2 July 2013
Presentation to the Department of Human Settlements National Meeting on the Upgrading of Informal Settlements, Cape Town

Upgrading Informal Settlements in South Africa – Abahlali baseMjondolo supports a Participatory and Democratic Approach

by S'bu Zikode

Apartheid denied most of our people an equal place in the cities. It denied most of our people decent housing. The restoration of the dignity of our people requires that we build democratic and inclusive cities in which there is decent housing for all.

The Promise

The Freedom of Charter of 1955 declared that “All people shall have the right to live where they choose, be decently housed, and to bring up their families in comfort and security.” When the ANC was unbanned in 1990 their posters said “Occupy the Cities!”. When the election came in 1994 we were promised houses. The new Constitution of 1996 insists that “Everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing” and makes evictions without an order of the court illegal.

The Crisis

Today in 2013 we face constant illegal evictions, life threatening conditions in shack settlements, forced removals to peripheral human dumping grounds, being sentenced to life in transit camps, blatant corruption in housing construction and allocation and the delivery of houses that are unfit for human beings. When we protest about this and ask for what we have been promised we face serious repression. It is said that we are being used by the Third Force or that we are criminals and we face arrest, assault, torture, prison, the destruction of our homes and even murder.

Any honest discussion about housing in South Africa must start by taking this crisis seriously. There are good reasons why people are protesting across the country. However we remain willing to negotiate and to work with government to try and resolve this crisis. For this reason Abahlali baseMjondolo were delighted to be invited by the National Department of Human Settlement to share our position and experiences with the upgrading of informal settlements.

A Participatory and Democratic Way Forward

From the beginning our struggle was to be included in the process of making decisions that will affect our lives. This is why we have slogans like ‘Talk to Us, Not about Us’ and ‘Nothing for Us, Without Us’.

Our position has always been that the residents of each shack settlement should be able to decide the future of that shack settlement in partnership with government. Decisions should be made with people and not for people. We want to be treated as citizens and not as criminals or children. We are confident that most of the problems that are leading to increasing protest can be resolved through negotiations and democratic forms of engagement. We agree that democracy is slower and more complex than the top down rule by technocrats and politicians. But it is the only way to develop solutions that have the real support of the people that are affected by development. It is also the only way to shift the balance of forces towards the poor.

Upgrades are better than Relocations

There are some cases where residents of a shack settlement might choose relocation to a nearby and well located site chosen with and not for the residents. This might happen if, for example, people are living on a dangerous site such as on a river bank or on a site with which they are not comfortable, such as a graveyard. However in most cases people prefer in situ upgrading to relocation.

In fact there are often cases where people will resist relocation and would rather stay in their shacks than accept forced removal to houses out in the human dumping grounds far from work, schools and other services and opportunities. When this happens government often says that these people are opposing development, that they are criminals or that they are being used by the Third Force. But people have very good reasons for not wanting to accept forced removal to human dumping grounds outside of the cities. It often happens that children drop out of school and people lose their jobs or livelihoods when they are taken away from the cities. Sometimes communities are broken up and people find themselves amongst strangers. This might make them feel unsafe or leave them with no one to help them to look after their children. For these reasons relocation can be a disaster for people even though government will count it as housing delivery. Relocation often makes poor people to become even poorer. It is right and rational for people to resist this.

As a movement we are very clear that we are not only struggling for houses. We are struggling for decent houses in the cities. We are struggling to ensure that the social value of urban land is put before its commercial value and that our cities are democratised by being turned into inclusive places. When housing delivery is separating the poor from the rich, and expelling the poor from the cities, it is not a democratic form of development. Democratic forms of development need to take the right to the city seriously.

Participatory Planning

Upgrades should be participatory and not top down. Upgrading should mean that shack residents fully participate in planning and building their new neighbourhood and houses. This will also help residents to learn skills and thus to develop livelihoods. The open and transparent participation of local residents in development also helps us to fight corruption as people cannot steal from their own houses. This means that there will be no cement, blocks, sails or any other building material going missing and resulting into shockingly bad quality houses. The participation of shack residents also unites us and builds a society where there is a sense of sharing and progress.

On our side we understand that participatory planning is not possible when there is no democratic and credible organisation in a community. However councillors and BECs are often threatened by democratic organisations and so it is important for the Department to support communities to organise themselves democratically and to take a clear position against gangster councillors. No one who has not been elected by a community in an open and fair process held in that community should be able to claim to be a leader in that community. And just as politicians should not be able to claim that they are the only legitimate leaders NGOs need to stop giving money to individuals and then claiming that those people are elected leaders in communities when they are not. Each community must be able to choose its own leaders. Political parties and NGOs cannot impose leaders on to communities. When leaders are elected their role must not be decide for communities but to work to create a politic where communities can decide for themselves.

Housing Lists

The allocation of houses is a major cause of conflict. We have called for one house per family and not one house per shack as there may be more than one family in one shack. There may be families renting from the main shack owner who are often excluded from upgrading. In fact in both upgrades and relocations shack renters are often left homeless and houses only go to shack owners. This is a serious problem. No one should be left homeless during an upgrade.

Another serious problem is that often councillors only give houses to their friends and their comrades in the ruling party. In Durban our experience in Siyanda, Cato Crest, Shallcross, Uganda and KwaNdengezi is that the allocation of housing takes place at night, usually by ANC councillors. In one instance one house was allocated to two families because allocation took place at night on the bonnet of the councillor’s vehicle. The role of councillors in the construction and allocation of houses is a serious cause for concern. Some of these councillors are really just gangsters. In many cases people who are not members of the ruling party are being excluded. There are also many cases where houses are openly sold.

When databases of residents are created it is always better when municipal officials work hand in hand with democratically elected residents' committees to avoid any exclusion. When the list of beneficiaries are compiled it is better that copies of such lists be held at the community level and at municipal and provincial level and that they are open to the whole community. This will help to avoid all kinds of misallocation and corruption during the allocation stage. It is better when democratically elected community structures and not political party structures or NGOs represent the community during the allocation stage.

Some provinces and cities in this country have no housing waiting list. The reason is clear: politicians want to reserve houses for loyal party members and their families and to do so in a way that will not make them accountable. There must be lists and they must be compiled in an open and democratic manner.

Transit Camps

A very serious problem with upgrading is when people have to be moved to transit camps or TRAs. People are often told that they will only live for six months or eighteen months in these places only to find that they are left to rot for many years in these transit camps. We all know that transit camps are like prisons, they represent the apartheid regime. Even when people have agreed to move to transit camps while their homes are finished to be built they often find that some other people from somewhere else are brought to occupy those homes. This corruption results into fighting and killing of residents. This is currently the case in Cato Crest Durban. We encourage communities not to accept any relocation to a transit camp on verbal promises but only on a legally binding agreement openly negotiated with a democratic resident’s association.

National and Local Government

The reality is that local government and municipalities are opposed to the national government’s informal settlement upgrading programme. Even if they do talk about upgrading what they really do is contrary to what the Housing Code provides. When upgrades do happen they often exclude local residents and work with the ruling party structures. Thee structures are often not elected by local communities and are often highly corrupt. Sometimes they use violence to protect their corruption from residents. This must come to an end.

National government needs to educate the provinces and cities about Chapter 13 of the Housing Code and about in situ and participatory upgrades. National government also needs to stress the important of building houses for the poor in the cities on well-located land and that the market should not determine the allocation of land in a democracy.

Our Struggle Continues

Abahlali believe in a democracy from below. We know that when communities are not organised they are very vulnerable to forced removal and corruption. We will continue to organise ourselves to struggle against forced removals and for democratic and participatory in situ upgrades. We will continue to struggle for decent housing. What we are struggling for is what we have been promised by the Freedom Charter, by the ruling party and by the Constitution. What we are struggling for is not criminal. What we are struggling for is basic to the recognition of our human dignity. Whenever the government extends its hand to offer real partnership we will respond positively. However when the government comes to us with armed force to evict us, to make us homeless, to force us into transit camps or to repress our right to organise ourselves and to speak for ourselves we will resist. Our own respect for our humanity and for our children leaves us with no other choice.