status to higher qualifications. Lastly, the government should increase the the participation of youth entrepreneurs in the real sectors like agriculture and manufacturing.

Going forward, we also need to find ways to improve entrepreneurial intentions among the unemployed youth.     

CORONAVIRUS: THE LOCKDOWN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

On the 23rd of March 2021, South Africa went into hard lockdown where jobs were lost, loved ones were lost and livelihoods were changed and things have not been better since then. This is because the lockdown was poorly conceived and declared without preparation here in South Africa. In trying to limit the spread of COVID-19 and save lives, policymakers globally have the difficult task of balancing the positive health effects of lockdown against their economic costs.

The lockdown had two components. Firstly, people were restricted their movement outside their homes and engaged in physical distancing. This led to a lot of people being isolated or living in isolation, especially those who at the time the lockdown was implemented were far from their families. Secondly, the government shuttered operations of non-essential industries to prevent the spread of the disease at the workplace and at gatherings. This led to many people in the non-essentials industries losing business, thus losing money, employees losing their jobs and families losing breadwinners. The loss of a job caused stress on the breadwinners because they could no longer provide for their families. In some families, this exacerbated the risk of Gender Based Violence. This means that during this time, the country experienced high rates of GBV. This is because many victims of domestic violence were trapped with their abusive partners. Children were forced to study online from home but, the less privileged were left out. Vulnerable populations such as low income earners in informal and precarious employment have been the most affected by job losses and the resulting income loss. The loss of jobs and income resulted in reduced ability to access healthcare and a nutritious diet. This in turn, negatively impacted on people's health. Many people have not recovered from the effects of the lockdown. Those from the low income class who were already struggling became even more poorer when they lost their jobs. 

The governing body of the country and all those who were involved in the decision to implement the lockdown did not think their decision through. We cannot dispute that the lockdown was implemented so as to save lives, but in so doing many other lives were changed for the worst and they were changed for good. As hard as it is to get a job in this country, people lost jobs and have not found jobs again. Poverty is the new norm that people have to get used to now   

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT AT ITS MOST HIGH IN SOUTH AFRICA

Unemployment in South Africa is the biggest issue at the moment. Those mostly affected by this are the young people of the country. This might be due to the fact South Africa experiences a situation where there is a surplus of especially unskilled and low-skilled job seekers. This is caused largely by historically low levels of investment in African education. According to Statistics South Africa (StatsSA), about 7.8 million South Africans were out of a job in the second quarter of 2021, the highest rate since 2008. Black African women are the most affected followed by young people aged 18-34.

The contributing factors to this high rate of youth unemployment are largely due to the lack of job opportunities but also include barriers to entering the labor market, like limited work experience and the increasing size of the population itself. This is also due to the evidence of large inequalities between age groups, races and gender. Another reason for youth unemployment in South Africa is the legacy of apartheid and poor education and training in the country. Some research shows that the deliberate exclusion of black people from the educational system and from skilled occupations under apartheid contributed to the high rates of unemployment today. Another reason for this is the effects of the 2008/2009 global recession. During the recession, many workers lost their jobs, the largest number in manufacturing. This meant that companies could no longer afford to employ more people and had to reduce the workforce. We still see the effects of the recession even to this day because we still have a large number of young people that are unemployed. Some hold various degrees in various fields but still have nothing to show for that. Another reason is the general lack of interest for entrepreneurship among the youth. Irrespective of various government initiatives to enhance entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial activity in South Africa is low. For example, the number of young people involved entrepreneurial activity remains extremely low at only six percent of the total youth population; that 18-34 years. This means that even though the government is not providing jobs, people are also not standing up and getting things done for themselves by themselves. They are waiting to spoon fed even when they are witnessing the state of the country. By the look of things, it will only get harder and worse from here going forward.

Youth unemployment is a huge issue in South Africa at the moment. The current situation in South Africa is far from being desirable and the government together with social partners is hard at work to find sustainable solutions to this problem.         

SHOULD COVID-19 VACCINATION BE MANDATORY

 A vaccine is a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease. The COVID-19 vaccine is intended to provide immunity against COVID-19. This vaccine presents the body with instructions to build immunity and does not alter human cells. Currently in South Africa we have two different types of the COVID-19 vaccine; namely the Pfizer vaccine and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. Both these vaccines have been proven to be working effectively so far. 

The primary goal of vaccinating against COVID-19 is to approximate herd immunity. This is done so that the virus stops spreading in the community at large, infecting and potentially killing others. The secondary purpose of getting the jab is to save one's life and health. Vanessa da Silva Feria, a senior associate at Ulrich Roux Attorneys, says the vaccine is not mandatory, and forcing anybody to get the jab is unconstitutional but this may depend on individual circumstances. But, despite all this, employers that want their employees to get the jab in order to keep their jobs are not totally wrong. Well, morally and constitutionally speaking, they are wrong but we should not look at this from only one perspective. When dealing with employers one needs to look at it contextually. You first need to look at what the employers business is, what the employees role in that business is, as well as the employees health status. In this case, the employer has an obligation and duty to ensure a safe and healthy workplace for its employees as well as members of the public who are encountering  those employees there at the workplace. Therefore, it might be necessary for the employer to have their employees take the jab even if the employee is against it.

The same goes for children in school. It is also necessary that they too get vaccinated even if the parents are against that decision. This is because they are in a public space and they should not risk the health of those around them almost on a daily basis only because they do not want to get vaccinated. Allergies and other reactions relating to vaccination experienced from vaccinating before COVID are understandable reasons to not get vaccinated but, all parties involved in the decision to not take the jab and the consequences thereafter should be taken into consideration. Vaccination would obviously be implemented once the vaccines are declared safe for children. COVID-19 vaccination is to reduce the risk of person-to-person transmission. 

Although at some point it may be mandatory to get the jab, it is important that this vaccination is carried out in a such a way that does not discriminate against anyone or infringe upon the rights of any legal citizen and that vaccination does not put one at a health risk. 

FREEDOM EXPRESSION HAS DIFFERENT MEANINGS FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

Freedom of expression is defined as the right to express one's ideas and opinions freely through speech, writing and other forms of communication but without consciously causing harm to another person's character and reputation by publishing or saying false or misleading statements. Every person has the right to hold an opinion without interference but, no person should be subject to discrimination or victimization because of any actual or perceived opinions that she or he holds. But, freedom of expression does not have the same meaning for everyone hence the limitations to this right were introduced. 

Some individuals abuse the fact that they have the free will to express themselves ot their ideas. For example we will look at the cartoonist Zapiro first. Zapiro sometimes draws inappropriate illustrations of the former president Mr Jacob Zuma. To him, this is just a form of art but he does not know or most probably does not care how his drawings affect the former president or his loved ones. 

Secondly, we will look at comedians. Most of the time these comedians make jokes about issues that are sensitive and uncomfortable to certain listeners. To them, again this is just a form of art and them expressing their opinions and views in these matters. They may or may not be aware if the effects their jokes have on their listeners. 

Thirdly, the government sometimes censors what the media must circulate. For example, if the media is circulating opinions that are against the government, then they are subject to being censored or they are ordered to not publish their stories. Well sometimes the media does publish false information about a certain individual thus damaging that person's reputation or status. In such cases then censorship of the media is acceptable.

Freedom of expression also has its limitations. The first limitation is propaganda for war which suggests that no one has the right to make remarks about killing someone or a group. The second one is incitement of imminent which suggest that people should not incite violence. The third one is advocacy of hatred which is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion that constitutes incitement to cause harm. This is also known as hate speech. Even if the speaker down not intend to cause harm, but harm is caused or likely to be caused then the speaker can be held liable.

Freedom of expression is defined differently by each individual. In fact, it is only referred to as "freedom of expression" when it suits the desires of the person publishing or receiving the information. If it does not suit them, then it is not 

TOXIC MASCULINITY AND THE MEDIA'S ROLE IN CHANGING PEOPLE'S PERSPECTIVES ABOUT IT.

Toxic masculinity is a term that describes the cruel types of ideas about the male gender role. The term is defined as exaggerated masculine traits like being violent, unemotional, sexually aggressive and so forth. It also suggests that men who act too emotional or maybe are not violent enough or do not do all of the things that "real men" do, cannot be regarded as men. A lot of people confuse the difference between masculinity and toxic masculinity. However, one can be masculine without having toxic masculinity.

Some beliefs about toxic masculinity are that:
- interactions between men and women always have to be about competition rather than cooperation,
- men can never truly understand women,
- men and women can never truly be just friends,
- the idea that "real men" need to be strong and not show emotions because that is considered as a sign of weakness, and that
- "real men" can never be victims of abuse and that if they ever become victims, talking about it is considered as shameful.

The media can change people's perspectives on toxic masculinity by:
- not portraying men as always strong and powerful than women but also allowing them to show their weaknesses and downfalls,
- not giving men positions that are way above women's,
- showing men that doing "female stuff" is not considered as being gay, and by
- allowing men to show their feminine side without being ashamed.

Toxic masculinity can only be prevented if we teach boys from a young age that it is okay to not be too strong, it is okay to not be violent, it is okay to like the color pink instead of blue or green and that it is okay to be soft.

COMMERCIALIZATION OF RELIGION IN SOUTH AFRICA AND THE UNDERLYING ISSUE(S)

I would like to think that people lack a sense of belonging. They are desperate to find something to believe in to the point that they end up believing every little thing that comes their way without gathering all the facts and the necessary information related to it. Many people are desperate for miracles and blessings. Poverty and unemployment are at the center of people's reliance on these fake pastors and prophets. They are desperate and they will do just about every and anything they are told to do if they are promised that it will change their lives. Some of these people rely too much on religion that they believe every little thing that is related to religion. A lot of African people do not question the existence of God like the people in the Western World do, instead they see these fake prophets as messengers from God. These pastors; or rather fake prophets; on the other hand are desperate for fame, followers and money. These so-called prophets are business people that are taking advantage of the poor and troubled souls and are making a living for themselves through their misery. These prophets also gain power from having politicians that are faithful members of their churches. They believe that if they can win over the people that are running a country then there is nothing stopping them from doing just about anything even toying with desperate people's feelings. The actual reality is that these fake prophets are fake and they are just scammers looking to make a quick cash from desperate people.